The Trust Must Be Stopped From Moving the Goalposts

As an Islands Trust candidate, I have been getting a lot of questions about Baker Beach since the matter came before the Local Trust Committee on August 27. I want to explain what happened in my own words.

This is not just a dispute about one property. It reflects a much broader problem at Islands Trust: requirements are not identified early, interpretations change without public explanation, and applicants and taxpayers pay for work that should not need to be repeated. That raises serious questions about transparency, accountability and whether residents can rely on the answers their local government gives them.

Looking more closely at how the Trust operates has shown me how deep these problems run and helped motivate me to become a candidate. The good news is that they are solvable, but it will take rolling up our sleeves and getting to work.

Following the process

Let me explain. A recent Driftwood article reported the latest turn in the Baker Beach matter but left out important details about how the application was handled and what that could mean for other residents. In our case, we asked Islands Trust for permission to build a shoreline protection measure in front of our Baker Beach property to protect against erosion. We did not build first and ask forgiveness later, as others apparently feel they have no choice but to do.

We were happy to receive input and feedback on the design from community members. In response to criticism of our earlier green-shoring proposal, we revised it and came back with an updated design: a more traditional stacked-rock revetment supported by professional reports and expressly contemplated by the OCP.

In July 2025, we asked staff exactly what the proper process was for a shoreline stabilization project within the Shoreline 6 zone. Staff clearly identified a route involving a development permit and a development variance permit and provided the application guides. Rezoning was not mentioned. Although the process was slow and unclear, the route itself appeared settled at this stage.

We followed their guidance. We retained the necessary professionals, prepared the reports, paid the fees, and submitted the applications.

On March 9, 2026, Planning Director Stefan Cermak wrote that our applications would be evaluated against the applicable Official Community Plan policies and development permit guidelines through the formal review process. Again, this was what we expected.

Eleven days later, however, the regional planning manager told us that our applications could not advance as submitted. Contrary to the previous guidance, he recommended that we withdraw them and said that any resubmitted proposal would have to place the structure outside the S6 zone.

If you are unfamiliar with the system, the island is divided into distinct land-use zones. The foreshore at Baker Beach is zoned S6, a low-intensity shoreline zone that permits private docks, floats, and mooring buoys while restricting more intensive marine uses. All of our island is a rare jewel that needs to be treated with the utmost care. S6 is not, however, a distinct conservation zone. Like every shoreline zone, it protects eelgrass, kelp, and mapped clam beds.

Shoreline stabilization must also satisfy the separate DPA 3 guidelines, which require professional assessment of erosion, alternatives, cumulative effects, and potential harm to fish and wildlife habitat. Our plan took all of this into account and, as submitted, has gained the support of trusted experts. But under Trust staff’s current interpretation of the bylaw, which does not explicitly reference revetments, we are being asked either to withdraw the applications or move the shoreline protection to above the high water mark. How does that make sense?! Either the physics of shoreline erosion are not being taken into account or staff aren’t taking this seriously.

When the interpretation changed

At a meeting in May, staff introduced another possible route: a costly and lengthy Land Use Bylaw amendment. After we challenged the new interpretation, Mr. Cermak wrote on June 18 that the proposed work was not a permitted use in S6 and that he could not issue the development permit. Even after staff said the applications could not advance, four monthly public reports continued to list both files as “Under Review,” with no note explaining what was happening.

First, we were told to apply for a development permit and variance. Then we were told to withdraw and relocate the “structure”. Then we were told that rezoning was required. The bylaw had not changed, but staff’s interpretation had. Why? Were staff members unaware of their own bylaws? Are bylaws being applied haphazardly? Were previous permits issued without proper authority?

None of this is clear. What is clear is that there was no public notice, no explanation of when the change occurred or who made it, and no indication of how applications already underway would be treated.

At the August 27 Local Trust Committee meeting, I had the opportunity to speak about the proposal when it came up on the agenda. I asked when that interpretation had changed. Cermak said it happened “relatively recently,” following further analysis and legal guidance. He said he could not get too far into the reasons, but that the new assessment had been deemed correct and that past practice had been an error. Why could he not explain the reasons further? Were they secret?

If past practice was an error, which S6 permits were issued under it, and how will future applicants be treated? A new interpretation does not automatically invalidate earlier permits, but the Trust owes everyone on the island an explanation.

Importantly, if the new interpretation stands, future owners seeking comparable protection may have to seek rezoning of Crown foreshore before a proposal can even be assessed on its merits. That means more fees, reports, referrals, staff time, and delay, with no added clarity and no guaranteed outcome, even when you do everything by the book.

The cost to applicants and taxpayers

When a zoning issue is missed at the outset and raised months or even years later, applicants pay for unnecessary reports and fees while needed work stalls. Those costs can cause serious financial strain. It is not fair to make people pay again because the Trust changes its interpretation or discovers its own mistake.

Taxpayers pay too, funding repeated staff reviews and legal work that divert planning capacity from housing, businesses, and community projects. The consequences extend well beyond this application, eroding confidence that the Trust will respect either the process or people’s pocketbooks.

We still do not know whether our applications have been refused or paused, whether they remain under review, or what will happen to our filing dates and fees.

To say that the process has been frustrating and abysmal from the beginning is an understatement. Trustee Laura Patrick underscored that point at the August 27 hearing. She said that, during her entire time as a trustee, ours was the only shoreline application she had seen in which permission was sought before construction. In all other cases, the “structures” had already been built before approval was sought.

“That is not good process,” she said. “That is not what’s intended.”

She is right. A regulatory system should encourage people to ask first, hire qualified professionals, and participate openly in public review. It should not make voluntary compliance the most uncertain and expensive route.

The fact that we had to bring a judicial review petition to get answers and clarity on the earlier green-shoring application is troubling, to say the least. I have heard some people mistakenly say that we were suing the Trust for money. We were not seeking damages. Despite the massive costs to us personally, the only reason lawyers became involved was to try to get answers, not money. It is infuriating that turning to lawyers and the courts was the only option available to a resident trying to follow the process set out by our governing body.

The Baker Beach matter is one case, but the problem is much broader. The same thing can happen to a homeowner seeking a permit, a housing organization planning new affordable housing, a small business considering an investment, or a community group proposing a public project. The only thing worse than a bad process is one without clarity or a sense of fairness.

People cannot make responsible decisions when the approval process can change after they enter it. They cannot budget when requirements are discovered months into a file. They cannot hold their government accountable when changes are made without a clear public record.

The Trust’s mandate depends on public trust. That requires fair procedures, consistent administration, clear reasons, and accountability when the institution gets something wrong.

To put it plainly, we need a Trust that is trustworthy.

What I would work to change

This experience was a catalyst for my campaign for the Local Trust Committee. I do not want this to happen to anyone else. If elected, I would, of course, recuse myself from any decisions involving my property. There is a clear process for this, and recusals are routine at every level of government and on the boards of companies and non-profits.

On every other file, I would work with the other trustees to establish early identification of core approval requirements, clear written timelines, reasons for decisions, and a public record when interpretations change. That is the bare minimum we should expect from our local government. Ultimately, I would work toward a consistent, island-wide or perhaps even Trust-wide approach to shoreline protection, with clear and fairly applied rules for everyone.

The need for transparency, accountability, and process integrity is urgent. We have an opportunity right now to intervene and stop the Trust from shifting the goalposts. That will take electing trustees who acknowledge how badly the system is broken and who publicly commit to meaningful change.

We should elect trustees committed to publishing the rules and explaining decisions clearly. Let’s reimagine the Trust as a body that explains its reasoning and is clear about when and why interpretations change. This governing body can treat people fairly and give residents advice they can rely on. Ultimately, that would mean a Trust that stops making applicants and taxpayers pay for its mistakes and for a process that did not work from the outset.

Enough is enough. Let’s fix this together.