Previous municipal councils were concerned about Summerland’s loss of fish habitat. Following recommendations from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the provincial Ministry of the Environment, two 15 metre wide restrictive covenants were created along most of the north foreshore of Trout Creek from Lake House development to Landry homes.
These covenants were described as “bullet-proof” by the federal and provincial agencies, fully protecting fish habitat.
Amending a restrictive covenant is not easy. According to Section 35(1) of the Property Law Act, one “may apply to the Supreme Court” to amend a restrictive covenant.
What happened? Some portions of the foreshore are now devoid of any vegetation. Isn’t this called “destruction of fish habitat?” One portion of the foreshore was sold. This sale of land included the relocation of the restrictive covenant away from the foreshore. This would require a Supreme Court decision. Did that happen?
An explanation please.
To report a typo, email: