Prince George City Council has voted to explore a bylaw amendment to allow urban beehives within city limits.
A motion was presented to City Council at tonight’s (Wednesday) meeting by Councillors Cori Ramsay and Tim Bennett.
“This really has come out of an outreach from local beekeepers who had expressed concerns over a recent cease and desist letter from bylaw services articulating that there weren’t hives allowed within City limits,” Ramsay said. “Upon review of the Animal Control Bylaw, there’s absent the definition of bees being included in the definition of livestock.”
Ramsay added they’re suggesting allowing an unprescribed number of hives.
“If Council is of the opinion that that should be regulated, I would suggest approving this so that local beekeepers have security for over-wintering bees, and that the city do engagement with beekeeper groups to determine what number that should be,” she said.
In terms of bears, Ramsay added there are strategies keepers could use to repel bears from their hives.
Councillor Garth Frizzell asked if this would include all species of bees.
“I don’t know much about bees, it says bees, I think that staff can take that as a pretty wide encompassing one,” said Manager of Legislative Services Ethan Anderson.
Councillor Brian Skakun, who appeared at the meeting virtually, asked if there would be a need to identify where hives are.
“Some people are allergic, and a bee sting could kill them,” he said. “Is there anyway to mitigate this or at least let folks know that there could be a larger concentration of bees in any particular area?”
Ramsay said swarms are always going to be a concern, and could come from anywhere.
“Some of the peer municipalities have articulated where hives could be located on property,” she said. “We’re recommending that administration come back with amendments to the bylaw, and that may be something that could be included.”
Councillor Trudy Klassen asked why a cease and desist was issued.
“From a zoning bylaw perspective, they’re not specifically spoken to, but just because it’s not clearly prohibited or permitted, doesn’t mean that they’re automatically permitted, if that makes sense,” explained Director of Planning and Development Deanna Wasnik. “If it’s not mentioned in the zoning bylaw, we take the stance that there is this ambiguity and grey that’s considered, so staff would have taken the stance that this not being mentioned in the zoning bylaw, therefore it’s not permitted, and considering it’s an agricultural use, it would have been permitted in something more along the lines of an agricultural sized property.”
Wasnik added staff would be happy to look further at possible amendments.
City Manager Walter Babicz added in cases like this where ambiguities come up in bylaws like this, it’s prudent to look at the bylaw and clarify what is permitted and what isn’t.
“In this circumstance, it was the Zoning Bylaw that was addressed or was interpreted,” Babicz said. “Zoning Bylaw does have permitted uses in it, so each permitted use has a definition, and the interpretation there if a use is not permitted specifically in the Zoning Bylaw, then the assumption is that it’s not a permitted use if it’s not named, other bylaws may take a different approach.”
The motion was passed with Councillor Klassen and Mayor Simon Yu opposed.
Other items discussed at tonight’s (Wednesday) meeting included a public inquiry into the province’s forestry and wildfire management.
Something going on in the Prince George area you think people should know about?
Send us a news tip by emailing pgnews@vistaradio.ca.
