Galiano Island: the bylaw audit

13 findings: 5 in bylaws not yet adopted, 8 in bylaws in force. Read on 2026-09-20. Every quotation is a link to the words themselves.

Bylaw 300 could permit homes and cottages on boat-access lots, while Bylaws 292 to 295 propose clustered lots with a land transfer. These possible gains are separate from the drafting errors below. Whether they deliver accessible year-round housing has not been established.

The bylaws, and where each one stands

  • Bylaw 300 (not yet adopted). Land use bylaw amendment for boat-access-only lots (a new Small Island Residential zone and sea-setback exemptions). No public hearing was held (resolution GL-2026-016, 10 February 2026). First reading 9 June 2026. Amended, then read a second and third time on 25 August 2026 and sent to the Executive Committee. The staff report says that after Executive Committee approval the committee may adopt it by resolution without a meeting. It is item 7.1, "Bylaws for approval consideration", on the agenda of the Executive Committee meeting of 23 September 2026 (https://islandstrust.bc.ca/document/executive-committee-regular-meeting-agenda-77/).
  • Bylaw 297 (not yet adopted). Site-specific Rural 2(a) zone for one lot (contractor yard, gravel sales, sawmilling, cidery and winery). Public hearing, second and third reading on 9 June 2026, then sent to the Executive Committee. No adoption appears in the minutes published to 25 August 2026. Its companion plan amendment, Bylaw 296, was adopted on 10 February 2026.
  • Bylaw 292 and 293 (not yet adopted). Plan and land use bylaw amendments for District Lot 86 (a clustered subdivision in return for a land transfer; new RR(e) zone). Public hearing and third reading on 10 February 2026. Sent to the Executive Committee and to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs. No adoption appears in the minutes published to 25 August 2026.
  • Bylaw 294 and 295 (not yet adopted). The same kind of amendment for District Lot 85 (new RR(d) zone). Public hearing, amendment and third reading on 10 February 2026. Sent to the Executive Committee and to the Minister. No adoption appears in the minutes published to 25 August 2026.
  • Galiano Island Local Trust Committee Land Use Bylaw No. 127, 1999 (in force). In force. The Trust's consolidation is dated March 2026 and includes Bylaw 284 (potable water standards, adopted 9 September 2025) and Bylaw 291 (adopted 12 March 2026 by resolution without a meeting).
  • Galiano Island Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 108 (in force). In force. Consolidated March 2026, including Bylaw 296 (adopted 10 February 2026). On 25 August 2026 the committee considered a business case for a full Official Community Plan review to start in the 2027/28 fiscal year and run for three years. No bylaw exists yet.
  • Bylaw 265 and 266 (in force). Listed in the Trust's index without a description. They are a 2017 plan amendment (265) and land use bylaw amendment (266), adopted 6 July 2020, that created the Forest Industrial (A) zone on part of District Lot 37. Both are already in the consolidations.

Correspondence Tony Aly reported sending

Tony confirmed sending the following letters on 3 October 2026. The text shown is the version we supplied for sending, with URLs written out for plain-text email. We have not independently verified the exact transmitted copy or received a response to these letters.

Galiano Bylaw 300 – Small Island Residential permission and dock definition

Reported sent:
To: execadmin@islandstrust.bc.ca
Cc: southinfo@islandstrust.bc.ca

Read the prepared letter
Dear Galiano Island Local Trust Committee and Executive Committee,

Please confirm what the Executive Committee decided about Bylaw 300 on September 23 and provide the text currently proposed for adoption. In the third-reading text, the clause meant to permit dwellings, cottages, home occupations and secondary suites in the new Small Island Residential zone instead names a “Boat Access Only” zone that the bylaw does not create. Its new definition of “dock” describes an accessory private structure, while the same bylaw and existing marine zones use “dock” for community, public and commercial facilities. The quoted provisions and sources (https://abolishislandstrust.org/bylaw-audit/galiano) are linked.

I do not oppose the proposed housing access for boat-access lots. If approval or adoption is still pending, please put the operative corrections before the current decision maker; otherwise please identify the adopted wording or a corrective amendment. Please tell me whether a revised text will be published for residents to check. This is a records and Executive Committee request, not a new Local Trust Committee hearing submission.

Sincerely,
Tony Aly

Galiano Bylaws 293, 295 and 297 – make the zoning rules operative and correct the record

Reported sent:
To: execadmin@islandstrust.bc.ca
Cc: southinfo@islandstrust.bc.ca

Read the prepared letter
Dear Galiano Island Local Trust Committee and Executive Committee,

Please confirm the present status and current text of Bylaws 293, 295 and 297. I am asking for targeted correction, not for the rejection of the clustered-lot or mixed business proposals as such.

In the published text, Bylaws 293 and 295 say that zoning shall establish the minimum average lot area, rather than establishing the number in the zoning bylaw itself. Both add subsections without numbers and use plan labels that appear inconsistent if both are adopted. The February 10 meeting resolutions for Bylaw 295 name Bylaw 293's citation. Bylaw 297 introduces a second Table 7.3 in section 5.5. The audit links each point to the bylaw or minutes (https://abolishislandstrust.org/bylaw-audit/galiano).

If approval or adoption remains pending, please put the actual zoning standard and corrected labels before the current decision maker; otherwise please identify the adopted wording or a corrective amendment. Please also correct the meeting record and publish the operative versions. If any of these issues has been corrected already, please identify where. This is a records and Executive Committee request, not a new Local Trust Committee hearing submission.

Sincerely,
Tony Aly

A letter you can send

Bylaw 300 appeared on the Executive Committee's 23 September 2026 agenda. Its decision and any later adoption were not established in our 20 September audit; confirm both before relying on this letter. The third-reading text had the errors cited below.

To: the Executive Committee of the Islands Trust
Subject: Executive Committee approval: Galiano Island proposed Bylaw No. 300

To the Executive Committee of the Islands Trust,

I am writing about proposed Galiano Island Bylaw No. 300, which the Galiano Island Local Trust Committee read a third time on 25 August 2026 and forwarded to the Secretary for your approval. [Say here whether you own, rent or live on Galiano Island, and where.]

These are the points that concern me:

- Bylaw 300 creates the Small Island Residential zone, and its permitted-use clause grants the uses to a Boat Access Only zone, which does not exist.
- Bylaw 300 defines dock for the whole bylaw as a private structure accessory to an upland home or farm, and the same bylaw and two marine zones use the word for community, public and commercial docks.

The words of the bylaw behind each point are quoted, with a link to the place they can be read, at https://abolishislandstrust.org/bylaw-audit/galiano

Please confirm your decision and the text now proposed for adoption. If approval remains pending, please return Bylaw 300 under section 22(1)(b)(ii) with directions to correct these errors. If you have approved it, please provide the decision and ask the Galiano committee to address the errors before adoption.

Yours respectfully,
[Your name]
[Your address on Galiano Island, or your interest in the trust area]

Open an email to execadmin@islandstrust.bc.ca

Change anything you do not agree with, and say who you are and where you live or own land. A few sentences in your own words are worth more than ours.

In bylaws not yet adopted

These can still be fixed.

Something left out · in a bylaw not yet adopted

Bylaws 293 and 295 are zoning, and instead of setting the minimum average lot area they say that zoning shall establish it.

The words were copied from the companion plan policies in Bylaws 292 and 294, where they are an instruction to the zoning bylaw. Pasted into the zoning bylaw, the instruction points at itself and no rule is stated. The existing provisions of the same kind state the rule directly.

Two rules that cannot both be obeyed · in a bylaw not yet adopted

Bylaw 300 defines dock for the whole bylaw as a private structure accessory to an upland home or farm, and the same bylaw and two marine zones use the word for community, public and commercial docks.

The definition was added at the 25 August 2026 meeting, the same meeting that gave second and third reading. It goes into Part 17, so it governs every use of the word. Bylaw 300 itself exempts anchor pads for a community dock. The Marine Service zone permits docks that must be open to the general public, and the Marine Commercial Water zone permits docks for commercial uses. None of those is accessory to the residential or agricultural use of an upland lot, or used for mooring private boats.

A term used and never defined · in a bylaw not yet adopted

Bylaw 300 creates the Small Island Residential zone, and its permitted-use clause grants the uses to a Boat Access Only zone, which does not exist.

Section 5.7.1 is the sentence that permits dwellings, cottages, home occupations and secondary suites and prohibits everything else. It names a zone the bylaw does not create and section 4.1 does not list. The same words were in the first-reading draft on 9 June 2026 and were still there when the bylaw was read a third time on 25 August 2026 and sent to the Executive Committee.

How it was done · in a bylaw not yet adopted

The resolutions that amended Bylaw 295 and read it a third time cite it by the name of Bylaw 293.

Bylaw 293 is Amendment No. 1, 2024 and Bylaw 295 is Amendment No. 2, 2024. The minutes of 10 February 2026 record both bylaws under the citation Amendment No. 1, 2024. The bylaw number in each resolution is right, so the intent is clear, but the record that goes to the Executive Committee and the Minister names the wrong bylaw title twice.

Numbering and proofreading · in a bylaw not yet adopted

Slips in the bylaws now awaiting approval: 293 and 295 add unnumbered subsections and label their plans 5.4.19 and 5.4.18, 297 puts a second Table 7.3 into section 5.5, and three title pages misspell the Minister's title.

Bylaws 293 and 295 each add two subsections to section 5.4 without numbers, and in each the siting rule that uses the plan is the second of the two, so the labels 5.4.18 and 5.4.19 cannot both be right whichever is adopted first. Both also amend Schedule D by making alterations to Schedule B, twice in one sentence. Table 7.3 already exists in section 7.3 and is named for that section. Bylaws 292 and 294, and Bylaw 296 as adopted, print MUNICPAL.

In bylaws in force

Two rules that cannot both be obeyed · in a bylaw in force

Bylaws 265 and 266 rezone the same part of District Lot 37 and give it two different parcel identifiers.

The plan amendment says PID 006-622-527. The land use bylaw amendment adopted the same day says PID 009-622-527. A parcel identifier is the one part of a legal description that is meant to be unambiguous. We did not check which one the land title office holds.

A reference to something that does not exist · in a bylaw in force

The treatment covenant depends on a certification under section 13.28(d). Section 13.28 stops at (c). And the boundary-adjustment exemption in section 13.35 exempts applicants from section 13.35.

The certification that water can be made potable with treatment is 13.27(d). Section 13.35 lifts the requirements of sections 13.24 to 13.35, which includes itself and leaves out 13.23, the first of the water standards.

  • “Where the certification under subsection 13.28(d) states that a water supply is not potable but can be made potable with a treatment system”

    Read it: Galiano Bylaw 127, s. 13.32

  • “c. monitoring groundwater levels continuously during the pumping test and during the recovery period.”

    Read it: Galiano Bylaw 127, s. 13.28

  • “d. Confirmation, based on the accredited laboratory water quality analysis, that each proposed water supply source is potable, or can be made potable, with a treatment system”

    Read it: Galiano Bylaw 127, s. 13.27

  • “13.35 The requirements of Sections 13.24-13.35 do not apply”

    Read it: Galiano Bylaw 127, s. 13.35

  • “13.23 Where potable water is proposed to be supplied to lots in a subdivision by an established community water system”

    Read it: Galiano Bylaw 127, s. 13.23

A reference that lands on the wrong subject · in a bylaw in force

The three clustered-subdivision rules in the Rural Residential zone apply despite sections 5.4.8 and 5.4.9. Section 5.4.8 is the setback from farmland. The average lot size they mean to override is section 5.4.10.

Sections 5.4.12, 5.4.14 and 5.4.16 let an owner create lots averaging as little as 2 hectares in return for transferring most of the land for conservation. Read as written, they override the 15 metre setback from the Agriculture zone and the 1.2 hectare minimum, and leave the 2 hectare average in section 5.4.10 untouched. Proposed Bylaws 293 and 295 write the same rule for two more properties and cite 5.4.9 and 5.4.10, which shows what was meant.

A reference that lands on the wrong subject · in a bylaw in force

In the potable water standards for subdivision, adopted in September 2025, the cross-references land one section past the provision they mean.

A hydrogeologist must certify that each well was built in accordance with sections 13.29, 13.30 and 13.31. Section 13.31 is the covenant clause, and the pumping test in 13.28 is left out. The pumping test must withdraw the volume specified in section 13.27, which is about water quality and specifies no volume. The covenant clause turns on the certification in 13.27(c) and (d), which are the sample statement and the potability confirmation, when the certifications about quantity are 13.26(c) and (d). An applicant, a hydrogeologist and the Approving Officer each have to guess what was meant.

A reference that lands on the wrong subject · in a bylaw in force

In the Agriculture zone, the 8 hectare minimum for one named property applies notwithstanding section 6.1.7, which is a building setback. And the agri-tourism use is made subject to sections 6.1.9 to 6.1.13, a range that starts at that property rule and stops before the guest limit.

The minimum lot size is section 6.1.8. The agri-tourist accommodation rules are sections 6.1.10 to 6.1.14. Read as written, the limit of 6 guests and 3 bedrooms in 6.1.14 is not one of the conditions of the permitted use.

A term used and never defined · in a bylaw in force

Forest Industrial Zone B has a section of its own, 9.6(C), and is not in the list of zones in section 4.1. The sign rules name a Health and Wellness zone that exists nowhere else in the bylaw, and call the Forest Industrial zone F1, which is the abbreviation of Forest 1.

Section 4.1 says the trust area is divided into the zones it lists. Section 9.6(C), which the consolidation marks as added by Bylaw 291 (adopted 12 March 2026), regulates a zone that is not among them. Section 16.1 allows commercial signs only in the zones it lists, so a wrong abbreviation there decides who may put up a sign. The same list calls the Light Industrial zone L1 where section 4.1 has LI.

Numbering and proofreading · in a bylaw in force

Part 13 has two sections numbered 13.30 and two numbered 13.31, and the second 13.31 asks a builder for the information in section 13.29, which is about a sounding tube in a well.

When the water standards were added as 13.23 to 13.35, the sewage disposal sections that follow kept their old numbers. The second 13.31 means the sewage information in the second 13.30. As numbered, it sends a building permit applicant to the wellhead rule.

Numbering and proofreading · in a bylaw in force

Smaller slips in Bylaw 127: the bicycle parking rule relies on Table 3 and the parking table is Table 2, section 5.4 has no 5.4.11, and the zone list has stray brackets.

None of these changes a right on its own. With the findings above they show a consolidation that has been added to many times and not read through.

What we checked and found sound

  • All 15 auditor leads in Bylaw 127 were opened in the text. 11 are provisions that exist but open with a margin note (see needsAnchor). Section 2.18 exists and nothing cites a missing Part 2 section. The real errors the auditor could not see are in findings above (it checks that a target exists, not what it says).
  • Every internal reference in Bylaw 127 was traced to the opening words of its target with a second script (.tmp-probe/packages/gm-xref.mjs, 60 references). Sound: 2.9 to 2.10, 2.24 to 2.23, 4.4.1 and 8.2.2 to 8.2.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.9 and 5.3.13, 6.1.3 to 6.1.2, 7.x to 15.1.1, 7.2 and 7.5 to 2.9 to 2.13, 8.2.7 to 2.15, 9.1.2, 9.2.3, 9.2.4, 9.2.7, 12.2.2, 13.14, 16.5 to 3.5, 16.6, the sawmill definition to 2.1.4, and the four Schedule D plan labels.
  • Bylaw 127 s. 13.2 and 13.3 cite Local Government Act ss. 510 and 514, the current numbering.
  • The Trust's listings for Land Use Bylaw 127 and Official Community Plan 108 serve the right documents: page 1 of each matches its title, and the files are byte-identical to the copies in our library (SHA-256 17c95ca1… and 96ee67a8…). The plan consolidation already includes Bylaw 296.
  • Bylaws 265 and 266 were downloaded and read in full (3 and 4 pages).
  • Proposed Bylaws 292, 293, 294, 295, 297 and 300 were read in full from the agenda packages, and the tracked-change pages (Bylaw 300 p. 36, Bylaw 293 p. 63, Bylaw 295 p. 77) were rendered as images before quoting. No quotation above includes tracked text.
  • Official Community Plan 108: the auditor finds 2 internal references, both sound. We did not read the plan from beginning to end.

Open questions

Things that looked worth a second reading and that we could not prove. They are not findings.

  • Bylaw 300 had no public hearing (Local Government Act s. 464(2), resolution GL-2026-016) and was changed twice after notice of first reading: on 9 June 2026 and again on 25 August 2026, when a definition of dock was added and the solar exemption was doubled to 10 square metres and limited to lots not serviced by BC Hydro. We did not fetch s. 464 or s. 467 from BC Laws, so we make no finding. Worth a person's look: whether notice given for one text covers a bylaw that gained a bylaw-wide definition afterwards.
  • The staff report for Bylaw 300 says adoption may be by resolution without a meeting once the Executive Committee approves. Bylaw 291 was adopted that way on 12 March 2026. A reader who wants to object has no meeting to attend.
  • Bylaw 127 s. 2.3 refers to the Waste Management Act, and s. 7.5 is a Forest Land Reserve zone that requires compliance with regulations under the Forest Land Reserve Act. We believe both Acts have been repealed but did not confirm it on BC Laws, so neither is recorded as a finding.
  • Is the off-by-one numbering in the water standards (ss. 13.26 to 13.35) in Bylaw 284 as adopted, or only in the Trust's consolidation? We could not find Bylaw 284 itself in the Trust's document index. Either way the consolidation is the only text the public is given.
  • Does Bylaw 291 amend section 4.1 to add Forest Industrial (B)? We read the consolidation, not Bylaw 291. If 291 does add it, the omission is in the consolidation; if not, it is in the bylaw.
  • Which parcel identifier for District Lot 37 is right (Bylaws 265 and 266)? A title search would settle it.
  • Bylaw 297 adds the residential zone Rural 2(a) to the list in s. 16.1.1, which is headed Economic Activity Zones, and does not say where in the list the words go.
  • Rezoning file GL-RZ-2014.1: on 25 August 2026 the committee deferred a decision on closing it to November 2026. We did not read the file.