It appeared that the thirty or so residents of the Cawston area were disappointed at Area “B” Advisory Planning Committee’s decision to endorse an application for non-farm use of ALR land at a meeting held at Cawston Hall last Monday night.
Opponents of the request had compiled a 140 signature petition, in addition to presenting an impassioned argument as to why the request should be turned down, but to no avail.
The APC may indeed have had sound reasons to vote in favour of the application, but the unfortunate consequence of the decision is the bitter taste that it leaves in the mouth of those who mounted a forceful and committed stand against it.
It isn’t very often - and this point was made at the meeting - that an APC meeting generates 30 plus members of the public as an audience. That fact alone is indicative of the importance the residents ascribed to this matter.
When you throw in the petition, it seems pretty clear that this is an issue of some importance, and one which many residents wish to speak to.
To those in opposition of the land use request, it must certainly appear that their voices weren’t heard. But, as is often the case, there is more to it than meets the eye.
As Area “B” Director Hanson noted, the APC is asked for an opinion on agricultural land use matters as representatives of the regional district. In Cawston, with neither bylaws or an Official Community Plan to guide decision making or provide legislation requiring public input, this particular land use request is simply one of many that have been handled - legitimately - this way.
It’s fortunate for those in opposition that the Agricultural Land Commission is not necessarily bound to agree with the APC recommendation. At the same time, it’s unfortunate that in order to have more say in these applications in the future, they are going to have to allow more - not less- government in their lives.