Draft Bylaw 95 - Subdivision Regulations

Hello Laura, Susan and Tim,

I have serious concerns about Draft Bylaw 95 - Subdivision Regulations, that you gave first reading today, and which will be sent out for referral.

At the meeting, I expressed my discomfort about the bylaw being given first reading without any discussion within the community. Unfortunately, I did not realize, and therefore was not able to focus on the real reason for my discomfort with this proposed bylaw.

Immediately after the meeting, in a brief discussion with Andrew Fall, it became clear to me what the problems with the bylaw are. As well as discussion of the issues not having been conducted within the community, it seems clear that the LTC also did not discuss the proposed bylaw, or examine it carefully.  Here are my concerns:

On October 23, in LA-2017-037
"It was MOVED and SECONDED, that the Lasqueti Island Local Trust Committee request staff to prepare a draft bylaw to correct the minimum lot size requirements for each subdivision district in the Lasqueti Land Use Bylaw."

The draft Bylaw 95 does this, but it also includes significant changes to our Land Use Bylaw that have not, as far as I am aware, been discussed by the community, or, I think, noticed by the LTC or the community:

1.  It includes a new, larger subdivision lot size requirements for parcels with any Agricultural Land Reserve land within their boundaries.
2.  It changes parcel lot depth/width (or width/depth) ratio requirements from 1:5 to 1:3.

The proper place to discuss making these changes is as part of the Official Community Plan and Land Use Bylaw review that we are planning to undertake. These suggested changes might be acceptable to and supported by the community, but it is possible, even likely, that they will not be acceptable and supported, partly because the ALR lands on Lasqueti have been so poorly and unfairly drawn. Including these changes (and possibly others) in the current draft bylaw is not acceptable, and is not in accordance with LTC instructions or wishes.

I do not know whether, if these additional, un-requested, changes to our LUB had been pointed out to you at the meeting today, you would have decided to proceed with them, or would have asked for the draft to be revised and redrawn.

I don't know the best way for you to proceed at this point, because you can't discuss this issue without holding another meeting in public. My hope is that you will rescind first reading, and have the bylaw re-drafted to address only the minimum lot sizes, and completely eliminate from it all other changes to our LUB.

I have not done any research on the issue of subdivision under Section 514 (paragraph 4) or on boundary adjustment subdivisions (paragraph 7), and I have also not looked into why the current Schedule C needs to be deleted and replaced with a new one, or any of the other paragraphs included in the draft bylaw.

I apologize that I was unable to articulate this view to you at the meeting, and ask that you do whatever you can to put the matter right, instead of proceeding with changes that nobody in the community has requested or discussed.

Thank you very much for you consideration.  Please contact me if you have any questions or information I should have.

Peter Johnston


The draft bylaw can be seen as part of the Agenda Package for the meeting held today, pages 24 through 34 at  



Hi Peter, Thank you for your

Hi Peter,
Thank you for your email. As you know, this draft bylaw revision was begun well before the full OCP/LUB review was initiated. The process, imperfect as it may be, is that community consultation, as well as referrals, comes after first reading. The bylaw may be amended, or scrapped, following those steps in the process.
My personal feeling was that is was important to advance the closing of the subdivision loopholes, and fix the bylaw to reflect the 10 acre minimum lot size that we have all believed was in our current bylaw. Your specific concerns about ALR and lot ratio changes are certainly valid, and will no doubt be addressed in the coming community consultation and referral processes. I thank you for raising your concerns with the Local Trust Committee, and I will be looking into the questions you have raised.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This question tests whether you are a human visitor, to prevent spam submissions.
The answer can easily be found on this site if you don't know it.
Don't stress - if you get it wrong, you'll get another chance, just try again :-)
Enter the characters shown in the image.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.