Dear Editor:

I write as a frequent visitor to Osoyoos who has become aware of an initiative by the town to include the prospect for a “supportive recovery facility” for opioid-dependent users to be included in the current and long-standing purposes of the R1 zone in the town. This issue needs to be explored dispassionately.

Section 3.1 of Osoyoos Zoning Bylaw 1085 confers upon Director of Planning and Development Gina MacKay the responsibility to steward and effect the intent of the zoning bylaws of the Town of Osoyoos.

For her to do so responsibly and professionally, it would not hurt to go back to first principles.

All available literature on zoning agrees with Eileen Mitchell Thomas who a dozen years back in The Canadian Encyclopedia stated zoning’s purpose bluntly: “In practice, zoning has been most effective at preventing change in stable, homogeneous districts.”

Under the definitions section of Bylaw 1085, Residence/Residential “means the use of a dwelling unit for primarily, continuing residential purposed by one family, including any rentals with a minimum tenancy period of one month”.

Clearly the introduction of a multi-bed opioid treatment facility within R1 zoning does not fit even remotely within such properties’ intended usage.

It is understandable, certainly, that the restrictions required under the definition “Community Care Facility” that is designed to impact “a facility licenses pursuant to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act” is not the appropriate zoning for this one-off “supported recovery program” initiative being proposed. Such a group home is a welcome neighbour just six doors up our street.

Four definitions below the CCF one, however, we find that a “Congregate Care Facility means a facility that provides individual private living areas but common kitchen, dining and amenity space for six or more persons who because of age, mental or physical limitations, require personal care. The use may include housekeeping, laundry and service businesses, but living areas shall not contain kitchens.”

It should be self-obvious to Osoyoos that the profit-seeking “supported recovery program” being proposed fits considerably more neatly into that definition than into the Residence/Residential one.

Moving through the Osoyoos bylaw definitions further, we discover that “Neighbourhood Consent means the action of obtaining consent of at least 75 per cent of the registered property owners within a radial distance of 100 metres of a property requiring neighbourhood consent to perform an activity. The consent must be provided in writing on a form approved by the Town of Osoyoos.”

While it is understood that this provision might be more applicable to, say, a proposed neighbourhood commercial beer garden application, the intent of previous town burghers was clear: non-conforming or oblique or unusual or clearly unintended primal uses of land under existing bylaws demands widespread consensus.

Given the above, the town should not blur the boundaries of what “Residence/Residential” means to include a “Congregate Care Facility” without doing full due diligence in consultation with existing ratepayers who bought into their R1 properties with current residential definitions historically intact and enforced.

Keeping in mind, too, Bylaw 1085’s provision and requirement (Sec. 3.6.2) of a daily $2,000 fine for folks who would presume to violate such definitions and usages of their property without appropriate zoning and business licensure having been secured in advance of proceeding with their proposed initiative.

The prospect of any such rogue and adventuresome undertakings have clearly been viewed dimly – and anticipatorily – by previous town administrations. One hundred per cent enforcement in 2018 surely is a given, is it not?

One would assume Ms. MacKay and her staff will be vigilant in these regards should there be any attempt to launch said “supported recovery program” in advance of all legalities being adhered to absolutely precisely.

To do otherwise will only invite extended litigation, not to mention the usual consequences of bad will and bad faith decision-making by elected councillors as well as the bureaucrats who work for them.

Wm Baird Blackstone

Tsawwassen, B.C.