Dear Editor:

Although the change to the Official Community Plan appears to be one of council’s “done deals” again, I would like to make a few clarifications for future council reference.

An OCP must abide by a set of regulations found in the Local Government Act of B.C.

This act tells council what can and must be included within the OCP.

Our mayor and some councillors have on a number of occasions suggested that they have a duty to listen to anyone who brings forward proposals for development or building, even if it doesn’t fall within the guidelines of our OCP.

The mayor has said that since an area within our municipality has been designated future growth we are obligated to accept a proposal from the owner or owners of such lands for development purposes.

However, Section 884 (1) of our LGA states specifically that “An official community plan does not commit or authorize a municipality, regional district or improvement district to proceed with any project that is specified in the plan.”

It also says under Section 884 (2) that “…works undertaken by a council…must be consistent with the relevant [OCP] plan.”

To this end, our OCP says that “Priority will be given to the infilling of existing urban areas and redevelopment within the Urban Growth Area. Section 4.3 of our OCP also states that, “The community has indicated a strong desire to retain and enhance its agricultural character while intensifying urban uses. The infill development proposed within and around the central core is intended to focus development and limit suburban sprawl while providing increased vitality to downtown Summerland and surrounding neighbourhoods.”

Most important, this section also emphatically states that: ”The future growth of Summerland will also respect the capacity and availability of community, infrastructure and transportation services.”

This is the key to the whole growth management strategy. It is wonderfully precise in its meaning. We have to look at the thoughtless pandering to developers in those terms. Can we afford to provide additional infrastructure to a development that is not within our present Urban Growth Area?

And Mayor Perrino admitted to what we already know -- every new residential development costs the present taxpayers of our municipality extra tax dollars, beyond what we are already paying.

Again, how does council interpret another part of our OCP, Section 4.2.1, which states “A key community direction resolved through the community consultation process was to set clear limits to growth and reducing the reliance on the automobile.”

Or the additional part that says, “The community has indicated a preference to identify specific land areas that will support urban development for the next five years, through an Urban Growth Area.”

That’s our downtown core, not some auxiliary settlement in nearby hills.

Going back to the LGA — the way I interpret it — council is not obligated to “proceed with any project” that may be specified in our OCP. And, remember our OCP falls under the principal of a bylaw. Bylaws should and can be enforced like any piece of legislation.

Frank Martens

Summerland