See the Results

Sproat Lake residents subsidize much of the ACRD's budget but see little in the way of services. Instead, we are met with ponderous regulations and restrictions on how we are to enjoy our properties. I can appreciate that dock sizes have occasionally become problematic; it would be wonderful if people could consider the impact of enormous docks with their multi-boat/jet ski/plane traffic implications on their neighbours, but I don't think imposed regulations will change behaviour. Property taxes rise every year at Sproat Lake. The majority of property owners use their time on the lake in a recreational capacity, so to offset these rising costs with occasional short term rentals is reasonable and should not be subject to regulations. The possible opening up of public access points should be strongly discouraged. They originally were established to allow for emergency access as I understand it, which is reasonable. However, allowing them to be used for partying/general use is dangerous to all involved; our family has firsthand experience with this having rented beside one such access on Lakeshore Rd where non-residents would regularly threaten the safety of neighbouring properties (unsafe water safety practices/littering/vandalism, etc...). Lastly, insuring that septic systems are compliant with current safety standards is reasonable, and lies within Island Health jurisdiction. This should be a priority, considering that many residents drink water from the lake. Judging by the state of disrepair of some of the buildings on the lake, it's not a stretch to imagine that septic systems are low on the list of items to fix. Perhaps financial incentives could be provided to coax compliance rather than further regulations?

I believe they are passing this through without the care of any resident in area d.

It was extremely difficult already building and very costly due to all the additional requirements for the permit. Limited dock size to 10' x 10' is ridiculous. The walkway out to the lake of 100 feet is terrible. Some of the residents will not be able to use the lake. This is not practical nor does it help anyone.

I think the steep slopes hazards needs to be removed completely, and the building inspector should make those decisions at his first site visit.

We feel there is a strong drive toward enforcement and compliance rather than cooperation and community responsibility. We don't want every aspect of our lives being dictated, and threats of fines and punishment. The ACRD are our public servants not our overlords, and should behave as such. Thank you

The draft OCP has become an unnecessarily long, repetitive, and overly prescriptive document that has lost the confidence of the Sproat Lake community. Rather than focusing on a clear vision for the future, it introduces additional regulation, administrative burden, and vague policy statements while failing to address some of the lake's most significant issues, including the impacts of excessive wakes. New and ongoing requirements such as mandatory QEP assessments for docks and Temporary Use Permits for short-term rentals add cost, uncertainty, and bureaucracy without demonstrating that existing provincial and federal regulations are inadequate. The document should be massively simplified, refocused on broad community objectives, and stripped of unnecessary regulations. An Official Community Plan should unite a community—not divide it.

Any sections of the draft OCP that are already under Provincial and/or Federal jurisdiction should be removed from the OCP.

Defer further readings until ACRD provides targeted amendments that reduce unnecessary regulatory burden, clarify jurisdiction, protect routine maintenance, restore implementation accountability, and explain costs to residents. The amendment package should ask for: A dock, boathouse and shoreline-structure maintenance exemption For existing lawful structures, where there is no expansion or new disturbance. A low-risk residential maintenance exemption For repairs such as roofing, siding, existing deck repair, stairs, railings, septic maintenance and safety-related vegetation work. A jurisdiction clarity section Showing what is ACRD responsibility, what is provincial, what is federal, and what involves First Nations. A plain-language permit decision tree So residents know when they need ACRD, provincial, federal or professional approvals. A restored implementation appendix With lead agency, cost, funding source, timeline and reporting method. A cost-impact summary Showing expected costs for common permit scenarios. Clear archaeological process language Respectful of Tseshaht First Nation and Hupačasath First Nation interests, while clarifying that archaeological permitting is provincial and that residents need predictable triggers, timelines and guidance

I would like the ACRD to take the adopted June 2014 amended in the 20's, OCP and edit in the "new and up dated plan policies" where they should be according to that OCP. Additionally I would also like to see highlighted, the policies that have been changed or edited out. The June draft somewhat simplified from the April draft is still too confusing to follow. There is just too much extra wording in these policies that I feel like we are being hoodwinked. Or maybe it's just "butt covering" at the ACRD end. I am really not sure how to think but I am not happy with the document. Judging from the sizable attendance at the July SLOCP open house, I am not alone with my concerns. Thank you!

I think you are overstepping your boundaries and making things to complicated.

The OCP does need to include dock & DPA's. Relying on 'good neighbour' as suggested is no longer working. The Wild West attitude of 'I can do what I want' no longer applies. I agree the OCP needs clear language, and some simplification, but needs to be completed!

Scale back to policies that are enforceable and not within provincial or federal jurisdiction.

Leave docks alone Allow short term rentals … it a recreational properties for many and see no reason to restrict rents in summer months June to September should be allowed

The last thing we need is more regulation. We need to Incorporate so that we have more say in what goes on around the lake. One out of 6 votes is ridiculous. As far as docks go...the regulations are NOT what we want. One of our favourite things to do on the lake is to cruise by the docks and see families enjoying themselves on their slides and diving boards. Boat houses are necessary to provide protection for boats (huge investment these days) and to provide shade so that we don't get skin cancer. There are two people in our family that can't sit in the sun and I don't want to exclude them from our dock because there is no room for everyone to sit in the shade. There are so many variables when it comes size of docks and how far they extend from shore. Some need to come out into the lake farther than others because of the depth. We have huge docks on either side of our property and it is not bothersome. I think what I was hearing at the July 7th meeting was that nobody wants more regulation. Take out everything that was not required. You may get some complaints from residents but I don't think it's even close to the amount of people that want a reduction in regulation.

I oppose inclusion of dock rules and increasing public access

Remove dock regulations from the OCP

Firstly, I thought Alex did a great job conducting the meeting last night; he is obviously very knowledgeable about perimeters and requirements of an OCP. He did a great job also handling a very vocal audience. My concern, along with 100% of the attendees last night (by show of hands), is that the draft OCP is too complex and too detailed, and overly burdened with unnecessary rules. If some other jurisdiction already has regulations, and it is their responsibility to monitor and police their regulations, why include those regulations in our OCP? The ACRD has neither the budget or the person power to enforce duplicated regulations. For example, docks on the lake. Another concern is the over regulated short term rental situation. Getting a 3 year "permit" at a cost of around $1,000 (as commented at the meeting) is ridiculous. I understand, and accept that there needs to be some parameters regarding dock sizes etc. but to have to get official approval to repair/replace a couple of planks on my dock is not reasonable. Alex indicated last night that approval for such minor repairs would not be necessary, but the wording in the document does not reflect that. I also accept that some parameters need to be in place regarding short term rentals to protect neighbors of continual nuisance vacationers during the season. I think that can be accomplished with common sense guidelines. If the clear message from the attendees last night is not taken into consideration moving forward with the OCP, then NO ONE was listening!

The ACRD Board present totally underestimated the animosity in the room. We do NOT want any unnecessary rules and regulations period. The ACRD is not to be trusted one iota. Sproat Lake residents are an amusing cash cow only to them.

Take everything out of the OCP that is not required. I want less regulations, less administrative interference, less government bureaucracy, not more. I want more transparency about where our tax dollars are being spent. What do we get for all our taxes? I want more say as the actual home owner. I'd prefer Sproat Lake was it's own entity, instead of 5 votes against us from members not living on the lake.

Yes. Add section on bomber base. Get rid of dock stuff.

The OCP needs to be simplified to reduce overall costs to property owners. We don't need to reinvent the wheel!!