More than 40 people squeezed into the council chambers Monday, spilling out in to the entrance, mostly to protest a proposed bylaw amendment that would pave the way for supportive recovery centres for recovering drug addicts to operate in residentially zoned neighbourhoods in Osoyoos.

Many, but not all of those attending, were from the neighbourhood near Goodman Park on the town’s east side where the Brandon Jansen Memorial Recovery Centre (BJMRC) was planning to locate such a facility in a house at 5 Bayview Crescent.

Councillors listened to the public comments, sometimes asking questions, but no decisions were made at Monday’s meeting. Mayor Sue McKortoff said town staff would prepare a report and council would consider it at a later date. Council next meets on May 7.

Not all those attending were aware of an announcement earlier that afternoon that the Coquitlam-based business had decided to abandon its plans to operate a facility at that location.

The town’s planning and development department initiated bylaw 1085.105 as “housekeeping” to the town’s zoning bylaw.

In addition to providing a definition of “supportive recovery” and setting a few conditions to operate such a facility in a residential neighbourhood, the bylaw also touched on unrelated matters dealing with storage of recreational vehicles and setbacks between RVs at campgrounds.

Speakers were told they had to address only the generic bylaw without addressing the specific location that many were concerned about.

Had the BJMRC not decided to pull out, they would have had to apply for a zoning amendment and business license and only at that point would residents have been allowed to address the specific location.

Throwing an added twist into the discussion, Gina MacKay, director of planning and development services, revealed at the start of the meeting that the town had only just learned of a change to provincial regulations.

The Residential Care Regulation under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act was amended in 2016 to add residential care for those dealing with substance dependence.

This means, she said, that where such a facility is provincially licensed, the provincial law would “trump” any municipal zoning requirements.

Therefore, the town’s proposed bylaw would only apply to facilities not licensed by the province for recovering addicts in Osoyoos, she said.

The town received about 20 letters and emails as public comments prior to the meeting, almost all opposed to the bylaw. The only letter in support was in favour of the change affecting storage of RVs and didn’t address the supportive recovery issue.

Speaking first was Lyle Warmington, who lives next door to the Bayview Cresent property.

He argued that council should hold off on this bylaw change until a new official community plan (OCP) is done for Osoyoos.

The proposed requirements, he said, were too loose and left too many loopholes. A community committee including medical professionals should review the issue, he said.

Warmington included with his written submission a report prepared by Stephen Nicholls, a friend who is a professional urban planner.

Nicholls found numerous perceived faults in the proposed bylaw and suggested some additions to regulation and policy.

Nicholls noted that the issue of “supportive recovery” is currently under review provincially and in multiple municipalities.

“The issue is in a somewhat confused state and it is difficult to ascertain what provincial registration, licensing or standards are required for ‘supportive recovery,’” Nicholls wrote.

He added that some Lower Mainland communities “are having significant difficulties with non-registered private facilities.”

Other residents took issue with the town’s characterization of the bylaw as “housekeeping.”

“This tactic appears to be in anticipation of an OCP review, which would attract a lot more attention and publicity and it would be harder to get approval with the added public scrutiny,” said one writer, whose name was redacted.

Among other points frequently raised by some residents were:

The restriction against recovery facilities operating within 250 metres of a school should be broadened to prohibit their operation near a public park, swimming area, daycare centre, resort, etc.;

A supportive recovery facility doesn’t belong in the R1, single family zoning;

This type of use would result in more drug-related problems in the community, affecting safety and the town’s tourist potential;

Lower Mainland communities have had problems with the proliferation of addiction recovery homes, many unregistered, which change neighbourhoods and devalue properties;

There is a lack of doctors here to dispense drugs to recovering addicts and police don’t have the resources to deal with an increase in crime;

Recidivism rates from such programs are 40 to 60 per cent, suggesting around half of clients will fall back into drug use;

Facilities should not be in places with increased potential for relapses, such as near where there is known drug activity;

There should be a requirement for neighbourhood consent;

The town should wait until the province responds to recent recommendations for dealing with the opioid crisis;

Facilities should not be located in high-traffic areas, but rather should be in quieter locations more conducive to recovery from addictions.

RICHARD McGUIRE

Osoyoos Times