REGULAR AGENDA ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING CONSOLIDATED Thursday, June 4, 2015

REGULAR AGENDA ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING CONSOLIDATED Thursday, June 4, 2015

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, June 4, 2015

2:00 p.m.

REGULAR AGENDA

CONSOLIDATED

This document is a consolidation of the above-noted meeting agenda and includes the addition of the document(s) listed below. Note that documents listed below that have been brought forward at the meeting and form a part of the agenda will be found at the

back of this agenda package.

AGENDA ADDITIONS

Agenda Item No. Subject

− Electoral Area “B” – Meeting of May 27, 2015

G.1 − Electoral Area “C” – Meeting of May 27, 2015

G.3

− Electoral Area “D” – Meeting of May 26, 2015

- Building Inspection Revenue Report

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday,

June 4, 2015

2:00 p.m.

REGULAR AGENDA

A.

C.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1. Regular Agenda – June 4, 2015

(Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items)

(Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items – In Camera Agenda)

RECOMMENDATION 1

That the Agenda of the June 4, 2015 Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting be approved as presented.

B. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

1. Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 7, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 2 Page 1

That the minutes of the May 7, 2015 Electoral Area Advisory Committee Meeting be adopted as circulated.

DELEGATIONS

1. Vernon / North Okanagan Safe Communities Unit

– Report dated May 25, 2015

– May Speed Watch Report

RECOMMENDATION 3 Page 5

That the report dated May 25, 2015 from the Vernon / North Okanagan Detachment

– Safe Communities Unit be received for information.

2. Legal Document Request

BLACK, R. [File No. 15-0022-F-LD]

(See Item E.1)

3. Waiver of Lot Frontage Request

SILCHENKO, E. and E. [File No. 15-0177-E-WVR]

(See Item E.2)

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Agenda – Regular - 2 -

4. OCP / Rezoning Application

VETTER, A., P. and S. [File No. 10-0497-F-OR]

(See Item E.3)

D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

E.

June 4, 2015

NEW BUSINESS

1. Legal Document Request

BLACK, R. [File No. 15-0022-F-LD]

− Staff report dated May 1, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 4 Page 9

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the request to modify Covenant

KP036954 registered on the title of the property legally described as the S½ of the

SW¼ of Sec. 3, Twp. 20, R9, W6M, KDYD, Except Plans 23082, 23688, and

KAP49667 and located at 247 Black Road, Electoral Area “F” by authorizing the construction of ten (10) Agri-Tourism Campsites on the Non-Urban (N.U) zoned portion of the property be referred to a Public Hearing.

2. Waiver of Lot Frontage Request

SILCHENKO, E. and E. [File No. 15-0177-E-WVR]

− Staff report dated May 19, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 5 Page 20

That the memorandum from the Planning Department dated May 19, 2015 regarding

Waiver of Lot Frontage Application for the property legally described as Lot 2,

Sections 26 and 35, Twp 45, ODYD, Plan 24879 and located at 1377 Highway 6,

Electoral Area “E” be received for information.

DIRECTION REQUIRED

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the 10% minimum frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of the RDNO Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be waived for the property legally described as Lot 2, Sections 26 and 35, Twp 45, ODYD, Plan

24879 and located at 1377 Highway 6, Electoral Area “E” by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot 1 from 103.44 metres to 79.151 metres and by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot 2 from 88.93 metres to 58.0 metres as shown on the site plan attached to the Planning Department report dated May 19, 2015.

OR

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the 10% minimum frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of the RDNO Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 not be

waived for the property legally described as Lot 2, Sections 26 and 35, Twp 45,

ODYD, Plan 24879 and located at 1377 Highway 6, Electoral Area “E”.

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Agenda – Regular - 3 - June 4, 2015

3. OCP / Rezoning Application

VETTER, A., P. and S. [File No. 10-0497-F-OR]

− Staff report dated May 25, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 6 Page 26

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the referral process outlined in the

Planning Department report dated May 25, 2015 be considered appropriate consultation for the purposes of Sections 879, 881 and 882 of the Local Government

Act with regard to Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.

2477, 2011 which proposes to amend the land use designation of the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 14, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 2168, Except

Plans 21604, 23402 and H10220 and located at 64 Highway 97B, Electoral Area “F” from Agricultural to Country Residential; and further,

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, Electoral Area “F” Official

Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2477, 2011 which proposes to amend the land use designation of the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 14, Twp 19, R9,

W6M, KDYD, Plan 2168, Except Plans 21604, 23402 and H10220 and located at 64

Highway 97B, Electoral Area “F” from Agricultural to Country Residential, be given

Second Reading and referred to a Public Hearing; and further,

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, Rezoning Bylaw No. 2478, 2015 which proposes to rezone the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 14, Twp 19,

R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 2168, Except Plans 21604, 23402 and H10220 and located at

64 Highway 97B, Electoral Area “F” from the Non-Urban (N.U) zone to the Country

Residential (C.R) zone be given First and Second Readings and referred to a Public

Hearing.

4. Regional Growth Strategy - 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

− Letter dated May 13, 2015

− Staff report dated March 31, 2015

FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT Page 37

5. Agricultural Land Commission Application

DeTOURDONNET, M. [File No. 15-0114-C-ALR]

− Staff report dated May 20, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 7 Page 56

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the application of Agatha and

Vincent deTourdonnet c/o Michael deTourdonnet under Section 21(2) of the

Agricultural Land Commission Act to subdivide the property legally described as Lot

A, Sec 12, Twp 8, ODYD, Plan KAP48707 and located at 4877 Haynes Road,

Electoral Area “C” not be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land

Commission.

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Agenda – Regular - 4 - June 4, 2015

6. Community Works Fund – Project #105 (Biodiversity Conservation Strategy)

− Staff report dated May 22, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 8 Page 66

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the Engagement and

Communication Plan for implementation of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy be funded from the Community Works Fund at a cost of $10,010.00.

7. Community Works Fund – Project #106 (Cosens Bay Water Quality Monitoring)

− Staff report dated May 22, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 9 Page 76

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the Water Quality Monitoring

Cosens Bay – Year II study be funded from the Electoral Area “B” allocation of the

Community Works Fund at a cost of $10,023.00.

8. Community Works Fund – Project #108 (Gardom Creek Baseline Assessment)

− Staff report dated May 22, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 10 Page 86

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the Gardom Creek Baseline

Assessment be funded from the Electoral Area “F” allocation of the Community

Works Fund at a cost of up to $40,000.00.

F. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

G. REPORTS

1. Advisory Planning Commission Meetings

RECOMMENDATION 11 Page 95

That the minutes of the following Advisory Planning Commission meetings be received for information:

− Electoral Area “B” – Meeting of May 27, 2015 (to be distributed at meeting)

− Electoral Area “C” – Meeting of May 27, 2015 (to be distributed at meeting)

− Electoral Area “D” – Meeting of May 26, 2015 (to be distributed at meeting)

− Electoral Area “E” – Meeting of June 1, 2015 (to be distributed at meeting)

− Electoral Area “F” – Meeting of May 11, 2015

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Agenda – Regular - 5 -

2. Building Inspections Statistical Reports

− Reports dated April 2015

June 4, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 12 Page 97

That the April 2015 Building Inspections Statistical Reports be received for information.

3. Building Inspection Revenue Report

− Report dated May 2015 (to be provided)

RECOMMENDATION 13

That the May 2015 Building Inspections Revenue Report be received for information.

4. Sustainability Program Report

- Staff report dated May 22, 2015

RECOMMENDATION 14 Page 99

That the Sustainability Report dated May 22, 2015 from the Sustainability

Coordinator be received for information.

5. General Manager’s Report

H. IN CAMERA

I. ADJOURNMENT

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item B.1

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE of the

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held in the Boardroom at the Regional District

Office on Thursday, May 7, 2015.

Members: Director B. Fleming

Director M. Macnabb

Director R. Fairbairn

Director H. Cameron

Director H. Halvorson

Staff: L. Mellott

R. Smailes

A. Page

L. Frank

R. Baker

C. Elley

Electoral Area “B”

Electoral Area “C”

Electoral Area “D”

Electoral Area “E”

Electoral Area “F”

General Manager, Electoral Area Administration

General Manager, Planning and Building

Sustainability Coordinator

Sustainability Coordinator

Community / Protective Services Manager

Clerk, Electoral Area Administration

Chair

Vice-Chair

Also

Present:

R. Morgan

RCMP

Regional Crime Prevention Coordinator, City of Vernon

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Regular Agenda – May 7, 2015

Moved and seconded by Directors Cameron and Fairbairn

That the Agenda of the May 7, 2015 Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting be approved as presented.

CARRIED

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Electoral Area Advisory Committee – April 2, 2015

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Halvorson

That the minutes of the April 2, 2015 Electoral Area Advisory Committee Meeting be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

Page 1 of 100

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item B.1

Minutes – Regular - 2 - May 7, 2015

DELEGATIONS

Vernon / North Okanagan Detachment – Policing First Quarter Report

The RCMP provided an update on activities undertaken over the first quarter (2015).

Moved and seconded by Directors Halvorson and Cameron

That the First Quarter reports dated April 15, 2015 from the Vernon / North Okanagan

Detachment – Municipal and Rural Policing and the First Quarter report from the Victims

Assistance Program be received for information.

CARRIED

Vernon / North Okanagan Safe Communities Unit

The Regional Crime Prevention Coordinator provided an update on activities he has undertaken over the past month.

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Halvorson

That the report dated April 28, 2015 from the Vernon / North Okanagan Detachment – Safe

Communities Unit be received for information.

CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS

Shuswap River Vessel Operating Restriction Regulations - Public Consultation Strategy

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Cameron

That the Shuswap River Vessel Operating Restriction Regulations Public Consultation Strategy be endorsed.

CARRIED

Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Review - Survey Results

Moved and seconded by Directors Halvorson and Fairbairn

That the report dated April 22, 2015 regarding the survey results of Phase I of the Electoral Area

“F” Official Community Plan Review be received for information.

CARRIED

Community Works Fund - Update

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Cameron

That the report dated April 17, 2015 from the Planning Department regarding the Community

Works Fund be received for information.

CARRIED

Page 2 of 100

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item B.1

Minutes – Regular - 3 - May 7, 2015

Bylaw 2670 - Building Bylaw

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Cameron

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, Building Bylaw No. 2670, 2015, be given

First Reading; and further,

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, Building Bylaw No. 2670, 2015 be referred to legal counsel, advisory planning commissions, internal departments and outside agencies involved in the construction industry.

CARRIED

REPORTS

Building Inspections Statistical Reports

Moved and seconded by Directors Cameron and Fairbairn

That the March 2015 Building Inspections Statistical Reports be received for information.

CARRIED

Building Inspection Revenue Report

Moved and seconded by Directors Halvorson and Macnabb

That the April 2015 Building Inspections Revenue Report be received for information.

CARRIED

Open Burning Report

The Community Protective Services Manager advised the Directors regarding a complaint that had been received. Discussion took place regarding Open Burning – Fire Regulation Bylaw No.

2514, as well as the importance of public education.

General Manager’s Report

The General Manager, Electoral Area Administration provided an update on the following matters:

− BX / Swan Lake Website

− Public Information Meeting in relation to Parks Restructure (transfer of lands)

− Provincial Electoral Boundary Commission - Open House (May 13 th

)

− Gardom Creek Flooding Issues – Public Information Meeting (May 14 th

)

− Sewer Service – Whiteboard Scoping Discussion (May 22 nd

)

− Southern Interior Beetle Action Coalition (SIBAC) Keeping it Rural Conference (May 26 th

)

Page 3 of 100

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item B.1

Minutes – Regular - 4 - May 7, 2015

IN CAMERA

Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Cameron

That, pursuant to Section 92 of the Community Charter, the regular meeting of the Electoral

Area Advisory Committee convene In Camera to deal with matters deemed closed to the public in accordance with Section 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter.

CARRIED

The regular meeting of the Electoral Area Advisory Committee adjourned to meet In Camera at

4:51 p.m.

The regular meeting of the Electoral Area Advisory Committee reconvened at 5:05 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

CERTIFIED CORRECT

Chair

Bob Fleming

General Manager

Leah Mellott

Page 4 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item C.1

City of Vernon Protective Services

Regional Crime Prevention Programs Coordinator

Report to the Regional District North Okanagan

Board of Directors

Date: May 25th 2015

Summary

• Coordinator attended BX Scout Group meeting.

• Coordinator attended Cherryville Parent & tots event.

• Coordinator attended ICBC Road Safety talk in Vernon.

• Coordinator attended Wellness Seniors Centre Lumby

• Coordinator met with ICBC area representative Christine Silver in Vernon, regarding Speed Watch / Lock out auto crime / Bike Safety Rodeo programs

• Attended JPW offices Armstrong and met with QA manager/ BW Signs.

• Coordinator met with possible 2 new Block Watch Captains for programs.

• ICBC Speed reader board being used daily in the RDNO 5 Electoral areas

• Coordinator gets daily crime updates from the RCMP occurrence logs.

• Coordinator reads and responds to RCMP emails on GroupWise system.

• Coordinator working on PowerPoint presentations in the SCU office.

• Coordinator follows up on crime incidents with RCMP detachment / members.

• Coordinator submits 3 monthly, 200 plus words, Crime Prevention / Community

Safety articles to newsletters in the RDNO electoral areas

• Coordinator continues to perform ICBC Lockout Auto crime in the RDNO areas.

• Continuing to promote the RCMP Block Watch program in the 5 Electoral Areas which gives Coordinator communication with 472 households.

• Regular emails sent and contact with Block Watch Captains and program members with crime alerts, updates and Crime/Safety tips.

• Coordinator continues to visit Electoral Areas on daily visits and talks to resident’s, community groups and businesses regarding Crime / Safety concerns.

• Coordinator has worked 17 days in May

• Coordinator has taken 3 City of Vernon EDO days off in May.

• Coordinator has taken 1 Statutory Days off, BC Victoria Day.

Page 5 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item C.1

RDNO Area B (BX/Swan Lake) – Area C (BX Silver Star)

• Attended BX Scout Group meeting at Tillicum Camp, Personal Safety talk

• Met with residents in Kalamalka Lakeview Drive regarding dumped rubbish.

• Coordinator met with residents, possible new Block Watch program in Baker

Hogg Road and Kalamalka Lakeview Drive residents regarding BW signage.

• Attended Desert Cove Homeowners Association to discuss Crime Prevention topics for upcoming presentation to residents group and Block Watch program

• Attended Hillview Elementary School met with Principle to discuss programs

• Attended BX School, met with Principle to discuss future program.

• Visited businesses and gave Robbery Prevention / Credit card Fraud advice.

• Visited BX hiking recreational car parks regarding ICBC Lockout Auto crime.

• Attended BX Dog Park, spoke to motorists regarding ICBC Lockout Auto crime.

• Attended Keddlestone Road/ Wilson Jackson/Deer Park area and visited numerous properties to increase the Block Watch membership in the area

• Speed Watch program on 2 occasion on Pottery Rd, Hillview school zone.

• Speed Watch program on 2 occasion on BX / Silver Star Rd in school zone

• Speed Watch program on 2 occasion on PV Rd, Vernon Christian school zone.

• Maintaining regular contact with the 12 Block Watch programs in the area, which gives Coordinator access to over 238 households / family members by the e-mail system and Block Watch Captains set up.

• Coordinator visits area 1 day a week, split into 2 morning/afternoon periods.

RDNO Area D (Lumby Rural) – RDNO Area E (Cherryville)

• Attended Cherryville Community Hall spoke with Parents at Parent & Tot group.

• Coordinator attended and spoke regarding Crime Prevention / Community Safety advice to seniors at the Seniors Drop in at Wellness Centre in Lumby,

• Conducted the WITS Anti- bullying program at Cherryville Elementary School

• Visited resident in Trinity Valley Rd to follow up after recent suspicious incident.

• Lockout auto crime op at Shuswap Falls BC Hydro recreational car park.

• Lockout auto crime op at Shuswap River picnic site car park.Cherryville.

• Met with Principle of Cherryville Elementary school to discuss future programs.

• Coordinator attended Cherryville local businesses and advised on Robbery

Prevention / Credit card Fraud program to staff.

• ICBC Speed Watch program 2 occasions on the Mabel Lake Road, Lumby in school zone near JW Inglis Elementary school.

• Speed Watch program performed 1 occasion on North Fork Road Cherryville.

• Speed Watch program performed 1 occasion in May on Highway 6 Westbound, near to Frank’s store in Cherryville.

• Submitted Crime Prevention/Community Safety article for the Cherryville monthly community newsletter.

• Maintaining regular contact with the Block Watch program in area, Whitevale

Road, Rural Lumby which gives Coordinator access to 25 households.

• Coordinator visits area 1 day a week, split into 2 morning/afternoon periods.

Page 6 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item C.1

RDNO Area F (Enderby Rural)

• Visited boat launches in Area F and updated River Watch forms

• Attended at Mabel Lake Resort Kingfisher advised staff regarding Crime

Prevention and community safety advice for upcoming resort season.

• Attended Enderby Cliffs car park spoke to motorists, ICBC Lockout auto crime

• Visited Grandview Bench community contact to discuss any area issues.

• Met with principle of Grindrod elementary school and discussed future programs.

• Met with Block Watch Captain in Grindrod to get updates regarding area issues.

• Coordinator visited local businesses in Electoral Area F to give advice regarding

Crime Prevention topics and Community Safety issues.

• Submitted Crime Prevention/Community Safety article to River Talk newsletter.

• Submitted Crime Prevention/Community Safety article to Kingfisher newsletter.

• Speed Watch performed on 1 occasion on Mabel Lake Rd Kingfisher.

• Speed Watch performed on 1 occasion on Mabel Lake Rd Ashton Creek.

• Speed Watch performed on 1 occasion in Grindrod during May.

• Attended Deep Creek / Mallory Rd / Gardom Lake, Rural Enderby Block Watch program and met with the Captain regarding increasing membership.

• Visited Block Watch Captain in Grandview Bench regarding increasing membership in the surrounding area and any community concerns.

• Met with Block Watch Captain in Mara to discuss any community concerns.

• Maintaining regular contact with the 7 Block Watch programs in area which gives the Coordinator access to over 209 households / family members by the email system and the Block Watch Captain set up.

• Coordinator visits area 1 day a week, split into 2 morning/afternoon periods.

I submit my Coordinators May monthly report and my May ICBC Speed Watch monthly report for your information and consideration,

Kind regards,

Roy Morgan.

Regional District of North Okanagan.

Crime Prevention & Community Safety Coordinator.

City of Vernon Protective Services

Page 7 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item C.1

ICBC SPEED WATCH MONTHLY REPORT for May 2015

RDNO Speed Watch PROGRAM COORDINATOR: Roy Morgan

PHONE: 250-550-7845 FAX: 250-260-5866 E-MAIL: [email protected]

Locations

(Intersection/ Corridor/

Highway)

Pleasant Valley Road

Vernon Christian school B

Pottery Road,

Hillview school B

Silver Star Rd, BX school C

# of Speed

Watch

Deployments

2

2

2

Total

Vehicles

Checked

114

235

578

Over 10 km/h

1

0

1

# of deployments with police presence

(2 or 3 strikes)

# of tickets issued

0

2

0

135

0

1

East Vernon Road C

Mabel Lake Road, near JW

Inglis Elementary. Lumby D

Cherryville North Fork Road, near Elementary school. E

Highway 6E, near Franks store, Cherryville E

Highway 97N, Mara, near

Putula Recreation park. F

Mabel Lake Road, near Ashton

Creek store, Rural Enderby F

Grindrod, Highway 97S F

Mabel Lake Road, Kingfisher F

Grindrod 4 th

School zone F

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

16

65

0

39

72

32

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

TOTALS

13 1286 5

Total visibility hours

13

# of Warning Letters issued

0

Total admin hours

1.0

# of Active Volunteers

0

TOTAL HOURS

14

# of Seat Belt Surveys

0

Comments: Locations chosen close to school zones and communities concerns regarding speed.

Page 8 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 15-0022-F-LD

TO:

FROM:

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Planning Department

DATE: May 1, 2015

SUBJECT: Legal Document Request - Modification of Covenant KP036954

RECOMMENDATION:

That the request to modify Covenant KP036954 registered on the title of the property legally described as the S½ of the SW¼ of Sec. 3, Twp. 20, R9, W6M, KDYD, Except Plans 23082, 23688, and KAP49667 and located at 247 Black Road, Electoral Area “F” by authorizing the construction of ten (10) Agri-Tourism Campsites on the Non-Urban (N.U) zoned portion of the property be referred to a Public Hearing.

BACKGROUND:

This report pertains to a request by the owner of the +25 ha property legally described as the S½ of the SW¼ of Sec. 3, Twp. 20, R9, W6M, KDYD, Except Plans 23082, 23688, and KAP49667 and located at 247 Black Road, Electoral Area “F” to modify Covenant KP036954 by authorizing the construction of ten (10) Agri-Tourism Campsites within the Non-Urban (N.U) zoned portion of the property. The Regional District is designated as the Transferee on Covenant KP036954, which was required to be registered on the title of the subject property by the Board of Directors. Modifications to the covenant must therefore be authorized by the Board of Directors.

Previous Development Applications

A portion of the subject property and the adjacent property to the north was rezoned to Recreation

Commercial (C.5) in June 2000. The owner had applied to rezone the properties in order to construct a nine-hole golf course. During the consideration of the proposed zoning amendment, water supply, access, increased traffic, and potential land use conflicts were identified as areas of concern by both staff and through the Public Hearing process. The potential for large volumes of groundwater to be drawn for irrigation of the proposed golf course was the primary concern with respect to water supply.

Access concerns pertained primarily to the approximate 2.5 km section of Black Road between the properties and the intersection with Highway 97B to the west, which is narrow and has a number of steep sections and switchbacks with limited sight lines. The properties are also accessible from Hwy

97A and 97B to the east. The majority of Black Road east of the properties has a gravel surface.

As a means to address the above noted concerns, at the Regular Meeting of August 11, 1999, the

Board of Directors resolved that, as a condition precedent to consideration of adoption of the rezoning bylaw, that a covenant be registered on the titles of the properties to restrict the scope of commercial development to the operation and maintenance of a golf course including a club house and limited retail sales. Covenant KP036954 was subsequently registered against the whole of the properties, including both the Recreation Commercial (C.5) zoned area and the Non-Urban (N.U) zoned area.

Page 9 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

Legal Document Request - Modification of Covenant KP036954

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 1, 2015 Page 2

In addition, the Board further resolved that, prior to adopting the rezoning bylaw, a Hydrologist be retained to confirm that there are adequate water sources for the proposed golf course and that the use of these sources will not have a detrimental impact on downstream water users. In this regard,

Summit Environmental Consultants Ltd. prepared a report, dated November 1999, which explains that the proposed method of irrigation was to collect snowmelt and runoff in a number of existing dugouts and modified ponds on the subject property and to water only the greens and tees during July and

August. The report concluded that the proposed system of irrigation would not alter existing drainage patterns through the property, would have a negligible effect on groundwater recharge and streamflow, and should supply enough water to irrigate the golf course as planned although supplies may be limited in dry years. The report also noted that, of the six on-site ponds to be used for water storage, utilization of water from the two northernmost ponds would likely require a water licence as they are part of the stream system. The report concluded that water storage in five out of six on-site ponds should have no effect on downstream water quality. The use of barn effluent stored in one of the ponds could potentially affect downstream water quality and may pose a health risk to golfers if applied to the golf course. The Summit report notes that approvals from the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Health would be required to utilize the barn effluent for golf course irrigation.

Subsequent to the zoning amendment, a Commercial Development Permit (DP) with Variances, applicable to both properties, was also approved and issued. The DP provided for development of a nine-hole golf course, clubhouse with outdoor service only, an owner/operator dwelling, and a freestanding sign, while the variance permitted a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 150 to 60 and waived the requirement for paving and curbing of the parking and loading areas.

The files associated with the above noted applications do not contain any record of comments from the Ministry of Transportation.

In 2007, the applicant requested a modification to Covenant KP036954 to permit construction of 10 serviced and 10 unserviced RV camp sites at the golf course within the C.5 zoned area. The staff report to the Board of Directors outlined the access and water supply concerns and noted that development of a campground at the golf course would generate more traffic on Black Road which is not well-suited for use by larger recreational vehicles. The Ministry of Transportation had verbally commented in 2007 that a new intersection alignment was to be constructed at Highway 97B however the balance of Black Road would remain unchanged. The file associated with this request does not contain any further comments from the Ministry. In consideration of the above noted concerns, the

2007 staff report recommended that the covenant not be modified, however it was suggested that if the Board supported the proposed covenant modification, a Public Hearing should be held to solicit public comment. Following their consideration of the proposal, the Board of Directors denied the applicant’s request to modify the covenant.

Site Context

The westerly portion of the subject property is outside of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), is designated Commercial in the OCP, and is zoned Recreation Commercial (C.5). This area is currently developed as the Sonseeker Ridge Golf Course and includes an owner/operator dwelling within a manufactured home, and a clubhouse. Commercial development within the C.5 zoned area is limited to a golf course (and associated uses) by Covenant KP036954.

Much of the central/easterly portion of the subject property is within the ALR, and is designated

Agricultural in the OCP. The central/easterly portion of the subject property (both ALR and non-ALR) is zoned Non-Urban (N.U). This area is currently developed with a single family dwelling, a manufactured home, farm buildings and pasture land.

Page 10 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

Legal Document Request - Modification of Covenant KP036954

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 1, 2015 Page 3

The applicant’s submission states that the farm has been operated by the Black family for 88 years and currently they raise 26 beef cattle and 4 sheep with plans to add ducks, turkeys, chickens and pigs which they would raise organically. Aside from the golf course, farm and homesite area, the balance of the subject property is treed and undeveloped.

A surface water source (Thornton Spring) located on Crown Land approximately 1.5 km north of the applicant’s homestead area, is licensed to provide 4,546 litres (1000 Imperial gallons) of water per day. From the surface water source, water is collected in a 400 gallon tank from which it is piped to the barn where it is filtered and distributed to the three existing dwellings. Overflow water from the storage tank is stored in modified ponds and dugouts from which it is used for irrigation of the golf course greens, tees, and if excess water is available, other areas of the golf course. No water is applied to the rough or to areas within 100 yards in front of the tees.

A drilled well was constructed in 2006 to provide water to the clubhouse. The well report indicates the production rate of the well is 0.83 Imperial gallons per minute.

The property owner has informed the Planning Department that both the surface and groundwater sources are currently under a boil water requirement issued by Interior Health. The owner has advised that upgraded treatment systems will be installed on both sources to meet the drinking water standards of Interior Health.

The current use, ALR status, Official Community Plan designation, and zoning of surrounding properties are as follows:

• North: rural parcel, partially within the ALR, designated in the OCP as Agricultural, Commercial and Non-Urban and zoned N.U and C.5;

• South: rural parcels fronting the north and south sides of Black Road, partially within the ALR, designated in the OCP as Non-Urban and Agricultural, and zoned Non-Urban (N.U);

• East: rural parcels partially within the ALR, designated in the OCP as Non-Urban and

Agricultural, and zoned Non-Urban;

• West: rural parcels within the City of Salmon Arm;

• Southwest: rural parcels within the Columbia Shuswap Regional District – Electoral Area “D”

To the west of the subject property, Black Road crosses between Electoral Area “D” of the Columbia

Shuswap Regional District and the City of Salmon Arm. Approximately 2.5 km to the west, Black

Road intersects with Highway 97B within the southeast corner of the City of Salmon Arm.

The Proposal

The owner of the subject property proposes to develop up to ten (10) Agri-Tourism Campsites within the Non-Urban (N.U) zoned, ALR portion of the property. It is proposed that water for the campsites would be provided from the surface water source in accordance with the requirements of Interior

Heath and in accordance with the license terms under the Water Act. Initially, campsite users would have access to potable water from a tap at the barn and water hook-ups would be provided to two or three individual camp sites. The balance of the campsites would not have water hook-ups. The applicant is proposing that the three existing dwellings would continue to be serviced by the existing water licence, the clubhouse by the existing well and the golf course by the existing ponds.

With regard to sewage disposal, an on-site ‘sani-dump’ facility is proposed to be provided to service the campground in accordance with the Public Health Act or Environmental Management Act as applicable.

Page 11 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

Legal Document Request - Modification of Covenant KP036954

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 1, 2015 Page 4

Whereas Agri-Tourism Campsites are a permitted use within Electoral Area “F” on lands classified as

‘farm’ by the BC Assessment Authority, such use would not be permitted on the subject property due to the restriction imposed by Covenant KP036954. To facilitate an agri-tourism development consisting of 10 campsites, the property owner has submitted a request to modify the Covenant.

The following ortho (aerial) photo of the subject property was taken in 2007.

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:

In 2011, the RDNO’s legal counsel provided advice as to how the RDNO should proceed with requests to modify covenants which were considered, by both the public and elected officials, as a fundamental part of a previous OCP and/or rezoning process. Legal counsel advised that when the registration of a covenant was integral to the adoption of an Official Community Plan and/or zoning amendment bylaw, the views and interests of surrounding property owners and of the general public are relevant and best canvassed through an open public process.

In this regard, it is noted that a Public Hearing for the Zoning Amendment Bylaw was held on August

11, 1999 and that after the close of the Hearing, the Board of Directors gave Third Reading to the

Bylaw and resolved that Final Adoption of the Bylaw be withheld until a restrictive covenant was registered on the titles of the subject property “to restrict future subdivision, accommodation facilities, campgrounds, RV parks, rental cabins, hotels, motels, entertainment facilities (except a golf club house), recreation facilities (except for a golf course, putting course, and driving range), retail sales,

(except as accessory to a golf course use), and a service and repair use.” The covenant was registered in April 2000 and the Rezoning Bylaw was adopted in June 2000.

Page 12 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

Legal Document Request - Modification of Covenant KP036954

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 1, 2015 Page 5

In the interests of consistency with past practice and as previously advised by legal counsel, staff are recommending that if the Board supports the proposed covenant modification, a Public Hearing should be held to solicit public comment.

LEGAL/STATUTORY AUTHORITY:

The Board has discretion whether they desire to modify the Land Title Act Section 219 Restrictive

Covenant or not as the Regional District is designated as the Transferee on Covenant KP036954 and registration of the covenant was fundamental to the Board’s approval of the Zoning Text Amendment bylaw which facilitated development of the golf course.

ZONING BYLAW:

The subject property is zoned Non-Urban (N.U) and Recreation Commercial (C.5) in Regional District

of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003.

Uses permitted in the N.U zone include single and two family dwellings, manufactured homes, ancillary single family dwellings, accessory buildings and structures, accessory farm sales, bed and breakfast uses, boarding house uses, community care facilities, fruit and produce pickers’ cabins and work force housing units, home occupations, intensive and limited agricultural uses, packing houses, public parks and playgrounds, rapid infiltration and spray irrigation of treated effluent, resource uses, veterinary clinics, wineries and cideries.

Uses permitted in the C.5 zone include accommodation including campgrounds, cabins, hotels, motels, entertainment and recreation facilities, food service, water storage and bulk distribution facilities on same lot as water source, retail sales, service and repair, rapid infiltration and spray irrigation of treated sewage effluent, seasonal use, temporary accommodation use, shooting range including clubhouse facilities, one dwelling unit (including a Manufactured Home) for the owner, operator, or employee of the principal and permitted use and accessory buildings and structures.

Section 301.3 of the Zoning Bylaw permits Agri-Tourism Campsites within the ‘Westside’ boundary of

Electoral Area “B”, and Electoral Areas “D”, “E”, and “F”. With respect to the +25 ha subject property,

Agri-Tourism Campsites would be subject to the following regulations: a. Agri-Tourism Campsites must be accessory to the principal use. b. All or part of the parcel on which the campsites are located is classified as ‘farm’ by the BC

Assessment Authority. c. No more than 10 Agri-Tourism Campsites are permitted (on properties larger than 8 ha). d. The total developed area for buildings, landscaping and access for the campsites is less than 5% of the parcel. e. No one person shall stay within the campsite for more than 30 days in 1 calendar year.

In accordance with Zoning Bylaw Section 1301 - Campground Regulations, the construction or establishment of any Agri-Tourism Campsites must comply with the following Sub-Sections

(abbreviated):

1301.12 - Camping Spaces

Each space must: a) have a minimum area of 84 m

2

; b) accommodate only one trailer or tent; c) be no closer than 3 m to a campground roadway; d) be no closer than 7.5 m to the boundary of the campground; and e) have one conveniently located parking space adjacent to the campground roadway.

Page 13 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

Legal Document Request - Modification of Covenant KP036954

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 1, 2015 Page 6

1301.21 – Water Supply

The owner of a campground must provide a water supply system to furnish a constant supply of safe water in compliance with the Drinking Water Protection Act.

1301.22 – Sewerage Disposal

The owner of a campground must provide sewerage disposal facilities in accordance with applicable legislation and regulations.

1301.26 – Garbage Disposal

The owner of a campground must dispose of, or arrange for disposal of garbage or refuse.

In the event the Board of Directors authorizes the property owner’s request to modify Covenant

KP036954, a Campground Permit issued pursuant to above noted Campground Regulations would be required prior to construction of the Agri-Tourism Campsites.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:

Covenant KP036954 was registered on the title of the subject property and the adjacent property to the north (both located at 247 Black Road) in order to restrict the range of commercial uses that could potentially take place on the properties under the provisions of the C.5 zone. In this regard, Covenant

KP036954 was registered against the whole of the properties, including both the C.5 and N.U zoned areas. Registration of the Covenant was intended to address water supply and traffic concerns which were raised through the processing of an application which proposed to rezone the N.U zoned portion of the properties to C.5.

The owner of the +25 ha subject property (legally described as the S½ of the SW¼ of Sec. 3, Twp.

20, R9, W6M, KDYD, Except Plans 23082, 23688, and KAP49667) is requesting that Covenant

KP036954 be modified to allow for the construction of ten (10) Agri-Tourism Campsites within the

Non-Urban (N.U) zoned portion of the property. The proposed modification would not relax the restrictions of the Covenant except to allow a maximum of 10 campsites within the N.U zoned portion of the subject property.

Staff recommend that the applicant’s request to modify the restrictions imposed by Covenant

KP036954 be authorized subject to the modification being considered through a Public Hearing process. This approach would be consistent with legal advice and past practice when the registration of a covenant was a fundamental consideration of the Board of Directors during an associated zoning amendment process. The rationale for this recommendation is based on the following:

• Traffic concerns previously raised are acknowledged, however it is noted that the Zoning Bylaw currently permits Agri-Tourism Campsites within Electoral Areas “D”, “E”, and “F” as well as the

‘Westside’ area of Electoral Area “B” whereas such a use was not permitted back in 1999 when the property was proposed to be rezoned to C.5 and in 2007 when Covenant KP036954 was proposed to be modified to allow 20 R.V campsites. The Zoning Bylaw has been amended to allow such a use as it has been deemed, in part, that the traffic volume generated by up to 10

Agri-Tourism Campsites would be relatively low and that the roads within the designated Electoral

Areas would be suitable to service such uses.

It is also noted that Black Road is currently utilized by domestic and commercial vehicles of all sizes, that the intersection of Black Road and Hwy 97B has been upgraded since 2007 and that the Ministry of Transportation has advised that they support the current proposal. The files associated with the 1999 rezoning application and the 2007 covenant modification request do not indicate whether or not the Ministry supported those applications.

Page 14 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

Legal Document Request - Modification of Covenant KP036954

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 1, 2015 Page 7

• Water supply concerns previously raised are also acknowledged, however it is noted again that the Zoning Bylaw currently permits Agri-Tourism Campsites whereas such a use was not permitted back in 1999 or 2007. The Zoning Bylaw has been amended to allow such a use as it has been deemed, in part, that existing water sources on rural parcels would not likely be impacted by the water usage generated by up to 10 Agri-Tourism Campsites and that water sources used to service campsites would have to be approved by Interior Health.

Unlike most other rural parcels, the subject property is also permitted to have a golf course. As such, it is necessary to determine if the cumulative affect of using water for the existing golf course, clubhouse, dwellings and Agri-Tourism Campsites would have a negative impact on the use of neighbouring water sources. In this regard, it is noted that the dwellings on the subject property are currently serviced by a licensed surface water supply and that the golf course and clubhouse are respectively serviced by a system of on-site ponds and a well. The applicant is proposing to continue to service the existing dwellings, clubhouse and golf course with their current sources. The applicant is also proposing to service two to three campsites with individual water hook-ups along with one shared water tap, all of which would be serviced with treated

(potable) water from the existing licensed surface water supply. Overall, no new water sources are proposed to be used to service the uses on the property. In this regard, it is the opinion of staff that the use of the proposed water supply system would be unlikely to impact the use of neighbouring water sources. However, should the Board desire more information about the potential impact of the proposed water servicing system on neighbouring water sources, a resolution could be passed to require that a water supply assessment be prepared.

In the event that the Board authorizes amendment of the covenant as requested, prior to development of any campsites under the Agri-Tourism Accommodation provisions, the landowner must demonstrate compliance with the applicable Sub-Sections of Zoning Bylaw Section 1301 –

Campground Regulations.

SUMMARY:

The owner of the property legally described as the S½ of the SW¼ of Sec. 3, Twp. 20, R9, W6M,

KDYD, Except Plans 23082, 23688, and KAP49667 and located at 247 Black Road, Electoral Area “F” has submitted a legal document request to modify Covenant KP036954 which is registered on the title of the property. As a requirement of the Board of Directors, the Covenant was registered in conjunction with the 1999 Zoning Bylaw amendment process which rezoned a portion of the subject property to Recreation Commercial (C.5). The Covenant restricts the scope of commercial development that would otherwise be permitted under the C.5 zoning to only a golf course and associated uses. The Covenant also has had the effect of not permitting Agri-Tourism Campsites on the Non-Urban (N.U) zoned, ALR portion of the subject property.

In this regard, subject to the proposed covenant modification being considered through a Public

Hearing process, the Planning Department recommends that the Board of Directors support the applicant’s request to modify Covenant KP036954 such that a maximum of 10 Agri-Tourism

Campsites would be permitted on the Non-Urban (N.U) zoned, ALR portion of the subject property.

REFERRAL COMMENTS:

The applicant’s request to modify the terms of Covenant KP036954 was referred to the following for review and comment:

1. Electoral Area “F” Director

2. Electoral Area “F” Advisory Planning Commission

3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Page 15 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

Legal Document Request Modification of Covenant KP036954

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee- May 1, 2015 Page 8

4. Building Inspection Department

5. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

The Ministry supports the addition of 10 RV lots within the ALR portion of the property . The owner will requ i re a commercial access permit.

Submitted by:

~

·

Planner

Endorsed by:

Rob Smailes, MCIP, RPP

General Manager, Planning and Building

Reviewed by:

A

@ ey

~

Deputy Planning Ma n ger

Page 16 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

File:

Applicant:

Location:

E

LECTORAL AREA "F"

LEGAL DOCUMENT APPLICATION

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP

15-0022-F LD

Robert Black

247 Black Road

A

RD ~

)

I H f l l i t

....

TP . 20 Rge .

9 W6M

T ·

·~····

'0

0::

!:

0

~

/ p. lft\t

100

· 100

99

~AN

4168

I'\.AN2<

:0

52

·050·

39

.A'

'It

A tAN69 sw"

90 T93

76

Page 17 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

ELECTORAL AREA "F"

LEGAL DOCUMENT APPLICATION

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP- (ZONING BOUNDARIES)

File: 15-0022-F-LD

Applicant: Robert Black

Location: 247 Black Road

• ,

LH

T . 0

LH

~

Subject Property

'.

100

99

.

..

NU .

.........

L !

63

'f , v

51

.

TP .2

0

NU

I~ -

76

CR

C.5- Recreation Commercial

C .

R - Country Residential

L.H - Large Holding

N.U Non-Urban

S.H - Small Holding

Page 18 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.1

a

1

o

X )

"fvl

r'l

U

1

1tf'

Page 19 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.2

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN

MEMORANDUM

File No.: 15-0177-E-VWR

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Planning Department

May 19, 2015

Lot Frontage Waiver Request for the property legally described as

Lot 2, Sec 26 & 35, Twp 45, ODYD, Plan 24879 and located at 1377

Highway 6, Electoral Area 'E'

At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors on August 15, 2012, the Board adopted Policy No.

LU053 -Applications for Waivers of Lot Frontage which states that upon receipt of an application by a land owner, where the property is zoned Country Residential, Non-Urban or Large Holding and the proposed parcels (including remainder) provide at least 20 metres of lot frontage , the building site requirements of the Zoning Bylaw have been met and no variances are being requested, the application will be forwarded directly to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for consideration without the need for a staff report. In keeping with this Policy, the subject Lot Frontage Waiver

Application is forwarded for consideration to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee.

The owner of the subject property has applied for a subdivision which proposes to subdivide the property into two (2) lots of 2.97 ha and 2 .

02 ha. An existing single family dwelling , domestic water well , and septic system would be contained within the 2 .

97 ha lot. A new driveway connected to

Highway 6 is proposed to access the existing single family dwelling. An existing ancillary single family dwelling, domestic water well, septic system , and driveway connected to Highway 6 would be contained within the 2.02 ha lot.

The subject property is generally flat and the applicant has submitted the attached site plan which demonstrates that driveways and building sites within the proposed two lots would comply with the building site and private driveway access requirements of Section 310 of the Zoning Bylaw.

The subject Lot Frontage Waiver Application requests that the Board of Directors waive the ten percent minimum lot frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of the Regional District of North Okanagan

Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 for the property legally described as Lot 2, Sections 26 and 35, Twp 45,

ODYD, Plan 24879 and located at 1377 Highway 6, Electoral Area "E" by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot 1 from 103.44 metres to 79.151 metres and by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot

2 from 88.93 metres to 58.0 metres as shown on the site plan attached to the Planning Department memorandum dated May 19 , 2015 .

Submitted by:

~ ni ~~

Planner

Approved by:

A

~

y

~

Deputy Planni n g M : r

Page 20 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.2

ELECTORAL AREA "E"

LOT FRONTAGE WAIVER REQUEST APPLICATION

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP

File: 15-0177-E-WVR

Applicant: Elvera & Eric Silchenko

Location: 1377 Hwy 6

i

RD ~

E .

1 320 ' o f S1 / 2

A B

Page 21 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.2

ALL [

T A N C £5 ARE

II ~

IAfTRE S .

\

\

~

-y-<)

'%.

~

~

~

I

\

\

\

LOT 3

PLAN 24879

PROPOS[()

LOT 1

"'

2.97 ha

,,

~i

LOT 1

PLAN 24879

....

....

.... ....

....

......

....

....

----...........

....

......

...... ......

......

....

....

~ f""""'"hJ

0

._..

50

100

I

150

- - -

SKETCH PLAN OF PROPOSED

SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, PLAN

2

4879,

SEC 26 AND 35, TP 45, ODYD

91890K O O

SCALE :

1 : 2 500

OUR FILE:

R9789

DATE:

7 tv1oy 2015

DRAWN

RB

Sil c henko

- - - - - --1

WILLIAM E. MADDOX

B.C. LAND SURVEYOR

.3500 30th STREET

VERNON, B.C. V1T SE8 rELEPHONE (250)542-4343

Page 22 of 100

ALL DI S TAI\ CES ARE IN METRES.

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.2

I

I

I

I

l.

I

I

I

-

!~·Orn

----

0

CHIC< F.I\.

PRO P:~;D

PROPOSED

L OT 1

2.97 he

/a5,.,., r ---~

L?

T 2

Z.vl' ho

I lJ'COVE RED

S TORAGE

/' .-1

LO T 3

PLAN

2 4879

I

1

, /

/

,' THAN 2% GR ADE) ·..

I

1

/

L

- -

2000 m

2

WELL

\ o ..

8

..

,'

1

---, ... __

/ /

~

----- '

'-

I

'

J

'

, ·:

I

1

1

I

1

1 '

I I I

-.·_ /

1 :

C;'J

/

'wl l al

L O T 1

l

IQ/

- - '-==-+-

I I

I I

,

"<

/};I i£

1

Q-

0

1-t-j

~

~ lkJ I

,c.'

,

I

I I

<t-

I I ";'

't.u

......_

Q

"-1"-t,

I

f -

-

=:'\.

\

\

1

(E

I"-.

fcf

I Q I

if::{,

1

01 /

"-..'<"

&' /-)

'-y~,f

I

-t

-y-

'G.>

-D

\

\

*

- -

\

- - -

Q;,

,

1 §; 1

If) ,

I · I

...5:.: _ _

, .._,

{

w

-+_>::-1

~ :

~

I

~~

:>

,

1

SRW P LAN A 1143

I

~

' if'

, v

' P

~

I

::>

I Q I

-<{ f ~ , 1

~~~

.....

1 5!:!

,

'Ci'

I 1

- \ -

\

_ _ _ _ r

__l

'

I

I I

~--t-

1

- - -

P LAN

248 79

I

1

I

I

I I

I I

I

I \

J

I /

\

.

..

.

.

.2J

.

I

I

I

··· ·---

.,""

:,..,..

...-"'

<

/

/

.<...~-i"

<v-'~',g c,'V / ·..

)i (;~·· l-----

-"

:

-

Y /

~~---

···....

.

;_~J.Jrr,

\ EX I ST ING

1 . . . . . •• ••

/ / c, ' ,

r;y

-._

)-.

9D

,

~

',"-.J.

'.,"3

E

• ..

_J l.s.

··--~

I

I

1

· -• •

~~ -~ 7 · ···jxb.rf'

,' B .O

rn

..

I

1ii a · ,L-~P.

·

rn

T

t

.

• 2.;z,.,.,

1

I

... ,.._-

/

THAN

E XIS T i r-.tG I

DISPOSA L I

F I ELD ,

...

2%

-~ .-:~-L

GRADE )

~---

,:

-~ ~

1

1

I

..!.~

2000 m2 /

I

I

I

..

~

\t

\

~

\

: ------(

UP

, j

I

,,

1

"'

--~:;~

EX I ST I NG'JJ,'

BUI LDABLE

.' ARE A ( L ESS

CAB I N

1

1

/"'• ,.,. .... BUILDABLE · .

/ /,-

AR EA (LE SS \

79.15

1

\

58.000

'

I

I

I I

I I

I

I

I

I

I I

I 1

!

1

I

-2%

I

I

I

I

5rn

;

/ /

1

~

1

· t-.

MAX FI LL 1Om

'

-

-i -

FENCE

I 1

I

1

I

I

',

I I

L

5

-

SHO ULDER

1

f""")

1 ...:

I I'")

0/H

WI RES

- -

U P1

1

1

'-

= ~~-

~

--=_ ---=-~ ~-=~ = -_ =--= ~

--x~~Gi

-

9fp~yf~N~

-

1

= ~:~~ ::=;--=~-= ~=

---

--~ ~ -:

9 m

28m

@

2%

I

:r--

HIGHW AY No. 6

0 1 0 2 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

SI TE PLA N OF PA R T O F P ROPOSED

S UBD iVISIO N OF L O T 2 , P LAN 248 79,

S E C 26 AND 35, T P 45, OD Y D

9 7 89010 0

SC ALE:

1 : '100 0

OU R FILE:

R9789

DAlE:

1 9 Ma y 20 15

D R A WN :

RB

S ilc h e nk o

WILLIAM E. MADDOX

B.C. LAND SURVEYOR

3500 30th STREET

VERNON , B .

C. V1T 5E8

TELEPHONE (250)542 4343

Page 23 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.2

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES:

CITY OF ARMSTRONG

DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM

CITY OF ENDERBY

VILLAGE OF LUMBY

TOWNSHIP OF SPALLUMCHEEN

CITY OF VERNON

OFFICE OF : PLANNING DEPARTMENT

February 24, 2015

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

4791 23 rd

Street

Vernon, BC V1T 4K9

Dear Desiree Lantenhammer:

ELECTORAL AREAS:

“B” – SWAN LAKE

“C” – B.X. DISTRICT

“D” – LUMBY (RURAL)

“E” – CHERRYVILLE

“F” – ENDERBY (RURAL)

YOUR FILE No.: 2015-00298

OUR FILE No.:

PID No.:

15-0014-E-SUB

005-792-282

Re: Proposed subdivision of the property legally described as Lot 2, Secs 26 and 35,

Twp 45, ODYD, Plan 24879 and located at 1377 Highway 6, Electoral Area “E

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the subdivision application for the above described property which was forwarded to this office for comment on January 20, 2015. In this regard, please be advised that the following conditions would need to be met in order for the proposed plan of subdivision to comply with the applicable Bylaws of the Regional District:

1. Highway 6 must be dedicated a minimum of 12.5 from the centreline adjacent to the proposed lots in accordance with the requirements of Section 402 of the Regional District of North

Okanagan Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 2600, 2013 and Section 10.2.2 of the Electoral “D” and “E” Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2485, 2012. Section 402 of the Subdivision

Servicing Bylaw also requires that Highway 6 be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

2. Building Permits must be obtained for buildings on the subject property which have been constructed without the Regional District’s approval. In this regard, the Building Inspector has advised that a residential building may have been constructed without the approval of Building

Permit on the north side of the subject property near the Shuswap River. To resolve this matter, the applicant can call the Building Department at 250-550-3728.

3. The use of land, buildings and structures on the proposed lots must comply with the permitted use of land, buildings and structures as outlined in Section 802.1 of the Regional District of

North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003.

4. The number and size of buildings on the proposed lots must comply with the maximum number and size of buildings per lot as outlined in Sections 802.2 and 802.10.b of Zoning

Bylaw No. 1888.

5. The proposed lots must comply with the 2 ha minimum lot size requirement of the Country

Residential (C.R) zone as outlined in Section 802.5 of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888.

6. Existing buildings and structures on the proposed lots must meet the setback requirements of

Sections 802.9 and 1601 of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888 with respect to new lot lines.

Regional District of North Okanagan

9848 Aberdeen Road

Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9

Page 24 of 100

Phone: 250-550-3700

Fax: 250-550-3701

Web: www.rdno.ca

E-Mail: [email protected]

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.2

MoTI File No. 2015-00298 – RDNO File No.15-0014-E-SUB

February 24, 2015

7. The proposed lots must comply with the minimum lot frontage requirement of the Country

Residential (C.R) zone as outlined in Section 802.7 of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888. Section 802.7 requires that lots have a frontage of not less than one-tenth of the perimeter of the lot. In this regard, a BC Land Surveyor will need to determine if the required lot frontages can be met. If they cannot be met, the subdivision layout would need to be revised in order to conform with this requirement or the proposal would require the Regional District’s approval of a lot frontage waiver request. To process such a request, the applicant would need to submit a letter to the Regional District requesting consideration of a lot frontage waiver along with the required processing fee.

8. Each proposed lot must have a building site and on-site driveway that meets the building site and private driveway access requirements of Section 310 of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888.

9. The proposed subdivision must comply with the Riparian Areas Regulation Provisions as outlined in Section 1702 of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888.

10. The subject property is identified in the Electoral Area “D” and “E” Official Community Plan

Bylaw No. 2485, 2012 as a Development Permit Area for the Protection of the Natural

Environment (Shuswap River). As such, the proposed subdivision requires that approval of a

Development Permit unless otherwise exempted under the provisions of Section 12.2.6 of the Official Community Plan.

11. Payment of $500 Development Cost Charge must be made in accordance with the requirements of the White Valley Parks and Recreation District Development Cost Charge

Bylaw No. 1390.

12. Submission of the final plan of subdivision prepared by a BC Land Surveyor is required for final review against all relevant bylaw regulations.

In accordance with Section 305 of Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 2600, the above noted comments are valid for 18 months from the date of this letter.

If you have any questions or require any further information, please call Caren Walker, Planning

Technologist at (250) 550-3745.

Sincerely,

Greg Routley

Deputy Planning Manager

/cw

Attachment cc: Building Department

Eric and Elvera Silchenko

Director Cameron

Electoral Area “E” Advisory Planning Commission

Regional District of North Okanagan

9848 Aberdeen Road

Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9

Page 25 of 100

Phone: 250-550-3700

Fax: 250-550-3701

Web: www.rdno.ca

E-Mail: [email protected]

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT

:

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 10-0497-F-OR

Board of Directors

Planning Department

May 25, 2015

Electoral Area "F" Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.

2477 and Rezoning Bylaw No. 2478 [Tony’s Tire c/o Vetter]

RECOMMENDATION:

That the referral process outlined in the Planning Department report dated May 25, 2015 be considered appropriate consultation for the purposes of Sections 879, 881 and 882 of the Local

Government Act with regard to Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.

2477, 2011 which proposes to amend the land use designation of the property legally described as

Lot 1, Sec 14, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 2168, Except Plans 21604, 23402 and H10220 and located at 64 Highway 97B, Electoral Area “F” from Agricultural to Country Residential; and further,

That Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2477, 2011 which proposes to amend the land use designation of the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 14, Twp 19, R9, W6M,

KDYD, Plan 2168, Except Plans 21604, 23402 and H10220 and located at 64 Highway 97B, Electoral

Area “F” from Agricultural to Country Residential, be given Second Reading and referred to a Public

Hearing; and further,

That Rezoning Bylaw No. 2478, 2015 which proposes to rezone the property legally described as Lot

1, Sec 14, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 2168, Except Plans 21604, 23402 and H10220 and located at 64 Highway 97B, Electoral Area “F” from the Non-Urban (N.U) zone to the Country Residential

(C.R) zone be given First and Second Readings and referred to a Public Hearing.

BACKGROUND:

This report relates to an application to change the Official Community Plan (OCP) land use designation of the property located at 64 Highway 97B from Agricultural to Country Residential and to amend the zoning of the subject property from Non-Urban to Country Residential. If approved, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two 2.0 ha lots.

Application History

In December 2009, the applicant applied to subdivide the 4.17 ha (10 acre) subject property to create a total of three (3) lots. In response to the subdivision referral, the Planning Department advised the

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) that the proposed subdivision did not comply with

7.2 ha minimum parcel size of the Non-Urban (N.U) zone. The Ministry subsequently advised the applicant that the proposed subdivision was not approved as: approvals had not been received from

Interior Health regarding on-site sewage disposal; the size of the proposed lots would not comply with the minimum parcel size requirement of the Non-Urban (N.U) zone; the lots would not be provided with access other than direct access from Hw 97B; and the land may be subject to natural hazard(s).

Page 26 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

Electoral Area "F" Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2477 & Rezoning Bylaw No. 2478

Report to Board of Directors

,

May 25, 2015 Page 2

In July 2010, the applicant subsequently revised their proposed three (3) lot subdivision to a two (2) lot subdivision and applied for the OCP and Zoning amendments which are the subject of this report.

In response to the second subdivision referral, the Planning Department advised MoTI that the proposed subdivision did not comply with the 7.2 ha minimum parcel size of the Non-Urban (N.U) zone and that the applicant had applied to rezone the property in order to resolve this issue.

At the Regular Meeting of December 8, 2010, the Board of Directors reviewed the OCP/Rezoning application and directed staff to prepare an OCP Amendment Bylaw. The Board also resolved that the applicant be required to hold a Public Information Meeting prior to further consideration of the

OCP Amendment Bylaw and that a Public Hearing on the Bylaw not be held until the applicant had provided a report verifying that water of sufficient quantity and quality is available year round to service the proposed lot and that the extraction of water from the proposed water supply will not deplete the water supply of neighbouring wells.

At the Regular Meeting of February 2, 2011, the Board of Directors gave First Reading to Elecotral

Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2477 and, in accordance with the Local

Government Act, Bylaw No. 2477 was forwarded for review and comment to Okanagan Indian Band,

Splatsin First Nation, School District No. 83, and the Regional District Chief Financial Officer and

Regional Engineering Services Manager (for consideration of the Bylaw in conjunction with the

Financial Plan and Waste Management Plan).

In 2012 the applicant advised the Planning Department that discussions had been underway with the

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding the potential to allow left turns from Highway

97B to the property. The applicant requested that the OCP/Rezoning application be kept open as they believed a resolution to the highway access issue would be reached.

In February of this year, MoTI advised the Planning Department that they were in receipt of a new subdivision layout from the applicant which included adjustments to the proposed driveway alignment and lot lines. In addition, the applicant hosted a Public Information Meeting in March 2015 and has submitted a report regarding the quantity and quality of water available to service the proposed new parcel. In this regard, the Planning Department has brought forward the OCP and Zoning

Amendment Bylaws for further consideration by the Board of Directors.

DISCUSSION:

Public Information Meeting

In follow-up to the Board’s direction, and consistent with the RDNO Public Information Meeting (PIM)

Guide, the applicant held a Public Information Meeting from 3:00 to 5:00 PM on Saturday, March 21,

2015 at the Enderby Legion Hall. The applicant reports having spoken to four of the surrounding property owners in conjunction with the PIM notification process. No issues, objections, or concerns were noted by the applicant’s account of these conversations. Staff have reviewed the applicant’s

PIM information which includes a list of property owners within 100 m of the subject property who were mailed notification regarding the PIM, a copy of the notification letter, copies of the newspaper ad which ran in the March 4 and March 11, 2015 editions of the Okanagan Advertiser, a sign-in sheet, mail-in comment sheet, minutes of the meeting, and copies of information made available at the meeting (site photos, plan of proposed subdivision and driveway access plan). The applicant reported that a meeting notification sign was posted on the property before the end of February. The applicant noted that information regarding the proposed OCP amendment, rezoning and subdivision was displayed at the Public Information Meeting and the three co-owners of the property were in attendance and prepared to conduct a presentation of the proposal. The applicant reports, however, that no members of the public attended the meeting.

Page 27 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

Electoral Area "F" Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2477 & Rezoning Bylaw No. 2478

Report to Board of Directors

,

May 25, 2015 Page 3

One mail-in comment sheet was submitted to the Regional District from a neighbouring land owner who noted that their only concerns were that there be no negative impact on either the quantity or quality of their drinking water, supplied by a spring fed well, and that Twigg Creek, which passes through their property, remain unaltered.

Water Supply Report

On April 30, 2015, the applicant submitted a report entitled “Surface Water Quality Assessment” prepared by Kala Geosciences Ltd.

1 which explains the applicant’s proposal to utilize South Twigg

Creek, which flows through the subject property, as a drinking water source. The applicant currently holds a domestic water licence which allows for the removal of 1,000 Imperial Gallons per day from the creek. Kala contacted the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations regarding the licence and the ability for it to be apportioned separately through subdivision. The Ministry advised Kala that the licence can be apportioned to two lots for the purpose of subdivision however a water licence amendment would be required.

With respect to water quantity, Kala reports that at the time of testing (April 9, 2015), South Twigg

Creek had a flow rate of 0.057 m

3

/second or 1,084,300 Imp. Gallons per day. In this regard, the flow rate of the creek was 1,084 times as large as the water licence rate of 1,000 Imp. Gallons per day.

The Kala report does not explicitly address the Board of Directors’ direction that the applicant provide confirmation that water of sufficient quantity and quality would be available year round to service the proposed lot, nor does it confirm that the extraction of water from the proposed water supply will not deplete the water supply of neighbouring wells. However, it is to be noted that the requirement for a water report was based on the applicant’s original proposal to service the new lot with a new groundwater well. The applicant is no longer proposing to use a new well and instead is proposing to use an existing water licence.

The report prepared by Kala Geosciences Ltd. notes that at the time of subdivision, the applicant must provide written confirmation that a water licence will be issued pursuant to the Water Act that authorizes on a year round basis, a minimum quantity of 2,273 litres (500 Imperial Gallons) of water per day, per parcel. As such, it would not be necessary to increase the water allocation in order to service the proposed new lot.

The Regional District Subdivision Servicing Bylaw does not require licensed surface water sources to be tested to determine if water of sufficient quantity would be available year round to service the proposed lot, nor does it require testing to confirm that the extraction of water from the water supply would not deplete the water supply of neighbouring wells.

In the event that any problems arise regarding water supplies originating from South Twigg Creek or domestic wells in the area, the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations has advised the Planning Department that Section 88 of the Water Act enables the Ministry to inspect works and implement measures to resolve the concerns. Ministry officials anticipate that enactment of the Water Sustainability Act, expected to occur in 2016, will improve the process of review, approval and management of private domestic water supplies.

In considering the above, the Planning Department has not requested the applicant to update the report prepared by Kala Geosciences Ltd. in order to verify the capacity of the source or the impact its use would have on neighbouring wells. Such information could however be requested by the Board if it so desires.

1

Surface Water Quality Assessment for Subdivision Purposes Regional District of North Okanagan (“RDNO”)

23402, H10220, Kala Geosciences Ltd., (Kala Ref. L15023), April 29, 2015.

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

Electoral Area "F" Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2477 & Rezoning Bylaw No. 2478

Report to Board of Directors

,

May 25, 2015 Page 4

With respect to water quality, Kala reports that water samples were collected from South Twigg Creek and shipped to CARO Analytical Services in Kelowna for testing of chemical, physical, and microbiological parameters. The test results indicate that water quality of the creek meets the

Summary Guidelines of Canadian Drinking Water Quality 2014 (SGCDWQ-2014) for the parameters tested, with the exception of total coliforms. Kala notes that it is common that surface water is elevated with total coliforms and that the water from the creek is treatable. Kala advises that, to meet the SGCDWQ-2014, the water should be disinfected by chlorination or ultraviolet light.

In accordance with the RDNO Subdivision Servicing Bylaw, if a water source (other than a community water system) is determined to be not potable, but can be treated in such a manner that it becomes potable, a Section 219 Covenant must be registered on the title of the subject property stating that an occupancy permit for a dwelling will not be issued until a suitable treatment system has been installed to ensure a potable water supply.

CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS / REFERRAL COMMENTS:

Section 879 of the Local Government Act states that during the amendment of an OCP, the proposing local government must provide one or more opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities it considers will be affected.

Section 881 of the Local Government Act states that if a local government proposes to amend an

OCP for an area that includes any part of a school district, the local government must consult with the school district board at the time of preparing or amending the OCP.

Section 882 of the Local Government Act requires that, after First Reading, the local government consider an Official Community Plan amendment bylaw in conjunction with its Financial Plan and any applicable waste management plan.

In accordance with Sections 879, 881 and 882 of the Local Government Act, following First Reading of OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2477, the Bylaw was forwarded for review and comment to various agencies and First Nations, including the Okanagan Indian Band, Splatsin, School District No. 83, and the Regional District Chief Financial Officer and Regional Engineering Services Manager.

No responses have been received in conjunction with this referral process.

SUMMARY:

This report relates to an application to change the Official Community Plan land use designation of the property located at 64 Highway 97B from Agricultural to Country Residential and to rezone the property from Non-Urban (N.U) to Country Residential (C.R). If approved, the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two 2.0 ha lots.

The applicant has hosted a Public Information Meeting in accordance with the Regional District Public

Information Meeting Guide and has submitted a report prepared by a Hydrogeologist regarding the quantity and quality of water available to service the development and the steps to be taken to ensure that the water source would be properly licensed and treated to meet safe drinking water standards.

In consideration of the above, the Planning Department recommends that Electoral Area “F” Official

Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2477 be given Second Reading and that Rezoning Bylaw

No. 2478 be given First and Second Readings and that the Bylaws be forwarded to a Public Hearing.

Page 29 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

Electoral Area "F" Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No . 2477 & Rezoning B y law No . 2478

Report to Board of Directors , May 25 , 2015 Page 5

Reviewed by: Submitted by:

L-7J~

Mamie J. Skoba l ski , MCIP, RPP

Planner

Endorsed by:

~ ~

~~~~

p

------­

ning and Building

Page 30 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

ELECTORAL AREA "F"

OCP/REZONING APPLICATION

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP

File: 10-0497-F-OR

Applicant: Tony’s Tire c/o Browne Johnson Land Surveyors

Location: 64 Highway 97B

REM

I l'lAN 7426

Subject

REM 1

PLAN 23960

I

A

Pt.A'II 3837~

A f'LA N 31730

81013

Page 31 of 100

u a>

(/)

......

LLJ

(/)

E a>

0:::

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

Sketch Plan of Proposed Subdivision of

Lot 1, Sec 14, Tp 19, R 9,

W6M, KDYD, Plan 2168

Except Plans 21604, 23402 and H1 0220

Scale 1:1000

Nl

dlatanC88 ""'

In

BCGS 82L.065

~

a

~ ~

E-3E==c~E-3==~~E-3==~============~1====~======~1 metr.... \

\

130 "

N

0

I")

I

I

c: c

0:::

SW1/4

Sec 14

r..,

I I

I

I l

I \

I

I

j

Rem

(

/

I

I

I

I

I

LEGEND

---·-·-·- top of ditch

---·-·-·- 3m beyond top

1m beyond top

\

\

\

Total area of Lot

=

40778m'2

Total road dedication

=

1402m2

Remainder of Lot

=

39376m2

\

\

\

\

\

Total area of Lot

=

40778m2

Total road dedication

=

770m2

Remainder of Lot

=

40008m2

Required area for 2 lots zoned

CR 2 x 20000m2

=

40000m2

05 \

~\

~ \

\

\

3(n beyond top 11om2

1 beyond top 26m2

\

~ ,

($) \ p;c:,;od

\

----=-::

~ _ .

/

.

.

0 /

\

\

~

-& \

? \

\

\

0 ~

\

\

3 ,\, beyond?top

\ 12921'Tl""" at \ op 744m2

0

...

-~--

/

\

\

1

\

~-=

\

I

'

~ OO

'A

a

\

)

I

'l

I

- 190.7

--

/

I

-

1 .5 .9

\

\

~

I" o>o;~

\ t'::l

~

October 27, 2014

0' ,..

\

\

\

\

\

\

\

95 \

BROWN£ JOHNSON LAND SURVE:YORS

B. C. AND CANADA LANDS

SALMON

ARM, B.C. Ph.250-BJ2-9701

File: J94-14 (2J7-10)

Page 32 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

BYLAW NO. 2477

A bylaw to amend Electoral Area "FOfficial Community Plan Designation Bylaw

No. 1934, 2004 and amendments thereto

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 876 [Authority to adopt a bylaw] of the Local Government Act,

R.S.B.C., 1996, Chapter 323, as amended, and Regulations passed pursuant thereto, the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan may, by Bylaw, adopt one or more official community plans;

AND WHEREAS the Board has enacted the Electoral Area 'F' Official Community Plan

Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2004 and amendments thereto to provide a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management, within the area covered by the plan;

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 895 [Development approval procedures] of the Local

Government Act, the Board must, by bylaw, define procedures under which an owner of land may apply for an amendment to an Official Community Plan and must consider every application for an amendment to the plan;

AND WHEREAS the Board has enacted the ”Regional District of North Okanagan Development

Application Procedures and Administrative Fees Bylaw No. 2315, 2008 and amendments

thereto“ to establish procedures to amend an Official Community Plan, a Zoning Bylaw, or a

Rural Land Use Bylaw, or to issue a Permit:

AND WHEREAS the Board is desirable and expedient to amend “Electoral Area 'F' Official

Community Plan Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2004”.

NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan, in open meeting assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

CITATION

1. This Bylaw may be cited as “Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment

Bylaw No. 2477, 2011”.

AMENDMENTS

1. The Official Community Plan marked Schedule “B”, attached to and forming part of the

Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2004 and

amendments thereto” is amended by changing the designation of the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 14, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 2168, Except Plans 21604,

23402 and H10220, located at 64 Highway 97B, from Agricultural to Country Residential.

Read a First Time

Bylaw considered in conjunction with the

Regional District Financial Plan and Waste

Management Plan

Read a Second Time

this this

Page 33 of 100 this

2nd

2nd day of day of day of

February, 2011

February, 2011

,2015

Bylaw No. 2477

Advertised on

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

Page 2 of 2 this this day of day of

, 2015

, 2015 this day of , 2015 Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of

Section 890 of the Local Government Act

Read a Third Time

ADOPTED

this this day of day of

, 2015

, 2015

Chair Deputy Corporate Officer

Page 34 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

BYLAW No. 2478

A bylaw to rezone lands and amend the Zoning Map attached to the Regional District of North

Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 to change a zone designation

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 903 [Zoning bylaws] of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C.,

1996, Chapter 323, as amended, and Regulations passed pursuant thereto, the Board of the

Regional District of North Okanagan may, by Bylaw, divide the whole or part of the Regional

District into zones, name each zone, establish boundaries for the zones and regulate uses within those zones;

AND WHEREAS the Board has created zones, named each zone, established boundaries for these zones and regulated uses within those zones by Bylaw No. 1888, being the “Regional

District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003” and amendments thereto;

AND WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 895 [Development approval procedures] of the Local

Government Act, the Board must, by bylaw, define procedures under which an owner of land may apply for an amendment to a Zoning Bylaw and must consider every application for an amendment to the bylaw;

AND WHEREAS the Board has enacted the “Regional District of North Okanagan Development

Application Procedures and Administrative Fees Bylaw No. 2315, 2008 and amendments

thereto” to establish procedures to amend an Official Community Plan, a Zoning Bylaw, or a

Rural Land Use Bylaw, or to issue a Permit:

AND WHEREAS the Board has received an application to rezone property;

NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Regional District of North Okanagan, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

CITATION

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the “Rezoning Bylaw No. 2478, 2015”.

AMENDMENTS

1. That the property legally described as: Lot 1, Sec 14, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 2168,

Except Plans 21604, 23402, and H10220 and located at 64 Highway 97B, Electoral Area

“F”, be rezoned from the Non-Urban Zone [N.U.] to the Country Residential Zone [C.R].

2. That the Zoning Map, being Schedule “A” to Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be amended accordingly.

Read a First and Second Time

Advertised on this this this

Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of

Section 890 of the Local Government Act

Page 35 of 100 this day of day of day of day of

, 2015

, 2015

, 2015

, 2015

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.3

Page 2 of 2 Bylaw No. 2478

Read a Third Time

Approved by Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure

(Transportation Act s. 52(3))

this this day of day of

, 2015

, 2015

ADOPTED

this day of , 2015

Chair Deputy Corporate Officer

Page 36 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES:

CITY OF ARMSTRONG

DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM

CITY OF ENDERBY

VILLAGE OF LUMBY

TOWNSHIP OF SPALLUMCHEEN

CITY OF VERNON

ELECTORAL AREAS:

“B” – SWAN LAKE

“C” – B.X. DISTRICT

“D” – LUMBY (RURAL)

“E” – CHERRYVILLE

“F” – ENDERBY (RURAL)

OFFICE OF: PLANNING DEPARTMENT

May 13, 2015

«AddressBlock»

«GreetingLine»

OUR FILE No.: 3045.12.00

Re:

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

VIA EMAIL

The North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 was developed over a four year period (2007-2011) and was adopted by the Board of Directors on September 21, 2011.

Since adoption, the majority of municipal and Electoral Area Official Community Plans (OCP) have been reviewed, a number of major planning projects have been undertaken and regional priorities have shifted. The RGS has not been amended since it was adopted in 2011, although the local, regional, provincial and national context has changed significantly since 2007.

The Local Government Act outlines that a review of the RGS must be considered every 5 years and the Board of Directors is desirous to undertake a review and has directed staff to prepare draft

Terms of Reference for the review. The Board of Directors supported the initiation of the RGS 5-

Year Review on February 4, 2015 and at the Board of Directors meeting on May 6, 2015, the following resolution was passed:

That a letter be sent to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, adjacent regional districts and First Nations notifying of the initiation of the Regional

Growth Strategy 5-Year Review; and further,

That the Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference be referred to member municipal Councils and the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for review and comment.

Two grant applications have been submitted to the Federal Gas Tax Strategic Priorities Fund and

Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia to financially support the planning process. If the grant funding applications are not successful, the timeframe, scope and process of the Review will need to be reconsidered.

Attached is the staff report accompanied by the draft terms of reference for the RGS 5-Year Review that was provided to the Board of Directors at their meeting on May 6, 2015. Please review and provide comments to our office by June 30, 2015 to [email protected]

. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, please call the undersigned at (250) 550-3736.

Yours truly;

Rob Smailes, MCIP, RPP

General Manager, Planning and Building

/ab

Enclosure

Regional District of North Okanagan

9848 Aberdeen Road

Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9

Page 37 of 100

Phone: 250-550-3700

Fax: 250-550-3701

Web: www.rdno.ca

E-Mail: [email protected]

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3045.12.00

TO:

FROM:

Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee

Planning Department

DATE: March 31, 2015

SUBJECT

:

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

RECOMMENDATION:

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, a letter be sent to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, adjacent regional districts and First Nations notifying of the initiation of the

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review; and further,

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft

Terms of Reference be referred to member municipal Councils and the Electoral Area Advisory

Committee for review and comment.

DISCUSSION:

The North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 was adopted on

September 21, 2011. The RGS focuses on developing healthy and sustainable communities, addressing environmental issues, encouraging a robust and diverse economy and enhancing natural and built environments.

The Board of Directors passed the following resolution on February 4, 2015:

That a Regional Growth Strategy Five-Year Review, beginning in 2016, be endorsed; and further,

That a Federal Gas Tax Strategic Priorities Fund application be prepared for the

Regional Growth Strategy Five-Year Review.

Over the last 3.5 years, the Regional District has undertaken 26 implementation actions based upon the priorities of the Board of Directors. Several of these actions resulted in the development of new plans, including the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, Regional Employment Lands Action Plan,

Regional Agricultural Area Action Plan and several other planning policy documents.

Outside of the RGS program, other initiatives are underway or have been completed including:

• Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan;

• Changes in Service Delivery, including Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture, and

Building Inspection Services;

• Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study;

• Various transportation planning initiatives; and,

• Numerous regional and local planning projects.

Page 38 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 2

As well, many of the Official Community Plans within the North Okanagan have undergone major reviews. The 2011 RGS was reflective of the OCPs in place around the region at that time.

The RGS provides the strategic framework and supporting policies to enhance future growth, development and change in the North Okanagan and to create sustainable communities envisioned by North Okanagan residents. The RGS is intended to respond to the uncertain nature of the future through clear and resilient principles, policies and actions. During the 5-Year Review, it is intended that the RGS maintains the overall planning framework already established and that the policies, as well as key issue areas, be reviewed to ensure that the North Okanagan remains a vibrant, healthy and successful region with compact, complete communities, a strong economy, a diverse natural environment, and a great place to live, work and play.

The purpose of the draft Terms of Reference is to provide a project work plan overview that identifies the key specific deliverables and introduces regional issues that may be included within the Review and will provide the background for the grant funding application.

The RGS 5-Year Review is a collaborative regional partnership initiative and the draft Terms of

Reference that will guide this process. It is recommended that member municipalities and EAAC be referred the Terms of Reference for review and comment prior to the initiation of the planning process in September 2015.

POTENTIAL REGIONAL ISSUES:

Since the RGS was adopted in 2011, 26 RGS implementation initiatives have been undertaken, local and regional planning and policy initiatives have been completed, the majority of OCPs in the region have been reviewed and updated, provincial and federal legislation has changed and the priorities of both the Board of Directors and member municipal councils have shifted. The RGS was developed to be a living document that will evolve over time to respond to changing regional context and priorities.

Several potential issues of regional significance have been identified for discussion.

Growth Areas:

The Growth Areas and the Rural Protection Boundary were established through review of the OCPs that were adopted or under development prior to 2011. The Regional Growth Strategy Support Team, made up on senior planning staff representing all communities, recommended that the Rural

Protection Boundary be reviewed every 5 years.

Since RGS adoption, the majority of OCPs have been reviewed, the Electoral Area Annexation Impact

Study (Phases I and II) has been completed and several other plans are under development, including the Employment Lands Action Plan and Regional Agricultural Area Plan.

Economic Development:

Regional collaboration on economic development was the top priority of the Board of Directors during the implementation of the RGS. Although the City of Vernon and Regional District have been collaborating on regional economic development initiatives, this has mostly been focused on employment lands.

The 5-Year Review provides the opportunity to build on the work that has been done and discuss regional collaborative approaches to economic development that reflect the regional vision while respecting, and enhancing, local aspirations.

Page 39 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 3

Employment Lands:

Although it was acknowledged that the Regional District was employment land constrained during the development of the RGS, the lack of available employment lands that can be developed in the near term has been further explored in collaboration with the City of Vernon. The recommendations that result from the Regional Employment Lands Action Plan should be considered during the RGS 5-Year

Review, including the possible introduction of a new regional Employment Lands designation.

Agriculture:

Agriculture has become a major focus during the implementation of the RGS, with numerous actions and plans undertaken over a 3.5 year period. The ongoing role of the Regional Agricultural Advisory

Committee (RAAC) and implementation of the Regional Agricultural Area Plan should both be considered during the 5-Year Review.

Fringe Management:

The RGS did not include urban/rural fringe management policies or attempt to address urban/rural fringe management concerns through Rural Protection Boundaries. This approach has not resolved disagreement regarding fringe management mechanisms between some of the regional partners. The

Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study: Phase II recommended the inclusion of fringe management policy and potential growth management implementation agreements through the RGS process. The

5-Year Review may provide the opportunity to explore the tools identified in the Annexation Study to resolve some these issues.

Watershed Planning and Water Resources:

The RGS provides very few policies that guide watershed planning. Over the last four years, watershed planning has been undertaken at the water utility level and at the sub-regional level through the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan. Within the Regional Agricultural Area Plan process, the regional Agricultural Water Balance Model has been expanded and updated to include both the Shuswap River and Okanagan Watersheds. In addition, the Province has changed the legislative approach to water resources through the Water Sustainability Act. These major changes in policy approach should be considered during the RGS Review.

Environmentally Sensitive Area:

The 2011 RGS provided strategic direction, including supporting goals and strategies, on a regional approach to environmentally sensitive areas. The first RGS implementation project that was supported by the Board of Directors was participation in the Okanagan Biodiversity Conservation

Strategy process. The results and deliverables of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy have been critical during OCP review processes, assisting in defining Development Permit approaches, initiatives and educational opportunities that help protect environmentally sensitive areas.

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy maps and recommended policies, as well as the biodiversity conservation approaches reflected in OCPs, should be considered during the 5-Year Review.

Parkland and Open Spaces:

The RGS currently has few regional policies that address parkland and open spaces from a collaborative perspective, although several changes in sub-regional park service delivery have occurred. As well, parkland acquisition funding challenges for sub-regional parks have been

Page 40 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 4 discussed in light of both the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways’ rail corridor discontinuance processes. Collaboration on regional parkland strategies, actions and approaches may be reconsidered in relation to some of these highlighted developments.

Transportation and Infrastructure:

The Transportation and Infrastructure section includes many goals and strategies that focus on transportation corridor management and integrated transportation planning. Although progress has been made on several of the strategies, a more regional approach to transportation planning has not emerged. The Province is undertaking both the 10-Year Transportation Plan and the Central

Okanagan Transportation Study (known as the Second Crossing) which may have long term impacts on the North Okanagan. Member municipalities are also undertaking local transportation planning and

Electoral Area transportation challenges have been identified since 2011, including road maintenance, hazardous condition issues and the need to balance transportation considerations with other community goals.

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE:

The current Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) was developed over a 4 year period (2007-2011) and was adopted by the Board of Directors on September 21, 2011. Since adoption, the majority of municipal and Electoral Area Official Community Plans (OCP) have been reviewed, a number of major planning projects were undertaken, regional priorities have shifted and 26 successful RGS implementation initiatives have been undertaken (Attached as Appendices A and B). The RGS has not been amended to date, although the local, regional, provincial and national context has changed significantly since 2007.

The Board of Directors supported the initiation of the RGS 5-Year Review on February 4, 2015. Staff propose that the general methodology for the Review is:

1. The Regional District use a similar Committee and Working Group structure that was developed during the 2007-2011 RGS process, including updated Terms of Reference for:

• Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee (RGMAC);

• Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC);

• Regional Growth Strategy Support Team (RGSST); and,

• Revised and Consolidated Growth Issues Working Groups (GIWG).

2. What is currently working within the 2011 RGS be retained and the focus of the review is on the areas that need further exploration.

3. The RGS is reflective of other plans and policy documents that have been completed, or are under development, since the beginning of 2011.

4. Address any issues, plans or policy gaps that are identified during the RGS evaluation and public consultation, including a review of regional land use designations and rural protection boundaries.

5. Create a robust implementation strategy, including effective action planning and reporting on

RGS progress.

Page 41 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 5

Purpose and Context of a Regional Growth Strategy:

The purpose of the RGS is to provide strategic direction and to define, at the regional scale, shared objectives and establish a policy context for the Regional District of North Okanagan, member municipalities and the Province in the areas of land use, housing, transportation, economic development, regional district services and parks and natural areas. The purpose of an RGS, formally set out in Part 25 of the Local Government Act, Section 849 is "to promote human settlement that is socially, economically and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land and other resources".

In addition, Section 849(2) suggests the RGS should work towards:

(a) avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner;

(b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit;

(c) the efficient movement of goods and people while making effective use of transportation and utility corridors;

(d) protecting environmentally sensitive areas;

(e) maintaining the integrity of a secure and productive resource base, including the agricultural land reserve;

(f) economic development that supports the unique character of communities;

(g) reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution;

(h) adequate, affordable and appropriate housing;

(i) adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement;

(j) protecting the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water;

(k) settlement patterns that minimize the risks associated with natural hazards;

(l) preserving, creating and linking urban and rural open space including parks and recreation areas;

(m) planning for energy supply and promoting efficient use, conservation and alternative forms of energy; and,

(n) good stewardship of land, sites and structures with cultural heritage value.

Key Elements of the North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy:

Part 25 the Local Government Act establishes the required content of a RGS. A regional growth strategy must cover a period of at least 20 years from the time of its initiation and must include the following:

(a) a comprehensive statement on the future of the region, including the social, economic and environmental objectives of the board in relation to the regional district;

(b) population and employment projections for the period covered by the regional growth strategy;

(c) to the extent that these are regional matters, actions proposed for the regional district to provide for the needs of the projected population in relation to

(i) housing,

(ii) transportation,

(iii) regional district services,

(iv) parks and natural areas, and

(v) economic development;

(d) to the extent that these are regional matters, targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the regional district, and policies and actions proposed for the regional district with respect to achieving those targets.

Page 42 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 6

The Board of Directors can expand on this list of growth issues. During the development of the RGS, urban containment and rural protection, agriculture and food systems and water stewardship were included as policy areas under consideration. The Board of Directors, based upon strategic priorities, could include additional topic areas for consideration, such as Quality of Life, Natural Hazards or

Health and Safety.

Objectives of the Regional Growth Strategy Review:

The overall project objectives include:

1. To ensure ongoing and inclusive public and stakeholder participation and communication for all phases of the project and to gain a level of regional general agreement at the completion of each phase of the project;

2. To undertake the Review in collaboration and partnership with the six member municipalities and five Electoral Areas;

3. To review all policy within the RGS to ensure conformity and consistency with Provincial policy;

4. To review all policy within the RGS to ensure that the current vision and regional goals and strategies remain a reflection of those of the regional partners and the community;

5. To review the RGS in relation to the results of the monitoring and evaluation program outcomes, as represented within the “5-Year State of the Region” report.

6. To review key policy areas to ensure the direction remains relevant and reflective of the land use, economic, demographic and employment trends within the Region; and

7. To develop key policy recommendations to revise, add, or remove policy within the existing

RGS document, where it has been identified by the Board of Directors that revisions and updates are necessary.

Key Questions:

The review of the nine regional growth issues should be guided by the following questions:

• How was the topic been addressed in the RGS, including relevant goals and policies, as well as implementation actions?

• Did the policies have the desired effect? What actually occurred since 2011 and what progress has been made relative to the indicators?

• What are the strengths of the RGS strategic approach, goals and actions?

• What have been the weaknesses of RGS goals and actions?

• What are opportunities to improve on what already exists in the RGS. This could include changes to existing policy, creating new policy, introducing new policy areas and improving the

RGS implementation approach.

These questions should be foundational to the RGS 5-Year Review approach taken.

Page 43 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 7

RGS 5-Year Review Process Management:

The RGS 5-Year Review process will be complex and extensive, involving many jurisdictions, various decision-making bodies, public consultation, stakeholder interests, a condensed timeline and a potentially challenging environment. Significant attention to detail will be required to manage the process effectively and ensure that it conforms to Part 25 of the Local Government Act, is reflective of the regional partners, Board of Directors, stakeholders and public vision and is undertaken in an open and transparent manner.

The following framework overview of how the process may be managed has been provided to assist in clarifying roles. Each of these positions and/or committees have established Terms of Reference.

Project Manager – Regional Planning Projects Manager

• Position assigned to lead and manage the actual process itself

• Reports to General Manager, Planning and Building, who oversees the process

• Responsible for preparing materials and reports throughout the process

• Drafting terms of reference, managing external consultants

• Supporting public communications

• Grant and funding applications

Steering Committee – Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee

• Key elected officials committee tasked with providing strategic direction throughout the process

• Represents all communities of the North Okanagan throughout the process

• Approval required prior to recommendation going forward to the Board of Directors

• Provide guidance during the review of the RGS

Technical Advisory – Regional Growth Strategy Support Team

• Comprised of Senior and/or Planning Staff from all jurisdictions

• Undertake review of issues and potential solutions that have been identified through the

Review process

• Recommend regional policies for inclusion in the RGS Amendment

• Provide local planning context to the process

• Ensure local planning interests are represented

Government Liaison – Intergovernmental Advisory Committee

• Opportunity for input from other governmental interests

• Ensure no conflicts with provincial and federal regulatory requirements and legislative jurisdiction

• Provides a forum for input from adjacent regional districts

• Builds relations between local and provincial staff that can lay a foundation for implementation agreements and other forms of mutual support

Political Input – Elected Officials Forum

• Opportunity for every elected official in the North Okanagan to participate

• Will include all local governments and First Nations in the Region

• Held at key decision points within the process to determine level of general agreement regarding strategic direction and RGS policy recommendations

Page 44 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 8

Decision-making – Board of Directors

• Ultimately responsible for strategic direction, policy contents and adoption of the RGS

Amendment

• Provide clarity and political direction from a regional perspective

• Prior to bylaw adoption all affected local governments (member municipalities and adjacent regional districts) must accept the RGS. The Board of Directors is recommended to include within the process the need for support of the Electoral Area Advisory Committee prior to RGS adoption

Proposed Proc e ss and Timeline

Should the Board of Directors support the draft RGS 5-Year Terms of Reference, including Work Plan outline, the review could be conducted over an 18 month period through a four (4) phase process.

This process is scheduled to begin in September 2015 with the draft RGS Amendment expected to be brought forward to Board of Directors for adoption at the end of February 2017.

The first 6 months (Phase 1) would focus on conducting background research, RGS policy evaluation, regional issue identification and community/stakeholder engagement to review the vision, overall strategic direction and policy approach of the RGS.

The following 6 months (Phase 2) would focus on developing regional policy and associated actions, including amendments to the regional designation land use map. Policy will be reviewed and potential changes recommended through the growth issue working group format, with opportunities for senior staff, Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and elected officials review of the recommendations.

Public and stakeholder engagement will focus on requesting feedback on proposed regional policy changes and associated actions.

The last 6 months (Phase 3) will focus on drafting the RGS Amendment and proceeding through the

RGS Amendment acceptance process.

After Bylaw adoption, Phase 4: RGS implementation will begin based on Board priorities and direction.

If the Board of Directors is supportive of this general approach and timelines , a more detailed process and public engagement and communication plan will be prepared for review and endorsement .

Draft Work Program Overview:

There are four phases in the proposed work program; with each new phase building on the previous one, working towards the final proposed policy amendments to the existing RGS. It is recommended that general agreement between the regional partners on the final deliverable be obtained prior to completing a phase. A proposed work plan timeline has been provided as Appendix C.

The review process would have the following four phases:

Phase 1: RGS Evaluation and Background Research (September 2015 - February 2016)

1.a) RGS Evaluation: Staff, with the assistance of EcoPlan International and University of British

Columbia, would evaluate the effectiveness of RGS through the development of a 5-Year RGS

Review: State of the Region Report. This exercise would be undertaken through the RGS monitoring and evaluation program and would require a 2016 Quality of Life Survey, which will also request input into the RGS Vision and strategic direction.

Page 45 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 9

1.b) Review of Existing Policy: Staff would review the existing RGS and other related policy to identify:

• What is recommended be retained in the current RGS;

• Where there are issues and policy gaps which need to be addressed through further research; and,

• How to integrate and respond to other plans and policy documents, including local, regional, provincial and federal initiatives that were completed since 2011 or are currently in progress;

To record the findings of this review, staff would prepare discussion papers for each of the nine

RGS policy areas which would outline context, identified issues and gaps, and potential solutions and innovations. Consultants would be required for some background research and mapping exercises, including updating the CommunityVis Scenario(s), Regional Transportation EMME/2

Model and Regional Energy and Emissions Inventory.

The need for consultants related to other issues may be identified through the RGS evaluation and background research process.

1.c) Statistical Research and Analysis: In support of the RGS Review , staff would conduct an update of regional statistics and projections out to 2036. This would include data related to population, employment, housing and land use. An update of the region’s Community Profiles and the Regional Profile would be completed as part of this task.

1.d) Additional Policy Areas: Based upon the evaluation of the RGS, results of background research and Board of Directors strategic direction, additional policy areas may be identified.

1.e) RGS Vision and Strategic Direction: Phase 1 will conclude with an Elected Officials Forum

(EOF) to present the finding of the RGS Evaluation and Background Research. It is through this event that the elected officials have an opportunity to confirm the RGS Vision, Strategic

Direction and add any additional recommended policy areas to be included in the Review.

Phase 2: Regional Policy Recommendations (March 2016 - August 2016)

2.a) Vision and Goals: The results of Phase 1 will inform the generation of the draft RGS Vision and policy area goals. Staff would integrate the outputs of the background research, statistical analysis, Quality of Life Survey and EOF direction into an RGS vision statement and an overarching goal for each policy area.

2.b) Regional Policy and Action Development: Growth Issues Working Groups, with a diverse membership, will be tasked with recommending policies and actions to address any gaps that were identified in Phase 1. The RGS Vision and overarching goals would provide strategic direction regarding policy development. It is recommended that policy and action development be based upon consensus if possible, general agreement as necessary.

2.c) Recommended Policy and Action Framework: The recommended policies and actions will be discussed and evaluated by the Regional Growth Strategy Support Team, Intergovernmental

Advisory Committee, and other Committees as identified through the process. The results of this consultation effort will be presented to the Regional Growth Management Committee, with a recommended RGS policy and action framework.

2.d) Public Engagement: Public engagement activities will be undertaken at this point to determine the level of support for the policies and actions recommended to the Board of Directors. The

Page 46 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 10 recommended RGS framework will be referred to First Nations, adjacent regional districts, senior levels of government, member municipalities and regional departments for review and comment.

The results of all public, stakeholder, agency and other engagement will be presented to the

Board of Directors.

Phase 3: Draft Regional Growth Strategy Amendment (September 2016 - February 2017)

3.a) Draft Regional Growth Strategy Amendment: The Draft RGS Amendment will be presented to the Board of Directors, based upon the outcome of Phase 2. An informal referral to member municipalities and the Electoral Area Advisory Committee, as well as First Nations, stakeholders, agencies and adjacent regional districts to request feedback. Public engagement opportunities are also recommended.

3.b) Finalizing the Regional Growth Strategy Amendment: The Regional Growth Strategy Support

Team, working in conjunction with the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee, will work towards resolving any outstanding RGS Amendment issues. Once general agreement on the RGS Amendment has been achieved, the final Bylaw will proceed through the approval process.

3.c) Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw Adoption Process (60 days): It is anticipated that a Standard Amendment will be required if there are regionally significant changes in land use designation, rural protection boundaries or policy direction. The Local Government Act requires that a Regional Growth Strategy Standard Amendment “must be accepted by affected local governments” within 60 days of receipt of referral (Sections 853 (1) (c) and 857 (1)) prior to Third

Reading.

Phase 4: Regional Growth Strategy Implementation (March 2017+)

• Updating the RGS Monitoring and Evaluation Program;

• Updating Official Community Plan Regional Context Statements (if necessary);

• Negotiating Implementation Agreements; and,

• Selecting RGS Priorities and Collaborative Actions

Committees:

The RGS 5-Year Review is recommended to retain similar committee structure as the original RGS process, with amendments to Committees and Working Groups Terms of Reference to improve efficiencies. The flow of information will be iterative, with the desired goal of reaching general agreement on both strategic direction and recommendations. The following committees have existing

Terms of Reference that may require amendment:

• Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee:

• Intergovernmental Advisory Committee:

• Regional Growth Strategy Support Team: and,

• Growth Issues Working Groups.

Community Engagement and Communication Strategy:

Communication with the regional community through engagement and participation opportunities is an essential component to the RGS Review. In recognition of the importance of this task within the

Review, the RGS 5-Year Review Community Engagement and Communication Strategy will be developed as a stand-alone document after draft Terms of Reference input has been received from the regional partners.

Page 47 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 11

Core Components of the Community Engagement and Communication Strategy:

• Dissemination of information to the community at each phase of the project in order that individuals and groups are kept informed of the process and proposals for change;

• Identification of key stakeholder groups, community members, businesses, and other interested parties to be included in regular notifications and engagement opportunities;

• Provision for a feedback mechanism to encourage community input regarding the issues and policy proposals being considered throughout the project process;

• Encouraging a cross-section of the regional community to become involved in the process by providing information regarding the project effectively and that their views are represented and considered in the process;

• Ensuring that stakeholder groups, individuals and community members who have expressed an interest in the project are provided with the continued opportunity to participate throughout the process;

• Provision opportunity for small group discussions and larger regional events designed to obtain input from a balanced cross-section of the regional community;

• Early and extensive consultation efforts and activities with the Okanagan Indian Band and

Splatsin throughout the process;

• Inclusion of project updates to the Board of Directors and municipal Councils on a regular basis; and,

• Regular effective public communications regarding project deliverables and public participation opportunities using various formats including but not limited to internet, newsletters, media releases, and reports to the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee.

Role of the Regional Planning Projects Manager:

• Development of an engagement and communication strategy;

• Develop, manage and oversee community engagement opportunities, events and forums and effective communication approaches;

• Oversee and assist in the engagement of the general public as well as identified stakeholder groups in the Review public input process. This may include informal outreach through questionnaires, surveys, information sessions, open houses, informant interviews, workshop events, graphic facilitation opportunities, round table discussions, and creative innovative approaches to maximize representative participation;

• Assist in “project branding” which could include tag line, logo or other identifiers to call attention to the project;

• Facilitation of inter-departmental workshops, committee meetings and elected official/stakeholder workshops throughout the RGS Review process; and,

• Determination of appropriate approaches to the use of media platforms.

LEGAL/STATUTORY AUTHORITY:

The Local Government Act, Part 25, Section 869 (2) states that:

At least once every 5 years, a regional district that has adopted a regional growth strategy must consider whether the regional growth strategy must be reviewed for possible amendment.

Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 was adopted on September 21, 2011 and the Board of Directors supported a Regional Growth Strategy Five-Year Review on February 4, 2015, to be

Page 48 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 12 initiated in 2016, to ensure that regional strategic direction still reflects appropriate long term planning direction within the North Okanagan.

EXISTING POLICY:

Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 includes the following provision for undertaking a review of the RGS a least every five years:

“To ensure that the Regional Growth Strategy continues to respond to current issues, the

Regional Growth Strategy should be reviewed every 5 years from the adoption of the Regional

Growth Strategy pursuant to the Local Government Act Section 869. As part of this review process, a report on current trends and issues should be prepared that will inform the review of the Regional Growth Strategy. Key to the review will be performance based on the goals of the plan. Subsequent amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy may be required to ensure that it reflects and adequately responds to changing circumstances of the North

Okanagan.”

It is anticipated that through the RGS Review process that the Growth Area boundaries will be examined and potentially refined. As well, additional regional land use designations may be developed during the review process. If there are changes is rural protection boundaries or additional designations are introduced, then a RGS Standard Amendment would be required:

“An amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy, other than those considered to be a minor amendment, is considered a standard amendment and will follow the same process that is required to adopt a Regional Growth Strategy as set out in Part 25 of the Local Government

Act. The expansion of a Growth Area or addition of a new Future Growth Area is considered standard amendments. Amending Rural Protection Boundaries are considered during the

RGS 5

‐Year Review.”

FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS:

The Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review is anticipated to be a Standard Amendment of the RGS and is anticipated to require approximately $400,000 to complete over an 18 month period, starting in late 2015. This budget projection is consistent with other recent RGS Review processes. The

Regional District of North Okanagan is submitting two grant funding applications to financially support the planning process.

The Board of Directors supported the submission of a Federal Gas Tax Strategic Priorities Grant application on February 4, 2015. Staff are currently preparing this grant application for submission, with a request for $250,000 for use in undertaking the RGS 5-Year Review.

The Regional District of North Okanagan has also submitted a Real Estate Foundation of British

Columbia Grant application, for the amount of $86,400, for an expanded RGS monitoring and evaluation program, which will be undertaken in Phase 1 of the Review.

The Regional Planning (031) budget, if maintained at current funding levels and with successful grant applications, should be sufficient to complete the RGS 5-Year Review over an 18 month period without an increase in requisition. If the grant funding applications are not successful, the timeframe, scope and process of the Review will need to be reconsidered.

Page 49 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 31, 2015 Page 13

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS:

The Regional District has a 1.0 FTE staff member dedicated to regional planning, including the development and implementation of the RGS. The 5-Year Review is one of the regional planning projects that can be accommodated with existing staff resources.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:

The RGS 5-Year Review process requires a substantial amount of intergovernmental support and interaction. All regional partners, including the six member municipalities and five Electoral Areas, are requested to support the review of the RGS through in-kind staff support.

Over the course of the preparation of the RGS update, consultations and discussions will take place at the local and regional levels, and will include adjacent regional districts.

At the Provincial and Federal levels, there is an opportunity to discuss collaborative approaches to enhance regional planning and growth management efforts through senior government support. In addition, there will be early and ongoing consultation opportunities with First Nations.

NEXT STEPS:

Following initiation of the process to undertake the RGS 5-Year Review, a series of actions should occur, including:

• formally advising the Minister of Community Sport and Cultural Development in writing of the decision to proceed with a RGS 5-Year Review;

• formally advising affected local governments, adjacent regional districts and First Nations of the decision to proceed with a 5-Year Review;

• appointing an Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) to support the process;

• complete and endorsing the RGS 5-Year Review Terms of Reference;

• developing a consultation and communication strategy; and,

• considering development of interim measures to manage local planning and development applications during the RGS 5-Year Review process.

As the Review process is further developed, there may be other actions required prior to project launch in September 2015.

SUMMARY:

The 2011 Regional Growth Strategy was informed by the local planning documents that were in place at the time around the Region. Over the last four years, most municipal and Electoral Area Official

Community Plans have been reviewed and updated, other strategic planning documents have been developed, 26 Regional Growth Strategy implementation projects have been undertaken, and the

Board of Directors priorities have shifted from growth management to regional collaboration on economic development initiatives.

A review of the Regional Growth Strategy, in relation to the evolving local and regional policy landscape, would provide an opportunity to further align planning and policy documents, revisit policy approaches in relation to Board of Directors strategic priorities, potentially refine the Rural Protection

Boundary in relation to community need and identify additional implementation actions.

It is anticipated that dedicated staff resources will be needed to prepare background reports, monitoring and evaluation reports, reviews of regional and local policy changes since 2011,

Page 50 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee- March 31, 2015

Page 14 demographic, housing and employment projections, updated regional growth and transportation models, sub-strategy development and a completion of a comprehensive and agreed-upon Terms of

Reference.

Staff recommend that the Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Terms of Reference be referred out to member municipal Council and the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for review and comment.

Submitted by:

Endorsed by:

~~

Rob ma1 es, MCIP, RPP

General Manager, Planning and Building

Approved for Inclusion:

Page 51 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Page 52 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Page 53 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.4

Page 54 of 100

Appendix C: Regional Growth Strategy 5-Year Review Draft Work Plan Summary

Task Descr i ption

Phase 1 : RGS E v aluation/Background

RGS Evaluation

&

"State of the Region" Report

Regional Qua l ity of Life Survey

RGS Policy Review

Statist i ca l Research and Ana l ysis

Identification of Addi t iona l Policy Areas

RGS Vision and Strategic D i rection

RGS I ssues and Opportunities (Phase 1) Report

Phase 2 : Regional Policy Recommendation

V i sion and Strateg i c Goa l s

Regiona l Po li cy and Deve l opment

Growt h I ssues Work i ng Group

Recommended RGS Policy & Action F ra m ework

Framework Revie w and Referral

Public Engagement -RGS Framework

EO F Recommended RGS Po l icv Framework

Ph a se 3 : Draft RGS A m e n d men t

Draft RGS Amendment

Informa l Referral of RGS Amendment

RGSST/RGMAC WorkshopFinalizing RGS Po l icy

RGS Ame n dment Acceptance and Adoption

Adooted RGS

*

*

* T ask De l iverab l e

*

-

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

DATE:

REGIONAL DISTRICT

of

NORTH OKANAGAN

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

INFORMATION REPORT

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 21(2) OF THE

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT

May 20, 2015

FILE NO.:

APPLICANT:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

P.I.D.#

15-0114-C-ALR

Agatha & Vincent deTourdonnet c/o Michael deTourdonnet

Lot A, Sec 12, Twp 8, ODYD, Plan KAP48707

018-032-974

CIVIC ADDRESS:

PROPERTY SIZE:

4877 Haynes Road

1.81 ha (4.5 ac)

SERVICING: Greater Vernon Water and on-site septic sewage disposal

SOIL CLASSIFICATION:

Class 3, 4 and 5

ZONING:

O.C.P. DESIGNATION:

Country Residential (C.R)

Agricultural

PROPOSED USE:

Subdivision within the ALR to create one (1) additional lot

PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:

That the application of Agatha and Vincent deTourdonnet c/o Michael deTourdonnet under

Section 21(2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to subdivide the property legally described as Lot A, Sec 12, Twp 8, ODYD, Plan KAP48707 and located at 4877 Haynes Road,

Electoral Area “C” not be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land Commission.

BACKGROUND:

This report relates to an application to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) to subdivide a

1.81 ha property located at 4877 Haynes Road in Electoral Area “C”. The proposed subdivision would create a +1.0 ha lot and a +0.81 ha lot. The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to create a lot for the owners’ daughter pursuant to Section 946 of the Local Government Act. As the subject property is within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), approval under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act is required. As the property was created through the approval of a subdivision in 1977, the proposed subdivision does not qualify for consideration under the home site severance policies of the Regional District or the ALC which may only be considered if a property has been continuously owned by the same person since prior to 1972.

Page 56 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

Agricultural Land Commission Application

15-0114-C-ALR (Michael deTourdonnet)

Page 2

Site Context and the Proposal

The subject property is located at the south end and west side of Haynes Road in Electoral Area

“C”. Three driveway connections provide access points to the property from Haynes Road. The east portion of the property is relatively flat and is developed with a two-family dwelling, yard and garden area. The balance of the parcel is treed and slopes down in a southwesterly direction towards BX Creek. A strip of public park adjacent to the westerly lot line separates the subject property from BX Creek. Regional District mapping indicates that Bate Creek passes from east to west near or through the southerly side of the subject property with a connection to

BX Creek slightly downstream from the subject property.

The subject property is zoned Country Residential (C.R), designated Agricultural in the Electoral

Areas “B” and “C” Official Community Plan, and is within the ALR. Between the west lot line of the subject property and the east side of BX Creek, a narrow strip of Park land which is owned by the Regional District and is designated in the OCP as Park and is zoned Country Residential

(C.R). All other adjacent properties are zoned Country Residential (C.R), designated

Agricultural in the OCP, and are within the ALR.

The following orthophoto of the subject and surrounding properties was taken in 2013.

Page 57 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

Agricultural Land Commission Application

15-0114-C-ALR (Michael deTourdonnet)

Page 3

The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into two lots (

+

1.0 ha and

+

0.81 ha) under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act and Section 946 of the Local

Government Act. One of lots would be vacant and the other would contain the existing twofamily dwelling. The lots are each proposed to be serviced with on-site septic sewage disposal systems and connections to a community water system (Greater Vernon Water).

Agricultural Capability of Subject Property

The BC Land Inventory groups land into seven classes according to the land’s potential and limitations for agricultural use depending on soil, topography, and climate characteristics. As the class numbers increase from Class 1 to 7, the range of potential crops decreases.

Associated with each class is a subclass that identifies limitations or special management practices needed to improve the soil. The classification usually gives land two ratings: unimproved and improved. Unimproved ratings describe the land in its native condition.

Improved ratings indicate the land’s potential once management practices have been implemented, such as irrigation, stone removal or drainage.

The BC Land Inventory rates the east side of the subject property as Class 3 with limitations related to topography and soil moisture deficiency. Land is this class has limitations that require moderately intensive management practices or moderately restrict the range of crops or both.

Mapping indicates that some lands within this class can potentially be improved to Class 1.

Land in this class either has no or only very slight limitations that restrict its use for the production of common agricultural crops.

The central portion of the property is rated as 70% Class 4 and 30% Class 5 improvable to 70%

Class 3 and 30% Class 5 with limitations related to soil moisture deficiency and topography.

Land rated as Class 4 has limitations that require special management practices or severely restrict the range of crops or both. Land rated as Class 5 has limitations that restrict its capability to producing perennial forage crops or other specially adapted crops.

The west side of the property is rated as Class 6 with limitations related to stoniness and inundation. Land in this class is non-arable but is capable of producing native and/or uncultivated perennial forage crops.

Previous Applications

In 1977, the predecessor

1

of the subject property’s parent lot was subdivided into six (6) lots ranging in size from 1.7 ha (4.2 ac) to 1.9 ha (4.92 ac). The six lots were registered as Lots 1 to

6, Plan 28222. Lot 2, Plan 28222 was the parent lot of the subject property. Road dedication measuring 24.4 m (80 ft) in width bisected Lot 2, Plan 28222 in a north-south direction extending from the south property line to BX Creek.

In 1992, an application to close the 0.35 ha area of road dedication bisecting the property was allowed by the ALC and in conjunction with the proposed road closure, the ALC expressed no objection to the dedication of a 0.23 ha area of road in the southwest corner of the property.

The plan of road closure and dedication was approved by the Provincial Approving Officer and with the changes, Lot 2, Plan 28222 became Lot A, Plan KAP48707 (the subject property).

1

Lot 54, Plan 780, Except Plans B7301, 10961, 17953, and 23983, Section 12, Township 8, ODYD

Page 58 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

Agricultural Land Commission Application

15-0114-C-ALR (Michael deTourdonnet)

Page 4

In June 1993, the land owner applied to the ALC to subdivide the subject property in order to create a

+

0.38 ha lot for a family member and a 1.4 ha remainder lot. After considering the application, the Board of Directors did not authorize the application to proceed to the ALC. In a letter to the applicant following the Board of Director’s decision, the Director of Development

Services explained that the Board did not authorize the application to proceed to the ALC because they were of the opinion that enough lots had already been created from the parent lot and further subdivision would reduce the size of the remnant lot to less than the minimum lot area required under the Country Residential (C.R) zone.

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN:

Agriculture

The Electoral Areas “B” and “C” Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2626 designates the subject property as Agricultural. The following OCP Agricultural Policies (abbreviated) are relevant to this application:

1. Lands designated as Agricultural are intended to be used for agricultural purposes and associated uses as allowed by the ALC and the Regional District.

2. All uses and subdivision of land within the ALR shall be in accordance with the Agricultural

Land Commission Act, Regulations thereto, or Orders and Policies of the ALC.

3. Notwithstanding the minimum lot size standards and land use policies cited in the OCP or the Zoning Bylaw or any other policy or bylaw that has been adopted to guide decisionmaking, the Regional Board may, after due consideration, not authorize a non-farm use, subdivision, and exclusion application to the ALC if the proposed subdivision or use would have a negative impact on agricultural land or the farming community.

4. Support the retention of large land holdings and the consolidation of small parcels of land to help maintain and establish economically viable farms.

5. Encourage strategies that will see large agricultural land holdings retained, and parcels consolidated and operated as single agricultural operations, rather than broken up as individual land tenures with multiple ownership.

6. The Regional District does not generally support exclusion of agricultural lands from the

ALR and subdivision of ALR lands unless there is no net loss of ALR lands, and a net benefit to agriculture can be clearly demonstrated.

7. The Regional District will require all ALC applications for exclusions, subdivision, land exchanges and non-farm use to show documentation, including a Professional Agrologist report, which indicates why the application is necessary or appropriate.

Development Permit Area

The OCP designates lands adjacent to streams (as defined under the Riparian Areas

Regulation) as being within a Riparian and Swan Lake Development Permit Area. Both BX

Creek and Bate Creek pass adjacent to, or partially within, the subject property.

The OCP also designates lands with a High or Very High conservation value as an

Environmentally Sensitive Lands Development Permit Area. The upland portion of the subject property is designated as having both High and Moderate conservation values, while an area adjacent to BX Creek is designated Very High.

Page 59 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

Agricultural Land Commission Application

15-0114-C-ALR (Michael deTourdonnet)

Page 5

Unless a Development Permit (DP) Exemption applies, a DP would be required prior to subdividing the subject property as proposed. In the event this proposal proceeds to the subdivision stage, the applicant may submit a written statement from a Qualified Environmental

Professional to determine the extent of any environmentally sensitive areas (upland and riparian) that may be affected by the proposed development and whether any Development

Permit Exemption(s) apply.

ZONING BYLAW:

The subject property is zoned Country Residential (C.R) in Regional District of North Okanagan

Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003. The minimum lot size standard of the C.R zone is 2.0 ha. Uses permitted in the C.R zone include accessory farm sales, intensive and limited agricultural use, public parks and playgrounds, bed and breakfast, boarding house, community care facilities, fruit and produce pickers’ cabins and work force housing units, home occupation uses, wineries and cideries, veterinary clinics, single and two family dwellings, ancillary single family dwellings, manufactured homes on lots 1.0 ha or larger in Electoral Area “C”, secondary suite within a single family dwelling on lots of 1.0 ha or larger, medical marihuana production facilities, and limited resource use.

Section 405 of the Zoning Bylaw states that the minimum size for a parcel that may be subdivided to provide a residence for a relative (under Section 946 of the Local Government

Act) is 3.5 ha in the Country Residential (C.R) zone. Section 405 further states that these standards do not apply to lands that located within the ALR.

SUBDIVISION SERVICING BYLAW:

Section 404 of Regional District of North Okanagan Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 2600, 2013 requires that a community sanitary sewage system be provided for lots less than 1.0 ha except those lots created pursuant to Section 946 of the Local Government Act. The subject property is currently serviced by an on-site septic sewage disposal system.

Section 405 of the Subdivision Servicing Bylaw requires that a community water system be provided for lots less than 1 ha in size except those lots created pursuant to Section 946 of the

Local Government Act. The subject property is currently serviced by a connection to the

Greater Vernon Water system.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT:

Section 946 - Subdivision to Provide Residence for a Relative

An application for subdivision of a lot under Section 946 of the Local Government Act may be made if the person making the application has owned the lot for at least 5 years and the application is made for the purpose of providing a separate residence for a relative of the owner.

An Approving Officer may not approve such a subdivision if the subject property is located in the

ALR and was within the previous 5 years created by subdivision under this section.

If the requirements of Section 946 of the Local Government Act (LGA) are met, an approving officer may approve a subdivision of a parcel of land that would otherwise be prevented from subdivision by the minimum parcel size requirement of the Zoning Bylaw.

Page 60 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

Agricultural Land Commission Application

15-0114-C-ALR (Michael deTourdonnet)

Page 6

Section 946.4 of the LGA states that a local government may establish the minimum size for non-ALR parcels that may be subdivided. Section 946.5 of the LGA states that a minimum size may not be established for ALR parcels.

Subsection 946.3 of the LGA states, in part, that an approving officer must not approve a subdivision under Section 946 if the parcel to be subdivided is classified as farm land for assessment and taxation purposes, and after subdivision to create a parcel for the purpose of providing a residence for a relative, the remainder of the parcel would be less than 2 ha.

Subsection 946.6 of the LGA states that any parcel created by subdivision under Section 946 must be at least 1.0 ha unless a smaller area, in no case less than 2500 m

2

, is approved by the medical health officer.

HOME SITE SEVERANCE POLICIES:

The Regional District and the Agricultural Land Commission both have policies which are intended to provide a consistent approach to approving applications which propose to subdivide properties under the provisions of Section 946 of the Local Government Act. Both policies state that a subdivision application under Section 946 of the LGA for lands within the ALR should not be authorized unless the subject property has been owned by the applicant prior to the enactment of the ALC Act on December 21, 1972.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:

The Planning Department recommends that this application for subdivision within the ALR not be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land Commission as it does not comply with the

Agricultural Policies of the Electoral Areas “B” and “C” Official Community Plan which supports the agricultural use of lands in the ALR and the retention of large parcels in the ALR. The

Policies also state that the Regional District does not generally support the subdivision of ALR lands unless there is no net loss of ALR lands and a net benefit to agriculture can be clearly demonstrated. In this regard, it is suggested that the proposed subdivision would further limit the agricultural capabilities of the subject property which is already constrained by its size and topography.

Approval of the application could set a precedent that may lead other property owners to believe that agricultural parcels within the area can be subdivided, which in turn could lead to additional requests similar to the proposed application. Furthermore, the creation of smaller farm parcels in agricultural areas can affect the land values in the area by giving the impression that farm land can be used for speculative non-agricultural development. This results in artificial inflation of the value of agricultural land making it more difficult for farmers to purchase land.

Finally, an Agrologist’s report has not been submitted with this application which is contrary to the Official Community Plan Agricultural Policy which states that applications for subdivision within the ALR include a Professional Agrologist’s report which indicates why the application is necessary or appropriate.

Page 61 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

Agricultural Land Commission Application

15-0114-C-ALR (Michael deTourdonnet)

Page 7

As noted above, the property was created through the approval of a subdivision in 1977 and as such, the proposed subdivision does not qualify for consideration under the home site severance policies of the Regional District or the ALC which may only be considered if a property has been continuously owned by the same person since prior to 1972.

SUMMARY:

The subject application proposes to subdivide the 1.81 ha property located at 4877 Haynes

Road into a 1.0 ha lot and a 0.81 ha lot. The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to create a lot for the owners’ daughter pursuant to Section 946 of the Local Government Act. As the subject property is within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), approval under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act is required. The Planning Department recommends that the application not be supported as it is contrary to the Agricultural Policies of the Electoral

Areas ‘B’ and ‘C’ Official Community Plan which supports the agricultural use of lands in the

ALR, the retention of large parcels in the ALR and generally does not support the subdivision of

ALR lands unless there is no net loss of ALR lands and a net benefit to agriculture can be clearly demonstrated.

REFERRALS:

The application was referred for comments to the following:

1. Electoral Area “C” Director

2. Electoral Area “C” Advisory Planning Commission

3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee

4. Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee

At the RAAC meeting of April 16, 2015, the Committee reviewed the application and provided the following comments:

• the property was previously subdivided to create five additional lots in 1976;

• currently there is a duplex on the property;

• the Committee was opposed to further subdivision; and

• the parcel is too small already, no need to go smaller.

5. BX / Swan Lake Fire Department

6. Building Inspection Department

7. Parks, Recreation, and Culture Department

8. Ministry of Agriculture

The Ministry noted that a subdivision of this lot will not negatively affect farming. However, subdivisions (in the ALR) should receive ALC approval.

9. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

The Ministry commented that their interests will be considered if a subdivision application is received.

10. Interior Health Authority

The Community Nutritionist representing the Food Security and Community Nutrition

Program commented that it appeared the primary use of the land was not currently food production and thus any changes would not likely affect food security.

Page 62 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

Agricultural Land Commission Application

15-0114-C-ALR (Michael deTourdonnet)

Page 8

11. Ministry of Environment

The Ecosystems Section of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations provided the following response:

This application is subject to the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR). The proponent should be advised that a RAR Assessment is required for subdivision as defined in Section 872 of the Local Government Act. The assessment defines the required Streamside

Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) setback, which must be determined prior to subdivision. RAR assessments must be completed by a qualified environmental professional (QEP) following the provincial RAR guidelines. To ensure proposed activities are planned and carried out with minimal impacts to the environment and in compliance with all relevant legislation, the proponent and approving agency are advised to adhere to guidelines in the provincial best management practices (BMP's) document:

Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelines for Urban & Rural Land Development. It is the proponent's responsibility to ensure their activities are in compliance with all relevant legislation.

Submitted by:

'-?W~~.,

Marnie Skobalski, MCIP, RPP

Planner

Endorsed by:

Rob Smailes, MCIP, RPP

General Manager, Planning and Building

Reviewed by:

G ~ e ~ fJ l

· ~

Deputy Planning Manager

Page 63 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

ELECTORAL AREA "C"

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION APPLICATION

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP

File: 15-0114-C-ALR

Applicant: Michael deTourdonnet

Location: 4877 Haynes Road

A

KAP83919

39

PlN

_ _jl t,..,.

- +-

~ , '1

H

4 787

PLAN 1;

J7

Page 64 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.5

Ct.IJSFD

2!

DEC 199:< .

r<1 b

_J

N

C\J

N co

C\J f[

Site Plan

h y

,.; 0::

Q w

J l9

1..t.J

0

...J

r /,_

1!.

.

0

. N

N

1-

0

_J

Page 65 of 100

L.E. Rivard ..

&

Associates

Ltd.

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3046.01.04

TO:

FROM:

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Planning Department

DATE: May 22, 2015

SUBJECT

:

Community Works Fund Project #105

RECOMMENDATION:

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the Engagement and Communication Plan for the implementation of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy be funded from the Community Works Fund at a cost of $10,010.00

DISCUSSION:

The Okanagan Collaborative Conservation Program (OCCP), in conjunction with the South Okanagan

Similakameen Conservation Program, completed a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) for the

Okanagan Region in 2014. The BCS provides a “big-picture” view of the status of regional biodiversity and highlights future conservation priorities, including strategic directions and opportunities for conservation action by municipal and regional governments in the Okanagan.

Implementation of the BCS will be a significant component of the OCCP’s work in the near future.

The OCCP is an umbrella initiative with close to 30 government and non-government partner organizations working towards shared conservation objectives in the region. The RDNO has been an

OCCP partner since 2008 and provided in-kind staff support on several collaborative projects, including the Kalamalka Lake Foreshore Inventory Mapping and Middle Shuswap Sensitive

Ecosystem Inventory initiatives.

The OCCP Coordinator, Carol Luttmer, appeared as a delegation at the Board of Directors Regular

Meeting of February 18, 2015. Her presentation provided an update on the OCCP’s activities and the recently completed BCS. The Board of Directors were asked to consider contributing $10,000 to

OCCP for 2015/2016 core funding. As the RDNO does not have a grant function, it was noted that

“potential opportunities for contract services with the Okanagan Collaborative Conservation Program will be considered in the 2015 work plan.” Since then, OCCP has made a request to access funding support through the Community Works Fund for the development of an Engagement and

Communication Plan for the implementation of the BCS.

Utility of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

The BCS provides information and a framework for conservation actions to be undertaken by a range of organizations in the Okanagan region including local governments. With respect to the RDNO the information, data and mapping that are apart of the BCS can support a number of conservation actions. These include the development of policy and tools for the protection of sensitive ecosystems throughout the region, such as development permit areas. The BCS also supports parks planning especially with respect to future acquisitions to maximise biodiversity conservation and connectivity.

Page 66 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

CWF #105

Report to EAAC – May 22, 2015 Page 2

The BCS provides a sound framework for all organizations interested and active in local conservation initiatives to work from. Through its implementation by the OCCP, the BCS increases the capacity for conservation action within the Okanagan region, focusing resources and facilitating efficiencies through partnership actions. By providing funding to the OCCP and its delivery of the BCS, the

RDNO can support an organization that actively pursues on the ground and education related conservation projects in a collaborative manner and channels significant amounts of grant and senior government funding into the Okanagan.

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Connection to Regional Growth Strategy Policy

The RDNO Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) includes a series of environmental policies that are supported by development and implementation of the BCS. The following strategies are fulfilled by the development of the BCS:

ENV2.1: in collaboration with the appropriate agencies and organizations, identify, prioritize and map all ecosystems and important habitat features in the North Okanagan and ensure this information is used in local, regional and provincial land use processes.

ENV2.2: expand sensitive ecosystem mapping to complete a regionally consistent North

Okanagan ecosystem inventory.

ENV2.3: support data sharing, mapping, and consolidation of existing information into an inventory of Southern Interior ecologically sensitive areas and biodiversity values.

ENV2.4: identify a system of linked wildlife corridors and areas of habitat connectivity, in partnership with the province and relevant parties, which will inform planning decisions with the goal of avoiding further fragmentation.

ENV-2-12: consider supporting partnership initiatives that would undertake the development a regional biodiversity strategy.

Implementation of the BCS, including the development of an Engagement and Communication Plan, will support the following strategies:

ENV-2.5: develop a regionally consistent policy approach to ecosystem and species protection.

ENV-2.6: encourage the sustainable management of parks and natural areas.

ENV-2.7: engage the community through stewardship and education to improve environmental awareness.

ENV-2.8: coordinate on the establishment of regionally significant open space networks and linkages across jurisdictional boundaries that will compliment local parks planning.

ENV-2.9: support opportunities and partnerships that promote environmental conservation and ecosystem protection.

ENV-2.10: designate and protect significant open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas in Official Community Plans and through other planning mechanisms.

Supporting the OCCP in the implementation of the BCS by providing funding for the development of an Engagement and Communication Plan, will ensure that the BCS is presented to a wide range of audiences and implementation actions are coordinated. This will facilitate moving the strategy “off the shelf” to action.

Page 67 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

CWF #105

Report to EAAC – May 22, 2015 Page 3

Broader Benefits of Biodiversity Conservation

The BCS provides a framework for biodiversity conservation actions which have broader benefits for the region. As noted in the article The Value of Natural Capital in the Okanagan

1

,

“natural ecosystems and biodiversity provide humans with a range of provisioning, regulating, and cultural services upon which we depend for our quality of life and well-being. Examples include: food, raw materials, clean air and water, erosion protection, water flow regulation including flood mitigation, biological pest control, pollination, soil generation and retention, aesthetics and recreational opportunities. Such services are provided for free, and are typically taken for granted until they are lost and human communities begin to experience the negative impacts of those lost services (e.g., increased water treatment costs, respiratory problems due to poor air quality, reduced crop yields as native pollinator populations decrease, beach closures due to water quality advisories, etc.)”.

“While it is difficult, and, some may argue, ethically inappropriate, to attach a monetary value to nature, humans do derive economic benefits from many ecosystem services. These economic benefits, as well as the costs of replacing ecosystem services with a technical solution, can be estimated... the total monetary value of ecosystem services provided by the present day Okanagan landscape is estimated to be $6.7 billion annually. The total value of $6.7 billion/year for the Okanagan likely represents a minimum rather than a maximum value because some ecosystem services (e.g., aesthetics, First

Nations cultural values, value of habitats that support rare or endangered species) are not accounted for in the calculation due to the difficulty of attaching a monetary value to them. This calculation is provided for the purposes of raising awareness of the economic value of our natural capital, with the intent of stimulating discussion and interest around the value of ecosystem services provided by the Okanagan landscape”.

As outlined above, there are numerous benefits to ensuring the regions environment is maintained and protected. The BCS provides a strong baseline of local and regional conditions as well as recommendations to ensure a healthy and sustainable future.

Costs

The budget for the development of an Engagement and Communication Plan for the implementation of the BCS is $29,012.50, with $10,010.00 being requested from the RDNO through the CWF. The remainder of funding is being sourced from the Real Estate Foundation of BC ($91,300 over three years for implementation of the BCS, including the Engagement and Communication plan), Central

Okanagan Regional District ($10,000), Environment Canada, and other OCCP partners. The Real

Estate Foundation funding is pending matching funds which an RDNO contribution could contribute to along with the contribution from CORD and any approved funding from Environment Canada (OCCP has applied to three Environment Canada funding streams, with approval in June 2015). This means an RDNO contribution would leverage 100% additional funding.

1 http://complexity.ok.ubc.ca/2014/10/30/the-value-of-natural-capital-in-the-okanagan/ . Dr. Lael Parrott,

Associate Professor UBCO & Catherine Kyle, PHD Candidate UBCO.

Page 68 of 100

CWF#105

Report to EAAC- May 22 , 2015

Community Works Fund

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

Page4

The project to develop an Engagement and Communication Plan for the implementation of the BCS has been assessed utilizing the Reg i onal District of North Okanagan C ommunity Works Fund Tier 2 p r oject assessment. The assessmen t and project outline are attached t o th i s report for your review and informat i on. The pro j ect meets the criteria of the Community Works Fund under the capacity building category .

SUMMARY:

The Okanagan Collaborative Conservation Program (OCCP) , in conjunction with the South Okanagan

Similakameen Conservation Prog r am , completed a Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) for the

Okanagan Region in 2014 . The BCS provides a "big-picture " view of the status of regional biodiversity and highlights future conservation priorities , including strategic directions a n d opportunities for conservat i on action by municipal and regional governments i n the Okanagan.

The OCCP is pursu i ng the development of an Engagement and Communication Plan for implementation of the BCS and is requesting $10 , 010.00 from the RDNO through the CWF.

Co n tr i butions from other funders are being sought and some have already been secured. An RDNO contribution would leverage 100 % add i tional funding as it could be used as required matching funding for the Real Estate Foundation gran t. It is recommended that the Engagement and Communications

Plan for the BCS be funded from the Community Works Fund.

Submitted by:

.--··

A { : / 9

Anna

Fia1e

Sustainability Coordinator

Rob Smailes , MCIP , RPP

General Manager , Planning and Building

Page 69 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

Community Works Fund Project Assessment – Tier 2

Over $8,000

Date: May 22, 2015

Project #: 105

Recipient: Okanagan Collaborative Conservation Program

Project Cost: $10,010.00 – Total project cost $29,012.50, with remaining funds being sourced from other funders.

Project Description:

The development of an Engagement and Communication Plan for the implementation of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. The engagement of various levels of government, First Nations, NGOs, members of the public, funders, and non-traditional partners, such as the Development and Real Estate sectors, is essential to successful implementation of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. The OCCP has identified specific communication tools and methods to engage these decision-makers and stakeholders. In order to ensure efficient and effective use of resources, the OCCP needs a defined engagement and communication plan to prioritize the use of tools and methods. The plan will also aid the further development of a sustainable funding strategy, which will continue to bring resources to the Okanagan to support conservation projects.

Project Eligibility

Eligible funding recipient?

Eligible costs?

If project is related to a building, is the building primarily used for public good?

Benefits of the Project –

Yes Explanation

Okanagan Collaborative Conservation

Program – not for profit organisation

Benefit to local community

Benefit to Electoral Area

Benefit to more than one

Electoral Area

Benefit to all Electoral Areas

Benefit to entire Regional

District

Yes

Explanation

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy provides a “big-picture” view of the status of regional biodiversity and highlights regional conservation priorities for the future.

Page 70 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

Does the Project meet funding agreement categories?

Project Category

Public Transit – infrastructure that supports a shared passenger transport system available for public use

Community Energy Systems – infrastructure that generates or increases the efficient use of energy

Drinking Water – infrastructure that supports drinking water conservation, collection, treatment and management systems

Wastewater – infrastructure that supports wastewater and storm water collection, treatment and management systems.

Solid Waste – infrastructure that supports solid waste management systems including the collection, diversion and disposal of recyclables, compostable materials and garbage.

Capacity Building – investments related to strengthening the ability of local governments to develop long-term planning practices

Local roads, bridges (roads, bridges and active transportation infrastructure

Sport Infrastructure – amateur sport infrastructure

Recreational Infrastructure – recreational facilities and networks.

Cultural Infrastructure – infrastructure that supports arts, humanities and heritage

Tourism Infrastructure – infrastructure that attract travelers for recreation, leisure, business or other purposes.

Disaster Mitigation – infrastructure that reduces or eliminates long-term impacts and risks associated with natural disasters.

Yes

Page 71 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

Does the Project work towards achieving one of the three key national objectives and incorporate the principles of Sustainability?

Fund Priorities

Productivity and Economic

Growth

(Economic)

Clean Environment

(Environmental)

Strong Cities and Communities

(Social)

Yes Explanation

Ecosystem services support productivity and economic growth on multiple levels, including providing natural resources for use, favorable conditions to live in, and natural features that attract visitors. In addition to the value biodiversity brings, there is a cost associated with a loss of biodiversity and the services provided, such as the cost to treat water, health costs from poor air quality etc.

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, by its very nature, will lead to environmental protection and conservation.

Biodiversity is vital for the health and strength of our communities providing a wealth of natural capital including ecosystem services, supporting food production and providing recreation opportunities.

Other benefits of the Project

Project Benefits

Education value

Yes Explanation

The engagement and communication plan will include methods and tools that have an education and information provision component.

Public Awareness (media opportunities)

Developing the engagement and communication plan will include methods for raising public awareness of the Biodiversity

Conservation Strategy.

Leverage of additional resources (funds, volunteer time, in-kind contributions)

OCCP is accessing and seeking funds from other funders including CORD, Env Canada and Real Estate Foundation (which requires matching funds that an RDNO contribution could fulfill).

Integration with other Regional District of North Okanagan initiatives

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy supports a series of environmental policies within the Regional Growth Strategy and can support local government conservation actions including the development of policy and tools for the protection of sensitive ecosystems throughout the region, such as development permit areas.

Page 72 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

Justification for prioritisation of project

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy provides a “big-picture” view of the status of regional biodiversity and highlights future conservation priorities, including strategic directions and opportunities for conservation action in the Okanagan. Through its implementation by the OCCP, the BCS increases the capacity for conservation action within the Okanagan region, focusing resources and facilitating efficiencies through partnership actions. The development of an Engagement and Communication Plan for the strategy is a critical component of implementation.

Distribution of Funds

All

Staff Recommendation

That the Biodiversity Conversation Strategy Engagement and Communication Plan be funded.

Page 73 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

Engagement & Communication Plan for the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Background

The North Okanagan Regional District (RDNO) supported the creation of a biodiversity conservation strategy in its 2011 Regional Growth Strategy (see Goal Env - 2 - 12). In 2014, the Okanagan Collaborative

Conservation Program (OCCP) in collaboration with the South Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Program

(SOSCP) completed A Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for the Okanagan Region (BCS), which provides a

“big-picture” view of the status of regional biodiversity and highlights conservation priorities for the future, including strategic directions and opportunities for conservation action by municipal and regional governments in the Okanagan.

The OCCP is a partnership of over 35 organizations, including: all levels of government; non-government organizations, such as stewardship groups, land trusts, and naturalists' clubs; and academia and education organizations. The mandate of the OCCP is to coordinate and facilitate conservation and stewardship efforts on public and private lands, set conservation and stewardship goals and objectives, and to generate the support and resources needed to maintain this effort. This mandate, and many of the strategic directions outlined in the BCS, strongly align with the goals identified under the Environment and Natural Lands section,

Goal ENV -2 Protect our Parks, Natural Areas and Open Spaces of the RDNO Regional Growth Strategy.

The OCCP currently receives financial support from a variety of organizations and agencies, including federal, regional and local governments, granting agencies such Telus, Real Estate Foundation of BC, and Vancouver

Foundation, and private sponsorship (e.g., Fortis, BC Hydro). Over the last 4 years, 3% of funding for projects has come from the North Okanagan Regional District, 5% from the Central Okanagan Regional District, 81% from grants and sponsors, 3% from municipalities, and 3% from other sources.

Statement of Need for an Engagement and Communication Plan

The engagement of various levels of government, First Nations, NGOs, members of the public, funders, and non-traditional partners, such as the Development and Real Estate sectors, is essential to successful implementation of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and realization of the environmental goals in the

RDNO Regional Growth Strategy. The OCCP has identified specific communication tools and methods to engage these decision-makers and stakeholders. These methods and tools include Informing (e.g., the development and distribution of education and outreach tools, presentations to stakeholders, maintenance of a website, newsletters, reporting out to partners and funders); Consulting (e.g., one-on-one discussions, workshops, and/or surveys to identify priorities, support required and available resources); and Facilitating

Collaboration (e.g., workshops, partnership meetings, coordination of 'action teams' that oversee the completion of specific projects that realize conservation goals). In order to ensure efficient and effective use of resources, the OCCP needs a defined engagement and communication plan to prioritize the use of these tools and methods. The plan will also aid the further development of a sustainable funding strategy, which will continue to bring resources to the Okanagan to support conservation projects.

Project Description

This project will engage OCCP partners in the development of an engagement and communication plan for the implementation of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. This project is one component of the overall implementation of the BCS. The OCCP has already developed a Governance Plan, which identifies the roles and responsibilities of each component of the organization in supporting or leading projects that realize conservation goals. The OCCP has also developed a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for tracking progress towards conservation goals. An Engagement and Communication Plan is a critical component, complementing the already existing Governance, and Monitoring and Evaluation Plans, in ensuring the OCCP can move forward in implementation of the BCS in an effective and efficient manner.

Page 74 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.6

Engagement & Communication Plan for the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Deliverables

• Strategic planning training and working sessions for key OCCP partners (including RDNO) and OCCP staff

• Workshop with all of OCCP’s Partners and Associates

• Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Communication & Engagement Plan

Budget

Item Total Project Cost RDNO Portion

Expert Support for strategic, communication and engagement planning (contractor)

Workshop with all OCCP Partners & Associates- Coordination and implementation

$8,000.00 $3,100.00

$11,025.00 $3,000.00

Development of final engagement & communication plan and integration with governance and monitoring and evaluation plans; Coordination of Partner input and consultations

Overhead & admin fees

Total

$7,350.00

$2,637.50

$29,012.50

$3,000.00

$910.00

$10,010.00

Note: Budget represents cash only. Budget does not include in-kind support from partners for their participation, for providing meeting rooms, and administrative support (e.g., Central Okanagan Regional

District provides office space for OCCP staff). Other funding for this project is provided by Environment

Canada, Real Estate Foundation of BC, Central Okanagan Regional District, and other OCCP Partners. Funding has also been secured and/or requested from these and other funders for specific projects that support the

Biodiversity Strategy, such as: a workshop in the RDNO with BC Wildlife Federation on best management practices and methods for wetland conservation; support to the Cherry Ridge Watershed Study; a display on soil biodiversity for RDNO Environment Week and for ongoing use by education centres; developing a model to support parkland acquisitions; mapping of lands where development is imminent so that protection of sensitive ecosystems can be maximized during the pre-development planning stage; and a collaborative project with UBC-Okanagan on identifying and protecting habitat corridors and ecosystem services.

Page 75 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3046.01.04

TO:

FROM:

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Planning Department

DATE: May 22, 2015

SUBJECT

:

Community Works Fund Project #106

RECOMMENDATION:

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the Water Quality Monitoring Cosens Bay – Year II study be funded from the Electoral Area “B” allocation of the Community Works Fund at a cost of

$10,023.00.

DISCUSSION:

A water quality monitoring study was undertaken in Cosens Bay, Kalamalka Lake in 2014. The study involved a water quality and periphyton sampling program to determine if there is any influence or impact from septic systems in this area. The results of the 2014 study indicated the impact of cottage development on Cosens Bay water quality was minor and not statistically significant. In summary, impacts from the cottage area of Cosens Bay are still possible but there was no supporting water quality data and only a subtle impact was detected in periphyton data from this study. However, the results would gain statistical strength if the study was repeated for an additional year.

The proposed 2015 study involves part two of a water quality sampling program in Cosens Bay. It will build on the 2014 study and strengthen the results determining if there is any influence or impact from septic systems in this area. There is a mixture of modern homes and older cottages stretching along

3 km of Cosens Bay shoreline. Approximately 100 predominantly seasonal dwellings are perched on the rocky shoreline and soil cover is generally thin. The proposed sampling would contrast water quality and periphyton growth in the fall to that of the summer months to see if the seasonal peak in septic system use caused any detectable impacts on Cosens Bay.

Costs

The costs for the 2015 study are $10,023.00. The travel time to / from Kelowna, sample delivery to the laboratory, preparation time, etc. have been split among the three parties interested in sampling Kalamalka Lake (Lake Country, Greater Vernon Water and Electoral Area “B”), minimizing the cost of this project.

Community Works Fund

The Cosens Bay Water Quality Monitoring Study has been assessed utilizing the Regional District of

North Okanagan Community Works Fund Tier 2 project assessment. The assessment and project proposal are attached to this report for your review and information. The project meets the criteria of the Community Works Fund under the capacity building category.

Page 76 of 100

CWF#106

Report to EAAC - May 22 , 2015

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

Page2

SUMMARY:

It is recommended that the Water Quality Monitoring Cosens Bay - Year II , be funded from the

Community Works Fund at a cost of $10,023 .

00.

Submitted by :

Anna Page;;

Sustainability Coordinator

Endorsed by:

~~

Rob Smailes, MCIP, RPP

General Manager, Planning and Building

Page 77 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

Community Works Fund Project Assessment – Tier 2

Over $8,000

Date: May 22, 2015

Project #: 106

Recipient: RDNO

Project Cost: $10,023.00

Project Description: Water Quality Monitoring Cosens Bay – Year II

The proposed study involves part two of a water quality sampling program in Cosens

Bay to determine if there is any influence or impact from septic systems in this area.

Originally conceived as a one-year study, the 2014 results indicated significant benefit from running the program for a second year with minor changes.

Project Eligibility

Eligible funding recipient?

Eligible costs?

If project is related to a building, is the building primarily used for public good?

Benefits of the Project

Yes Explanation

The proposed project would inform the development of a possible Local Area Plan for Cosens Bay and works towards the goals and objectives of the Kalamalka Lake Water

Protection Plan, both of which qualify under the Capacity Building category.

N/A

Benefit to local community

Benefit to Electoral Area

Benefit to more than one

Electoral Area

Benefit to all Electoral Areas

Benefit to entire Regional

District

Yes Explanation

Will provide water quality information on

Kalamalka Lake, Cosens Bay area for residents who use the water courses for recreational and water intake purposes.

Water quality information on Kalamalka Lake,

Cosens Bay area will provide baseline information for the whole Kalamalka Lake system and is complimentary to the main body Kalamalka lake monitoring program.

Page 78 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

Does the Project meet funding agreement categories?

Project Category

Public Transit – infrastructure that supports a shared passenger transport system available for public use

Community Energy Systems – infrastructure that generates or increases the efficient use of energy

Drinking Water – infrastructure that supports drinking water conservation, collection, treatment and management systems

Wastewater – infrastructure that supports wastewater and storm water collection, treatment and management systems.

Yes

Solid Waste – infrastructure that supports solid waste management systems including the collection, diversion and disposal of recyclables, compostable materials and garbage.

Capacity Building – investments related to strengthening the ability of local governments to develop long-term planning practices

Local roads, bridges (roads, bridges and active transportation infrastructure

Sport Infrastructure – amateur sport infrastructure

Recreational Infrastructure – recreational facilities and networks.

Cultural Infrastructure – infrastructure that supports arts, humanities and heritage

Tourism Infrastructure – infrastructure that attract travelers for recreation, leisure, business or other purposes.

Disaster Mitigation – infrastructure that reduces or eliminates long-term impacts and risks associated with natural disasters.

Does the Project work towards achieving one of the three key national objectives and incorporate principles of Sustainability?

Fund Priorities

Productivity and Economic

Growth

(Economic)

Yes Explanation

Degraded water quality in Cosens Bay would impact residents drinking water supplies and use of the lake for recreation. Having knowledge of water quality and being able to take action on degradation will help protect the waterways for all uses and users

Page 79 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

Clean Environment

(Environmental)

Strong Cities and Communities

(Social)

If the water quality monitoring program indicates that there are significant impacts on the water quality in Cosens Bay, further work could be undertaken to reduce impacts.

As a well utilized recreation asset, and a valuable wildlife habitat area, Cosens enhances the community providing for healthy residents.

Other benefits of the Project

Project Benefits Yes Explanation

If the water quality assessment indicates that the surrounding land uses and waste water are negatively impacting Cosens, education Education value

Public Awareness (media opportunities)

 and awareness programs could be informed by the results.

Leverage of additional funds

Integration with other Regional District of North Okanagan initiatives

The RDNO is involved with a number of projects that involve the monitoring of water quality in significant water bodies within the region including the Shuswap River and

Swan Lake. This project is consistent with these and will inform broader discussions regarding the Cosens Bay planning.

Justification for prioritisation of project

The recently updated Electoral Area B and C Official Community Plan includes policy

6.2.1 “The Regional District will consider undertaking the development of a Cosens

Bay Local Area Plan to address unique challenges and constraints to development and sustainability”. The Cosens Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program would inform the development of any future local area plan. Completing a second year of monitoring will also enlarge the data set and increase statistical strength.

Distribution of Funds

Area B

Staff Recommendation

That the Water Quality Monitoring Cosens Bay – Year II be funded

Page 80 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

Cost Estimate Proposal for Kalamalka Lake Sampling –

Cosens Bay, 2015

Prepared for: Regional District of North Okanagan,

Sustainability and Planning

9848 Aberdeen Rd., Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9

Periphyton Sampler deployed in Cosens Bay 2014

Page 81 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

Study Purpose:

The proposed study involves part 2 of a water quality sampling program in Cosens Bay to determine if there is any influence or impact from septic systems in this area.

Originally conceived as a one-year study, promising results indicated significant benefit from running the program for a second year with minor changes.

There is a mixture of modern homes and older cottages stretching along 3 km of Cosens

Bay shoreline. Approximately 100 dwellings are perched on rocky shoreline and soil cover is generally thin. The proposed sampling would contrast water quality and periphyton growth in the fall to that of the summer months to see if the seasonal peak in septic system use caused any detectable impacts on Cosen’s Bay.

Proposed Study Design:

LAC proposes to use the same sampling times as the Year 1 Cosens Bay study and the

Kalamalka Long-Term Monitoring Project. Chemistry samples will go to Caro Labs,

Kelowna and algae/microflora samples will be identified by LAC. Collecting a sub-set of the parameters already analyzed on Kalamalka Lake samples using the same methods, labs and dates means that the Cosens data can be compared against the main body of

Kalamalka Lake data.

A list of water quality parameters that may be of interest to RDNO in Cosens Bay at an approximate cost of 139.00 per sample from Caro Labs include:

NUTRIENTS: Nitrogen (Total, Nitrate + Nitrite, ammonia) Phosphorus (Total and dissolved, low detection)

GENERAL: Turbidity, Conductance, pH, Sulphate, Chloride

BACTERIOLOGICAL: E. coli

This list is compatible with the list currently used for Kalamalka Lake samples.

We would continue with sampling near-shore using batched samples to keep costs down. This would involve batching 5 sub-samples from one sample site into a single sample. LAC would establish and GPS 3 sites in the suspected impact area and 1 in an undeveloped area as a reference control site. We will take advantage of the already completed SHIM (Sensitive Habitat Inventory Mapping) to help with site selection. The total sample load would be 4 samples per sampling trip. We would suggest sampling in

July, August, September and October when the lake is still stratified, for a total of 16 samples plus a replicate sample. The advantages of confining the sampling to these months includes:

 Avoiding the confounding influences of whole-lake circulation

Page 82 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

 Avoiding the confounding influences of freshet (spring run-off)

 The proposed months have long day-length and span two high-use inhabited months and two low-use months

In the first year of this study water quality samples did not prove as sensitive to impacts as the periphyton in Cosens’ Bay. We would continue with periphyton - the algae attached to rocks near shore and water quality. In both cases, a larger data set from both 2014 and 2015 will increase statistical strength.

In 2015, we would put out artificial substrates to avoid having problems with differences in algae arising from differences in the natural substrates they are growing on. For statistical analysis of the results, we would deploy 5 samplers for July/August (60 day deployment) versus 5 samplers for Sept/Oct (60 day deployment) to give us workable data. The artificial substrate of choice is honed stone tiles mounted in anchoring frames. These samplers would be deployed at one meter depths in non-shaded areas, and be equipped with temperature/light loggers. A known surface area would be sampled from the tiles at the end of each deployment. Periphyton samples would be cut and protected in the field to prevent damage in transit and the loss of usable sample surfaces. Two samples would be collected from the samplers. One sample set would be sent to Caro Labs for volatile solids (ash-free dry weight (AFDW)) and dry weight analysis. The dry weight includes inorganic silts, marl etc, while the volatile analysis includes only the organic algae/biofilm component. The second sample set would be analyzed by LAC for taxonomy and cells counts. We did this work on Cosens Bay in 2014.

The effort saved by sampling only stone tile (not styrofoam as well) can be used to add a small project during 2015 in which nutrient enrichment agar dishes mounted with stone tiles would be compared to the regular tiles to see if periphyton growth is saturated or nutrient limited. We would use N only, P only and N+P enriched trials in areas of Cosens

Bay not under study. The effect of these small petri-dish trials will be negligible on

Cosens Bay water quality, but will answer which nutrient(s) control productivity. The

2014 data suggested that phosphorus was the controlling nutrient.

During 2015 field work, long-shore currents can be monitored using drogues to determine the effects of the docks on long-shore currents and this may help explain the elevated deposition rates noted in 2014 data.

LAC would then propose to prepare a brief stand-alone report for Cosen’s Bay, using both the 2014 and 2015 data. We would suggest that Kalamalka Lake reports be shared among the funding partners since possible impacts of septic systems would be of interest to the municipalities and general trends in Kalamalka Lk would also affect

Cosen’s Bay.

Page 83 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

The conclusions from the 2014 study include:

 No statistically significant impacts of the cottage development were detected in the water quality samples collected during 2014. For example, conclusive effects of the cottage development were not detected in nitrogen or phosphorus analyses.

 At this point, the detected impact of the current level of cottage development on the near-shore periphyton during the summer high-use period is measurable but not disruptive of community structure. However, this does not mean that further development or increased use of the cottage area would be advisable.

 No influence from creeks or springs was detected in the 2014 water quality samples from Cosens Bay. Increased marl sediment deposition may be occurring around docks.

 The impact of the Cosens Bay cottage area on Kalamalka Lake as a whole would be below statistical significance and likely below detection limits. The same cannot be said for other influences on Kalamalka Lake such as Coldstream Creek and Wood Lake inputs.

Proposed 2015 Study Cost:

Like 2014, in this 2015 proposal, we have split the travel time to / from Kelowna, sample delivery to labs, prep. time etc., among the three parties interested in sampling

Kalamalka Lake. The total proposed cost in 2015 is 10,023.00 (Caro = 2723.00 LAC =

7300.00) LAC charges are unchanged from 2014.

This 2015 cost estimate will not be exceeded without permission.

Additional work will be accepted as time permits.

All equipment will be provided by LAC at no additional cost to RDNO.

RDNO staff are welcome to call with questions or observations during the study period.

This Cosens Bay study could be repeated at regular intervals to watch for long-term change. A program interval such as every 5 years or following new development or redevelopment would be appropriate.

If you have any questions or comments on this proposal, please don’t hesitate to call.

Mrs. H. Larratt

Aquatic Biologist, R.P. Bio

Page 84 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.7

Cosens Bay Sampling Proposal

LAC

Personnel H.L.

Consulting and Analysis

LAC

J.S.

LAC

B.L.

LAB

Caro

Rate per hour

Project Management

Project admin

Research

Review of septic effluents

Sampling

4 monthly water quality sample trips deploy/retrieve periphyton samplers

Analyses

Caro water quality samples (17)

Caro AFDW/DW samples (20)

Algae identification and enumeration

Data Analysis

compilation of data data analysis graphics preparation

Reporting

draft report final report preparation final report submission

Project

Total

100

20

5

2

45

5

10

6

4

15

2

20

10

2

45

2

10

6

139

18

Disbursements

total

vehicle office boat supplies

for task

260

100

100

90

225

1160

540

2363

360

2000

180

675

90

1500

650

190

10,023

Caro = 2723.00 LAC = 7300.00

Personnel: HL - Heather Larratt JS - Jamie Self BL - Bruce Larratt

(Note increased lab costs with replicate sample, 2015 pricing)

Page 85 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3046.01.04

TO:

FROM:

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Planning Department

DATE: May 22, 2015

SUBJECT

:

Community Works Fund #108

RECOMMENDATION:

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the Gardom Creek Baseline Assessment be funded from the Electoral Area “F” allocation of the Community Works Fund at a cost of up to

$40,000.00.

DISCUSSION:

Flooding in late winter and early spring significantly affects properties that Gardom Creek runs through below Highway 97. The Farmland Riparian Interface Stewardship Program (FRISP) was requested by the Area Director to make recommendations on flood mitigation and strategies to work with landowners. FRISP has developed a project description and draft budget for the development of a remediation plan for Gardom Creek. The assessment will include properties below Highway 97 and will provide prescriptions to mitigate flooding in a system that has historically been channelized, ditched and diverted through a series of culverts and is experiencing increased flow levels. The remediation plan will take a collective approach to remediation and engage the land owners in a process that includes education with respect to the fact that creeks do flood at times, and promotes stewardship and greater understanding so that at least human made impacts can be improved.

Community Works Fund

The Gardom Creek Baseline Assessment has been assessed utilizing the Regional District of North

Okanagan Community Works Fund Tier 2 project assessment. The assessment and project proposal are attached to this report for your review and information. The project meets the criteria of the

Community Works Fund under the capacity building category.

SUMMARY:

It is recommended that the Gardom Creek Baseline Assessment, be funded from the Community

Works Fund at a cost of up to $40,000.00.

Page 86 of 100

CWF #108

Report to

EAAC-

May 22,2015

Submitted by:

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

Page2

Anna Pag'i?

Sustainability Coordinator

~ -pp ( oved for l nclus i ' n:

' I

Page 87 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

Community Works Fund Project Assessment – Tier 2

Over $8,000

Date: May 22, 2015

Project #: 108

Recipient: Farmland Riparian Interface Stewardship Program

Project Cost: Up to $40,000.00

Project Description: Gardom Creek Baseline Flow Assessment

Development of a remediation plan for Gardom Creek below Highway 97 to mitigate flooding in a system that has historically been channelized, ditched and diverted through a series of culverts and is experiencing increased flow levels. The remediation plan will take a collective approach to remediation and engage the land owners in a process that includes education with respect to the fact that creeks do flood at times, and promotes stewardship and greater understanding so that at least human made impacts can be improved.

Project Eligibility

Eligible funding recipient?

Eligible costs?

If project is related to a building, is the building primarily used for public good?

Benefits of the Project –

Yes Explanation

The Farmland Riparian Interface Stewardship

Program is an eligible recipient

Expenditures related to strengthening the ability of Local Governments to improve local and regional planning.

Yes

Benefit to local community

Benefit to Electoral Area

Benefit to more than one

Electoral Area

Explanation

The Gardom Creek Assessment will provide prescriptions to mitigate flooding and information to promote stewardship and greater understanding of the system by local landowners.

Benefit to all Electoral Areas

Benefit to entire Regional

District

Page 88 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

Does the Project meet funding agreement categories?

Project Category

Public Transit – infrastructure that supports a shared passenger transport system available for public use

Community Energy Systems – infrastructure that generates or increases the efficient use of energy

Drinking Water – infrastructure that supports drinking water conservation, collection, treatment and management systems

Wastewater – infrastructure that supports wastewater and storm water collection, treatment and management systems.

Solid Waste – infrastructure that supports solid waste management systems including the collection, diversion and disposal of recyclables, compostable materials and garbage.

Capacity Building – investments related to strengthening the ability of local governments to develop long-term planning practices

Local roads, bridges (roads, bridges and active transportation infrastructure

Sport Infrastructure – amateur sport infrastructure

Recreational Infrastructure – recreational facilities and networks.

Cultural Infrastructure – infrastructure that supports arts, humanities and heritage

Tourism Infrastructure – infrastructure that attract travelers for recreation, leisure, business or other purposes.

Disaster Mitigation – infrastructure that reduces or eliminates long-term impacts and risks associated with natural disasters.

Yes

Page 89 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

Does the Project work towards achieving one of the three key national objectives and incorporate the principles of Sustainability?

Fund Priorities

Productivity and Economic

Growth

(Economic)

Clean Environment

(Environmental)

Strong Cities and Communities

(Social)

Yes Explanation

Flooding in Gardom Creek can have significant economic impacts on the affected landowners. Providing prescriptions for flood mitigation, will minimize future flooding impacts.

Gardom Creek has fisheries values and the present conditions maybe creating potential fish stranding when flood waters recede.

Flood mitigation prescriptions will be developed in a manner that will also protect fishery habitat values.

The current condition of Gardom Creek presents flooding risks to the landowners, affecting land and threatening buildings.

Improvements to the Creek will decrease these threats.

Other benefits of the Project

Project Benefits

Education value

Yes Explanation

The assessment will include an educational element, as landowners need to recognize that Gardom Creek will experience flooding at times. The process will also promote stewardship, linking in with the environmental farm plan program.

Public Awareness (media opportunities)

Leverage of additional resources (funds, volunteer time, in-kind contributions)

A component of the assessment will be exploring options for implementation funding which cannot come from the Community

Works Fund. The prescriptions designed and permitting established through the assessment would allow for implementation to proceed either with the landowner covering costs or outside funding sources secured.

Funding may come from partnerships with the

Environmental Farm Plan, Pacific Salmon

Foundation, Habitat stewardship Program and other sources related to habitat restoration.

Integration with other Regional District of North Okanagan initiatives

Gardom Creek is a tributary of the Shuswap River and improving its condition from a flood and fisheries habitat perspective, will contribute to overall watershed health.

Page 90 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

Justification for prioritisation of project

Concern with respect to flooding on Gardom Creek is consistent amongst the affected community and by supporting the development of the assessment, which will include the development of prescriptions and applying for a group plan under the Water Act regulations, will assist in removing the barriers which the landowners currently face.

Distribution of Funds

Electoral Area F

Staff Recommendation

That the

Gardom Creek Baseline Assessment be funded.

Page 91 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

T

Farmland Riparian Interface Stewardship Program

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Date: May 21, 2015

To: Regional District of North Okanagan

Attention: Herman Halverson, Anna Page

Re: Gardom Creek Baseline flow assessment looking at Flood Protection,

Channel Capacity, and Fish Habitat Restoration considerations

Introduction

FRISP has been requested by Herman Halverson, Regional District of the North Okanagan Rural

Director Area F to make recommendations on Gardom Creek below Hwy 97 A down to the Shuswap

River. Flooding is impacting properties in the lower 3.7 km of creek corridor as it runs through a series of farms and acreages, the community of Grinrod before entering the river. Like other smaller drainage systems in the southern interior we are seeing problems with flooding as we are experiencing increased flow levels in a creek system that has been channelized or ditched then diverted through a series of culverts for over 100 years. FRISP working with Herman has started the dialogue with landowners and stake holders within the community discussing a watershed based restoration approach. In that light I have been asked to put forward a concept and budget on how things would proceed if Regional District was to support further planning to proactively mitigate flooding.

The following is a draft outline of how I see a common sense recovery plan could be developed bringing the stakeholders on Gardom Creek together so that work can start recovery sooner than later.

I will also emphasis that this is a education exercise as well as the landowners do need to recognize

Gardom Creek as a creek which comes with flooding sometimes. The stake holder engagement would promote stewardship and greater understanding so that at least man made impacts can be improved.

Page 92 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

I would look at developing a remediation plan in stages allowing for adjustments and making sure we have landowner cooperation which will be critical for actual work to proceed. I would look at engaging Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Secwepemc Fisheries Commission represented by Adam

Neil with the Splatsin people right from the start as well. This will bring 2 of the key players who will have say over what proceeds through the permitting process to being part of the recovery plan right from the start.

Stage 1 Landowner engagement, to confirm access to conduct a walk through of the entire creek system and to get a better feeling to what the community is thinking FRISP would develop a information sheet and small survey requesting landowner feedback to a assessment being completed.

This would be delivered through Regional District to the landowners. While we have meet with some of the landowners we need to reach all of them in a quick and efficient manner. I will also follow up with the landowners who attended our open house in Grindrod asking for help in contacting neighbours for support in having responses.

Budget: $5000.00

Stage 2 Working with the Splatsin resource management staff a complete walk through and assessment would be conducted. Restriction points would be identified and some landowner dialogue would be required to discuss past management history. This would allow for a site list to be developed to take back to the community with draft prescriptions. Fisheries and Oceans engineering support will be requested to conduct survey work for elevation levels.

Budget: $15,000.00

Stage 3: Taking it back to the community would involve a open house and follow up dialogue with individual landowners and stakeholders as often cooperation and dialogue will be required between neighbours and other interests.

Budget: $5,000.00

Stage 4: Working again with Splatsin, prescriptions and budgets would be completed for individual sites. While we have a idea of what we will see and we know we have problems, it is a hard call on how many sites will need to be designed and what it will take to have a group plan accepted under the current Water Act regulations for working in and about a stream.

Budget: $15,000.00

Total draft budget. $40,000.00

Page 93 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item E.8

Lower Gardom Creek below 97A to confluence with the Shuswap River:

3.1 km section experiencing flooding

Area of discussion: The creek system below Hwy. 97 to the Tompkinson Road culvert runs approximately 2.3 km.

Looking from Hwy 97A. Restricted culverts has led to flooding and raised water tables impacting residences and fields along Gardom Creek.

Page 94 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item G.1

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the ELECTORAL AREA ‘F’ ADVISORY PLANNING

COMMISSION of the REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held at the Enderby Fire

Hall on May 11, 2015

Members:

C. Dale Fennell

Keith Gray

Bob Honeyman

Tilman Ernest Nahm

Robert Whitley

Other: Herman Halvorson, Electoral Area “F” Director

Denis Delisle, Electoral Area “F” Alt. Director

Guests:

Robert & Michelle Black

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Moved and seconded by Dale Fennell and Robert Whitley

That the Agenda of the May 11, 2015 Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “F” meeting be approved with the following addition:

- Item C.2 – Building Bylaw No. 2670, 2015.

CARRIED

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Moved and seconded by Tilman Nahm and Bob Honeyman

That the minutes of the March 16, 2015 Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “F” meeting be adopted as amended:

- Error on Page 3 should be written as “wondering why their water has so much turbidity.”

CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS

Legal Document Request – Modification of Covenant KP036954

R. Black

File No. 15-0022-F-LD

- Tilman Nahm noted there would be no impact on the neighbours, as by the support from the signed petition. They also must have Interior Health inspect and have their approval before they can advertise the availability of these camping spots.

- Dale Fennell states there is no objection from the Highways Department.

Page 95 of 100

APC “F” Minutes – Regular

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item G.1

- 2 - May 11, 2015

Moved and seconded by Tilman Nahm and Dale Fennell

That the Electoral Area “F” Advisory Planning Commission accept the Planning Departments recommendation to modify Covenant KP036954 registered on the title of the property legally described as the S 1/2 of the SW ¼ of Sec. 3, TWP. 20, R9, W6M, KDYD, Except Plans 23082,

23688, and KAP49667 and located at Black Road, Electoral Area “F” by authorizing the construction of ten (10) Agri-Tourism Campsites on the Non-Urban (N.U.) zoned portion of the property be referred to a Public Hearing.”

CARRIED

BUILDING BYLAW NO. 2670, 2015

Director Halvorson discussed the list of modifications proposed in the draft of Building Bylaw

No. 2670, 2015.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m.

Certified Correct:

Chair Recording Secretary

Page 96 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item G.2

Regional District of North Okanagan

Building Inspections Statistical Report for Apr 2015

Class:

Residential

Residential YTD

Commercial

Commercial YTD

Industrial

Industrial YTD

Public

Public YTD

Agricultural

Agricultural YTD

Ttls for Month

Same Month Prev Yr

Yr to Date

Last Yr to Date

"B"

H Units: Permits:

"C"

Value: H Units: Permits:

"D"

Value: H Units: Permits:

"E"

Value: H Units: Permits:

"F"

Value: H Units: Permits: Value:

0

0

0 5

0 11

0

5

0 16

3 7

5

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

$464,000

$523,235

$0

$451,000

$0

$0

$464,000

$35,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$974,235

$637,600

$439,000

$768,600

$0

$0

$0

$0

$2,600,000

$2,600,000

$0

$0

$3,039,000

$476,000

$3,368,600

$905,880

0

0

0 6

2 10

0

0

2 11

2 12

7

4

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

3

0

0

0

4

0

1

0

0

0

0

4

10

$0

$147,900

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$18,000

$0

$566,000

$165,900

$1,359,300

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$95,000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

3 10

6 17

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 11

4 5

0

1

0

0

0

0

6 20

6 8

$1,063,110

$2,309,610

$900

$90,900

$0

$100,000

$1,064,010

$734,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$2,500,510

$1,379,000

Totals for all Areas:

Building Permits Report Page 1 of 1

Printed: 5/13/2015

Year To Date

Last Year To Date

Units Permits

10 52

13 39

Value

$7,009,245.00

$4,376,780.00

Page 97 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item G.2

Regional District of North Okanagan

Building Inspections Statistical Report for Apr 2015

Class:

Residential

Residential YTD

Commercial

Commercial YTD

Industrial

Industrial YTD

Public

Public YTD

Agricultural

Agricultural YTD

Ttls for Month

Same Month Prev Yr

Yr to Date

Last Yr to Date

Electoral Areas:

H Units: Permits:

Armstrong

Value: H Units: Permits: Value:

Enderby

H Units: Permits: Value:

Lumby

H Units: Permits: Value:

Spallumcheen

H Units: Permits: Value:

3 21

10 41

0

0

2

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 24

6 14

0

2

1

1

0

0

10 52

13 39

$1,966,110

$3,749,345

$900

$541,900

$0

$0

$2,600,000

$2,600,000

$0

$118,000

$4,567,010

$1,811,000

$7,009,245

$4,376,780

$579,000

$1,172,000

$0

$280,000

$0

$54,000

$0

$49,000

$0

$0

$579,000

$875,000

$1,555,000

$1,162,000

0

0

2

4

4 11

4 8

3

5

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

3

3

6

2

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

3

0

0

1

2

$275,000

$275,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$275,000

$482,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$275,000

$482,000

$76,628

$76,628

$0

$1,000

$0

$0

$76,628

$191,200

$0

$0

$0

$0

$77,628

$873,570

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

6

0

1

1

1

$1,316,000

$2,350,404

$0

$0

$136,000

$336,000

$1,452,000

$544,000

$0

$0

$0

$0

$2,686,404

$1,203,980

0

0

3

5

5 11

3 10

7

2

3

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

7

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Totals for all Areas:

Building Permits Report Page 1 of 1

Printed: 5/13/2015

Year To Date

Last Year To Date

Units Permits

19 78

25 66

Value

$11,603,276.79

$8,098,330.00

Page 98 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item G.4

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3046.01.04

TO:

FROM:

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Planning Department

DATE: May 22, 2015

SUBJECT

:

June Sustainability Report

RECOMMENDATION:

That the June Sustainability Report dated May 22, 2015 be received for information.

DISCUSSION:

1. Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan – Boating Regulations

Consultation on the Shuswap River Boating Regulations is now underway as per the Consultation

Strategy presented to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee on May 7 th

. A webpage has been developed specific to the boating regulations providing background information, descriptions and maps of the proposed regulations. The survey developed to garner feedback on the proposed regulations is available on-line and has been sent to the list of direct contacts in the Consultation

Strategy and all landowners with property adjacent to the affected stretches of the river.

Two Public Open Houses will be held in June to provide an opportunity for attendees to view explanatory material, view maps of the affected areas and provide feedback on the proposed regulations.

1. Lower Shuswap River

June 10 th

, 5 – 7:30 PM - Enderby Drill Hall

2. Mid Shuswap River

June 11 th

, 5 – 7:30 PM, Mabel Lake Hall

RDNO staff and members of the partnership will also have a presence at various community events over the summer months to provide information and opportunities for feedback to visitors and residents. Events will include the Shuswap River Awareness Day, Enderby Arts Festival and No

Wake Flotilla.

2. Community Works Fund

Three Tier 1 Community Works Fund projects have been approved:

Project #102 - Lumby and District Tourism Infrastructure - $8,000.00

Project #102 involves a review of Lumby and District’s Tourism Infrastructure which will involve the development of a Tourism Infrastructure Inventory, an Inventory Condition Review and a Gap

Analysis.

Page 99 of 100

June Sustainability Report

Report to EAAC- May 22 , 2015

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 -Item G.4

Page2

Project #104- Grindrod Water Capacity and Reliability Upgrade Review $8,000.00

Commission a review of the Grindrod Water Utility system to identify requ i rements to increase the capacity of the system and increase reliability . Upgrades to the system will ensure that it meets Fire

Underwriters Survey (FUS) standards and therefore provide for fire protection , reduce incidents of water outage due to loss of power, allow for improved ch l or i ne disinfection , and provide for better ab i lity to flush the water mains . The latter two improve the ability of RDNO to meet health guidelines and supply higher quality water . The upgrades will likely include a back-up generator , an increase to the size of the reservoir, and a larger pump .

Project #82(2) - Mid-Shuswap Water Quality Monitoring Program Stage II - $6,640.00

The Mid Shuswap Water Stewards have undertaken a water monitoring program on the Mid Shuswap

River and Lumby area over the last two years. The need for the program was identified during the

Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan (SRWSP) development as it would add significant value to the water qual i ty data sets being developed over the length of the Shuswap River from

Cherryville to Mara . I t is complimentary to the program being undertaken by the Cherryville Water

Stewards and the program the Lower Shuswap Stewardship Society carried out from 2011-2013 .

This project is to provide funding for year three of the program in 2015 .

Project #68(2) - CV WQMP Stage Ill

The Cherryville Water Stewards , in conjunction with the Regional District of North Okanagan, developed the Cherryville Water Protection Project Plan in 2009. The implementation of a water quality monitoring program for the Cherryville area (Cherry Creek , Ferry Creek and the Shuswap

River main stem) is a key action of this Plan and has been carried out by the Water Stewards since

2009. The program has provided data to establish a water quality baseline within the area and is complimentary to the program being undertaken by the Mid-Shuswap Water Stewards and the program the Lower Shuswap Stewardship Society carried out from 2011-2013 .

The Water Stewards are looking to continue the program for 2015 to provide continuity in the data set and to maintain surveillance on water quality.

Submitted by:

-AviS

~ -

.. · ·

--

··

...

Anna Page

Sustainability Coordinator

Endorsed by:

Rob ~

General Manager , P l ann i ng and Building

Page 100 of 100

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 - ADDITIONAL Item G.1

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the ELECTORAL AREA “B” ADVISORY PLANNING

COMMISSION of the REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held in the Boardroom at the Regional District Office on Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Members: Art Haycock

Chris Van der Molen

Richard Butters

Staff:

Other:

Bryan Ryley

Dale Winskowski

Lynda Fraser

Bob Fleming

Susan Ghattas

Cliff Day

Randy McDermid

Paul Williamson

Chair

Vice Chair

Clerk, Planning

Director, Electoral Area “B”

Alt, Director, Electoral Area “B” (arrived at 7:40pm)

APC “C”

APC “C”

APC “C”

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

Chair Haycock called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “B” – May 27, 2015

Moved and seconded by Bryan Ryley and Richard Butters

That the Agenda of the May 27, 2015 Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “B” meeting be approved as presented.

CARRIED

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “B” – Regular Meeting of March 25, 2015

Moved and seconded by Dale Winskowski and Richard Butters

That the minutes of the March 25, 2015 regular meeting of the Advisory Planning Commission

Electoral Area “B” be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS

Building Bylaw No. 2670, 2015 – Joint Discussion with Electoral Area “C” APC

Director Fleming provided some background on the Building Department Review and the reason for a new Building Bylaw.

APC “B” Minutes – Regular

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 - ADDITIONAL Item G.1

- 2 - May 27, 2015

Moved and seconded by Dale Winskowski and Paul Williamson

That the Advisory Planning Commissions of Electoral Areas “B” and “C” support all 10 (ten) recommendations contained in the Planning Department Report dated March 31, 2015.

CARRIED

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting is scheduled for June 24, 2015.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Certified Correct:

Chair Recording Secretary

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 - ADDITIONAL Item G.1

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the ELECTORAL AREA “C” ADVISORY PLANNING

COMMISSION of the REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held in the Boardroom at the Regional District Office on Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Members: Paul Williamson

Cliff Day

Randy McDermid

Staff:

Other:

Lynda Fraser

Bob Fleming

Susan Ghattas

Members of the Public

Richard Butters

Art Haycock

Bryan Ryley

Chris Van der Molen

Dale Winskowski

Chair

Clerk, Planning

Director, Electoral Area “B” (arrived at 7:30pm)

Alt. Director, Electoral Area “B” (arrived at 7:40pm)

APC “B” (arrived at 7:30pm)

APC “B” (arrived at 7:30pm)

APC “B” (arrived at 7:30pm)

APC “B” (arrived at 7:30pm)

APC “B” (arrived at 7:30pm)

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “C” – May 27, 2015

Moved and seconded by Randy McDermid and Cliff Day

That the Agenda of the May 27, 2015 Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “C” meeting be approved as presented.

CARRIED

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “C” – February 25, 2015

Moved and seconded by Cliff Day and Randy McDermid

That the minutes of the February 25, 2015 Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “C” meeting be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS

Agricultural Land Commission Application deTourdonnet, M.

File No. 15-0114-C-ALR

The deTourdonnets gave an overview of their application.

APC “C” Minutes – Regular

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 - ADDITIONAL Item G.1

- 2 - May 27, 2015

Moved and seconded by Cliff Day and Randy McDermid

That the Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “C” support the recommendations contained in the Planning Department Report dated May 20, 2015, that the application of

Agatha and Vincent deTourdonnet c/o Michael deTourdonnet under Section 21(2) of the

Agricultural Land Commission Act to subdivide the property legally described as Lot A, Sec 12,

Twp 8, ODYD, Plan KAP48707 and located at 4877 Haynes Road, Electoral Area “C” not be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land Commission.

CARRIED

Electoral Area “B Advisory Planning Commission joined the meeting at 7:30 pm.

Building Bylaw No. 2670, 2015 – Joint Discussion with Electoral Area “B” APC

Director Fleming provided some background on the Building Department Review and the reason for a new Building Bylaw.

Moved and seconded by Dale Winskowski and Paul Williamson

That the Advisory Planning Commissions of Electoral Areas “B” and “C” support all 10 (ten) recommendations contained in the Planning Department Report dated March 31, 2015.

CARRIED

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting is scheduled for June 24, 2015.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Certified Correct:

Chair Recording Secretary

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 - ADDITIONAL Item G.1

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the ELECTORAL AREA “D” ADVISORY PLANNING

COMMISSION of the REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held at the Whitevalley

Community Centre on Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Members: Butch Mindnich

Joe Deuling

Dennis Richardson

Melanie Wenzoski

Staff: Ashley Bevan

Other:

Rick Fairbairn

Chair

Vice Chair

Executive Assistant

Electoral Area “D” Director

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “D” – May 26, 2015

Moved and seconded by Melanie Wenzoski and Dennis Richardson

That the Agenda of the May 26, 2015 Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “D” meeting be approved as presented.

CARRIED

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “D” – February 24, 2015

Moved and seconded by Joe Deuling and Melanie Wenzoski

That the minutes of the February 24, 2015 Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “D” meeting be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

Discussion ensued regarding the General Manager, Planning and Building attending a future meeting and the possibility of an APC session at the RDNO office.

NEW BUSINESS

Referral Application

FrontCounterBC

[File No.: 15-0164-F-REF]

Discussion ensued regarding:

- Huge area

- Who is paying for the trails to be groomed?

- The area should be restricted to other commercial operators but recreational snowmobilers should be allowed

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 - ADDITIONAL Item G.1

Building Bylaw No. 2670, 2015

Discussion ensued regarding:

- The proposed discontinuance of Authorizations to Construct

- Reducing “red tape”

- Ability to obtain mortgages for homes built through the Authorization to Construct process

- Building Permit fees

- The need for an enforcement mechanism

- The use of Coordinating Registered Professional Authorizations to Construct actually ends up costing the homeowner/builder more

- Accessory and agricultural buildings below 55m

2

are proposed to be exempted from requiring permits; however, the buildings should be allowed to have plumbing

- Keep Authorizations to Construct for accessory and agricultural buildings, but not for houses

Moved and seconded by Melanie Wenzoski and Joe Deuling

That Building Bylaw No. 2670, 2015 be received for information.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.

Certified Correct:

Chair Recording Secretary

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REGULAR AGENDA

June 4, 2015 - ADDITIONAL Item G.3

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN

Income Statement By Cost Center

Fiscal Year :

Account Code :

2015

01-1-104-???

Period : 5

To :

01-1-104-???

REVENUE

BUILDING PERMITS: OTHER FEES

BUILDING PERMITS: APPLICATION FEE

BUILDING PERMITS: ELECTORAL AREAS

BUILDING PERMITS: ARMSTRONG

BUILDING PERMITS: ENDERBY

BUILDING PERMITS: LUMBY

BUILDING PERMITS: SPALLUMCHEEN

BUILDING PERMITS: RENEWAL FEES

BYLAW ENFORCEMENT TICKETS

Total REVENUE

Surplus/Deficit

040 - BUILDING INSPECTION

Income Statement

For the period ended May 31, 2015

Current

Month

Year to

Date

0.00

-5,677.00

-43,500.30

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

-654.00

0.00

-49,831.30

-49,831.30

-2,780.00

-18,442.00

-128,506.54

-13,214.88

-229.90

-211.40

-15,239.24

-4,360.00

-100.00

-183,083.96

-183,083.96

GL5250

Date :

Jun. 03, 2015

Page :

Time :

9:44 am

1

Budget Type :

Function Type :

BV

Selective

Annual

Budget

-1,000.00

-29,000.00

-200,000.00

-40,000.00

-12,000.00

-13,000.00

-75,000.00

-15,000.00

0.00

-385,000.00

-385,000.00

Budget

Remaining

1,780.00

-10,558.00

-71,493.46

-26,785.12

-11,770.10

-12,788.60

-59,760.76

-10,640.00

100.00

-201,916.04

-201,916.04

Surplus/Def -49,831.30

-183,083.96

-385,000.00

-201,916.04

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Related manuals

Download PDF

advertisement