Everyone There are portions…

Everyone

There are portions of the endangered species act that are currently misguided and does not make logical sense. It is way to restrictive to development, and if anyone says it isn’t, they don’t understand what is happening in the real world.

For example, I am in the process of trying to build a cottage on my own property in an area that is surrounded by cottages and was zoned as a building lot. But now I am facing expensive multiple assessements on property that should be understood what species are in the area or not. Under the current rules there is an assessment for snakes, and that it is to be assessed if there is a potential for a snake habitat. The whole area is rock and moss, etc. Does this mean that nothing can be built in the area and specifically on my building lot? How did it get originally zoned as a building lot? These rules should apply to new severances and not existing zoned areas for development. It should make sense.

There is assessments needed for birds and yet I don’t want to cut down trees or the fact that there are acres of trees outside of my property that can host thousands of birds. I am fine to build bat houses or anything like that to facilitate the growth of their population.

At the end of the day, whatever the rules are, they need to be logical, not just a blanket rule that makes no sense. The current rules do not reflect what is going on in the real world. I have heard of other developments that have stalled out because of the rules that are being enforced without flexibility to specific situations.

There is apparently also a fisheries assessment even though I am not touching the waters edge but will be within 30 meters of the shore. I’m sorry but I can’t get my head around this logic.

If I sound a bit frustrated, it’s because I am. I have been trying to get a building permit for a year and a half to just build a basic cottage on a cottage lot near a river.

Thanks for your consideration.