Richard McGuire, editor Osoyoos Times

Council took another tentative step on Monday towards clarifying the rules under which recreational cannabis can be sold in Osoyoos after it is legalized in October.

Four of the five council members agreed with an administration recommendation to use “site-specific zoning” to decide where cannabis retail outlets can operate.

This means council will consider each application on a case-by-case basis, although there will be general guidelines on what will be required for an application to be successful.

Further, each application will need to go to a public hearing.

The decision Monday only instructs administration to draft a zoning bylaw amendment, which will be further debated by council and will go to public hearing.

It’s commendable that council has finally made a decision on this issue, which has seen far too much unfocused ranting and an unfortunate lack of public consultation.

But many other questions still remain unanswered. And it’s not clear that council made the best decision.

Councillor Mike Campol, the only council member to oppose site-specific zoning, made some very good points, even if some of his arguments are stronger than others.

Councillor C.J. Rhodes said he supports site-specific zoning because, “the complexity of the zoning is beyond anything that I could ever figure out in my mind.”

But as Campol pointed out, the position council adopted makes locating retail cannabis outlets more complex – not less so.

Cannabis is the only business that would be subject to site-specific zoning. Other businesses may need to follow certain requirements, but they know right away the zones in which they can legally operate.

With site-specific zoning, businesses will face a Catch 22. You can’t apply for a zoning amendment on property you don’t currently own or lease. So businesses will need to make leasing or purchasing decisions before knowing which way the whims of council may blow.

The normal zoning process provides a more predictable and level playing field.

Perhaps the dithering by council on this issue in recent months is because they know it is controversial. And no matter what they decide, someone will be against it.

There are those who want to use municipal zoning to thwart the federal government’s decision to legalize cannabis. And there are others who oppose any type of restrictions on marijuana sales.

An effective politician knows that on controversial issues, you should consult broadly and then try to find solutions that balance the conflicting views. But you can only dither for so long.

Here are a few suggestions that hopefully will generate some public discussion and give council something to think about.

Ban public smoking of cannabis:

B.C. is one of the few jurisdictions that will allow the public smoking of marijuana in most places where tobacco is legal, with a few exceptions to protect children.

No one should be forced to breathe someone else’s cannabis smoke on the street. This is not a zoning question, but people will be more accepting of retail sales if they know someone won’t step out of a shop and blow pot smoke in their face.

Prohibit cannabis outlets on the traditional Main Street:

The administration report raises the possibility that retail cannabis outlets could be prohibited on the portion of Main Street between Heron Lane and Park Place. In other words from Tim Hortons to the Watermark Beach Resort.

This is a great suggestion to keep that part of Main Street friendly to local families and tourists and to maintain the welcoming atmosphere. There are no liquor stores here either.

Use site-specific zoning only in C-3, highway commercial:

The highway commercial zoning is a dog’s breakfast of intersections and stretches along Highway 97 and bits of Highway 3 on the east side. There may be parts of C-3 that are suitable and others that aren’t. Site-specific zoning will let council review individual proposals.

Conversely, if the traditional portion of Main Street is excluded, there is no reason to prohibit cannabis outlets in the remaining portion of the C-1 (downtown commercial) zone.

Likewise, there are only three small shopping plazas that are zoned C-2: the Buy-Low Food plaza, the Red Apple plaza and the Cottonwood plaza. There is no logical reason to use site-specific zoning in any of these.

Use residential zoning to create a buffer around schools:

Everybody wants to protect young children from cannabis, but in trying to do so, council went through contortions to discuss whether there should be a 100, 150, 200, 250 or 300-metre exclusion zone around Osoyoos Elementary school.

The reality is that there’s already a buffer around the school. It’s called residential zoning. There is residential zoning between the school and any commercial areas, and there has never been any suggestion that cannabis sales should be allowed in residential zones.

There’s a small commercial area some distance east of the school that would fall inside some of the larger proposed buffers. It already contains a B.C. Liquor store. Has that store posed a threat to children?

Let’s be clear. Cannabis stores won’t allow sampling of products. There won’t be window displays of products or signs encouraging people to partake. And, if the experience in U.S. jurisdictions is any indication, there won’t be massive parking issues – for most customers it’s a quick in and out.

Hopefully these suggestions will generate some public discussion for or against. It appears council needs some help from the public.

RICHARD McGUIRE

Osoyoos Times