Click on each heading below to expand it and read the full detail, direct quotes, and section citations.
1. Waterfront setbacks stay the same — but no repair/maintenance exemption for docks or boathouses ▶
Any construction, subdivision, or land alteration within 30 metres of Sproat Lake, Great Central Lake, or named streams (or 15 metres of minor streams and wetlands) requires an Environmental Protection Development Permit — and neither draft exempts repair, maintenance, or in-kind replacement of an existing dock or boathouse from this requirement.
"DPA I areas include all lands within 30.0 metres of the natural boundary, measured horizontally in both upland and foreshore directions, from all major streams including Sproat Lake, Great Central Lake, Boot Lagoon, Taylor River, Ash River, Stamp River, Somass River, Sproat River, Nook Creek, Demens Creek, Heath Creek, McCoy Creek, Santu Creek, and the Alberni Inlet. DPA I areas also include all lands within 15.0 metres of the natural boundary... of minor streams and all other named and unnamed creeks, lakes and wetlands."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 7.4.2 (Justification)
Any dock construction also requires a Marine Habitat Assessment Report:
"a property owner must obtain and adhere to a Marine Habitat Assessment Report completed by a QEP prior to commencing construction of a dock in an aquatic environment."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 7.4.4, item .22(b)
The general Exemptions list (which applies to all Development Permit Areas) does not mention docks, boathouses, wharves, or moorage anywhere. It exempts repair/maintenance of buildings and driveways generally, but not waterfront structures specifically:
"Repair or maintenance of, or renovations to, existing lawfully constructed buildings, or utilities within the existing building footprint... A building permit may still be required."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 7.2, item (b)
What changed from April: This is essentially unchanged between drafts. The April 2026 draft had the same 30m/15m setback and a nearly identical Marine Habitat Assessment Report requirement (April used the credential "QP"; June specifies "QEP," and June dropped an April qualifier limiting the requirement to Crown land). No dock/boathouse repair exemption was added in either draft, despite resident requests during the spring 2026 comment period.
2. Any 30%+ slope needs a full geotechnical report — bedrock or not ▶
Development on any slope of 30% grade or steeper requires a geotechnical report from a Qualified Professional, with no distinction made between exposed stable bedrock and loose soil or till, even though their landslide/erosion risk differs substantially.
"DPA II includes lands located within 15 metres of the top of bank, and the toe of slope, of steep slopes with a 30 percent or greater slope for a vertical distance of at least 4 metres, plus the sloped land between the top and toe."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 7.5.2 (Justification)
"Where development is proposed on a steep slope, or within 15 metres of the toe of the slope, or the top of bank, of a steep slope, no development will be permitted without a report prepared by a QP verifying that the land can be used safely for the proposed use."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 7.5.4, item .3
DPA II also automatically applies to the tsunami inundation zone (below 20m elevation) and the mapped 200-year floodplain:
"DPA II also includes lands within the tsunami inundation zone which encompasses lands located below 20 metres elevation above sea level, and the designated 200-year floodplain and associated mapped flood extents established by the ACRD Somass Watershed Flood Management Plan, 2020."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 7.5.2
What changed from April: The April 2026 draft used a simpler test — a report was required within 30 metres of a 30%+ slope, with no "4 metres of vertical rise" qualifier. June narrowed the buffer to 15 metres but added the vertical-rise qualifier, which likely changes which specific properties are captured. Neither draft distinguishes bedrock from soil/till.
3. Bigger minimum lot sizes for Agriculture, Commercial, and Industrial land ▶
The June 2026 draft doubles the minimum lot size for Agriculture-designated land, and introduces a minimum lot size for Commercial and Industrial land that did not exist in April.
Agriculture designation — "Minimum Lot Size: 4 hectares."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 4.0, Land Use Designations table (Agriculture)
The April 2026 draft listed the Agriculture minimum lot size as 2 hectares.
Commercial designation — "Minimum Lot Size: 1 hectare where serviced by individual on-site water and sewer systems; or 0.24 hectare where serviced by either communal water system or communal sewer system, or both."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 4.0, Land Use Designations table (Commercial)
The April 2026 draft listed "Minimum Lot Size: n/a" for both Commercial and Industrial — meaning no minimum lot size applied to those designations at all.
What changed from April: Larger required parcel sizes generally mean higher per-project land costs and fewer eligible smaller lots, particularly for anyone hoping to build or buy a smaller commercial or industrial property.
4. The implementation timeline (Appendix B) has disappeared ▶
The April 2026 draft included a detailed, multi-page "Policy Actions and Initiatives Timeline" (Appendix B) showing which policies would be acted on, on what schedule, and by which party. That content is completely absent from the June 2026 draft.
The June 2026 draft's own table of contents still lists the appendix, but the page reference is broken:
"APPENDIX B: POLICY ACTIONS AND INITATIVES TIMELINE ...............Error! Bookmark not defined. 9.0 POLICY ACTIONS AND INITIATIVES TIMELINE ...................Error! Bookmark not defined."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Table of Contents, page III
There is no Section 9.0 heading and no Appendix B content anywhere in the June 2026 draft's actual text — the document simply ends after Appendix A (Community Context).
What changed from April: The April 2026 draft's Appendix B (pages 94–105) contained a real implementation table, organized by topic (General Land Use, Reconciliation, Parks and Recreation, Environment, Emergency Management, Growth Management, Housing and Affordability, Employment and Economy, Agriculture and Food Security), citing a specific OCP section, an implementation timeframe (Short-Term / Medium-Term / Long-Term / Ongoing), and the responsible party for each action. This accountability tool is not present in the June 2026 draft.
5. One genuine improvement: a new farming exemption ▶
The June 2026 draft adds a new exemption for farming activity on Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) land, which did not exist in the April 2026 draft.
"Farming activities on land within the Agricultural Land Reserve [are exempt from requiring a Development Permit]."
— Bylaw No. P1540, Section 7.2, item (j)
The April 2026 draft's equivalent exemptions list (also Section 7.2, items a through m) contained no ALR farming exemption at all. ACRD staff told residents during the spring 2026 comment period that this exemption "will be included" — and it was, in the June revision. Activities such as tree cutting or pasture creation on ALR land no longer require a development permit.
Why this one is included here: To be fair to the ACRD, and because a one-sided summary would be less useful to residents deciding how to respond. This is a confirmed, verifiable case of public feedback resulting in a real change to the bylaw text.