A Meeting of the Carr's Landing Sector Plan Steering Committee and the Land Focus Group

Nov 22 2005

 

Meeting Chairman:                        Chuck Price – Chair: Steering Committee and Chair: Land Focus Group

Steering Committee Members:

                        Frits Bakker – Chair: Infrastructure Focus Group

                        Stan Brynjolfson – Chair: Environmental Focus Group

                        Mark Decker – Chair: Parks Focus Group

Land Focus Group Members:

                        Flo Masson

                        Lance Marshall

                        Margaret Price

                        Carmen Stanek

                        Frank Toplak

Carr’s Landing Community & Recreation Association Directors:

                        Ken Kinswater – President

                        Noreen Malmqvist – Liaison with Sector Plan Steering Committee      

Also in attendance:      

                        Murray Thom - Invited Presenter

                        Alice Rees – Councillor Elect for Okanagan Centre

                        Larry Foster - Integra Community Services

Recording Secretary – Joanne Devries

 

Barbara Leamont, Councillor for Carr’s Landing entered the meeting at 8:00 pm

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm in the Winfield Conference Room, District of Lake Country Municipal Hall.

 

The Chair opened the meeting with his introduction of the format of the meeting to be his opening remarks, a presentation by Murray Thom followed by prepared questions on behalf of the Land Use Focus Group, and finally an open question period before adjournment.

                       

He stated that this meeting was a part of the information gathering activities that the Land Use Focus Group had undertaken in an effort to obtain and assess community suggestions appropriate for the Land Use Section of the Sector Plan.

 

The evening’s presentation comprised changes to the sections of the draft Sector Plan pertaining to land use issues as compiled by Murray Thom, Penny Baughen and Lee Splett as members of an ad hoc committee invited by Chuck Price to provide input.  The agenda for this meeting was to listen to Murray’s presentation and to ask questions concerning it.  Chuck further stated that the meeting would not be debating the merits of either the suggested changes or the previously prepared draft Sector Plan. Only respectful questions and comments would be considered.

 

Frits asked if he could record the meeting. Carmen said doing so would make her uncomfortable; therefore, the meeting was not recorded.  The Chair then invited Murray Thom to make his presentation.

Murray opened his presentation by explaining why he was at this meeting and stated that a copy of his speaking notes would be attached to the minutes of this meeting.  He had forwarded his suggested amendments to portions of the draft Sector Plan and hopefully everyone at the meeting had copies.  He explained how Lee, Penny, and he met with Chuck as an ad hoc sub-committee and how over two meetings the discussions led to some suggested changes to the draft Sector Plan.

 

Chuck initially wanted input to the Land Use Focus Group on one of the more problematic areas, the former Broome property on either side of the Regional Park Kopje.  His focus Group had correctly identified this area as a “hot spot” for the community. This ad hoc sub-committee of Chuck’s examined the Land Use Focus Group Overview Report, Appendix 4.  It was obvious that the Focus Group members had examined the Carr’s Landing area in great detail and had extended its conclusions to include both Rural and Urban zoning. However, the ad hoc committee felt that some of the Focus Group’s conclusions were not fully supported by the analysis of the questionnaire data. The decision was made also to review the Sector Plan itself, particularly the Sections 4.0 through to 7.0 dealing with land use. Three principal issues were identified: 

·        The contradictions in the Sector Plan involved more than just the Broome property.  There was also the contradiction between the overall community response to maintain the rural atmosphere in the whole Carr’s Landing area and a more limited desire to enhance the services and infrastructure;

·        The process of the Sector Plan development was the responsibility of the Steering Committee of the Carr’s Landing Community & Recreation Association. The Focus Groups’ overview reports in the appendices were not, or should not, be part of the Sector Plan itself.  They provide only information resulting from these group deliberations and the responses to the two questionnaires; and

·        The Sector Plan on adoption would become a schedule to the Lake Country OCP bylaw, as did the Oyama Sector Plan.  Zoning issues are addressed in a separate Lake Country bylaw and therefore should not be included in the Sector Plan.  Thus, a major issue was the inclusion of zoning recommendations in a land use document.

 

At the end of the first meeting Murray was asked to make some suggested amendments to the Sector Plan, particularly Section 4.0 through to 7.0 dealing with Rural Resource, Future Land Use, Residential Rural and Residential Urban. These suggestions were reviewed and further revised at the second meeting of Chuck’s ad hoc sub-committee.

 

Moving on to the suggested amendments, Murray stated that he had made some purely editorial corrections to spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. because the final document should be carefully written and professionally presented when it is sent to the District Council.  He also stated that the background section should clearly identify the process for the development of the plan, who was meeting with whom, and how the Association was involved in the process.  In Section 1 of the draft he noted that at one point the time frame for the plan is stated as ten years while in a later article the time frame is twenty years.  He indicated that the suggested amendments to the September 18, 2005 draft Sector Plan would be attached to these minutes and the changes that were being suggested were in red, bold font so that they could be readily identified.  Some editorial comments were also made in blue, bold font.

 

The suggested changes reflect an approach that could help resolve the rural/urban problem.  Smart Growth suggests that maintaining the rural character while at the same time allowing for growth is almost an oxymoron.  The purpose of the Sector Plan is to provide guidance to the DLC in an effort to balance the growth and infrastructure with the desire for rural atmosphere to the satisfaction of the community.  Hopefully the final draft of the Sector Plan solves the conundrum and these suggested changes are submitted to the Land Use Focus Group and to the Steering Committee in the hope that the final draft can and will be accepted by the Carr’s Landing community at large.

 

In Section 5 of the draft Plan, Future Land Use, the suggestion was made to add the sentence “Removal of ALR lands for future housing will lead into urban-rural conflict and must be disallowed.  If owners of land outside the ALR wish to have it returned to the ALR, such action should be encouraged.”  This wording was an attempt to mitigate the concern and comment by Smart Growth. 

 

In Article 5.3, Residential Urban, the suggestion was made to revert Residential Urban to Residential Rural land use. “Limited areas are currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential), largely along the Lake Okanagan shoreline.  Most of these smaller lots were historically approved as subdivisions by the Provincial Department of Highways prior to the creation of the regional district and incorporation of Lake Country.  These areas are designated in the District of Lake Country OCP, Map 3.0.  Consideration should be given to amend the designation to Residential Rural for future development.” 

 

In Section 6, Residential Rural, pages 16 –17, the current District of Lake Country OCP designates these three potential growth areas, and to maintain the rural atmosphere of Carr’s Landing, the suggestion is made that the Sector Plan should address these three areas for residential rural land use.  These are Juniper Cove Road with a potential for 40 rural single-family residential units, Barkley/Commonage Roads with a potential for 50 rural single-family residential units, and Moberly Road Extension with a potential for 25 rural single-family residential units.  At build out with these densities in these three areas, 41% of the projected 20-year development would be achieved. 

 

Murray added that a qualifying statement in this article was also suggested in order to limit the impact of rural sprawl – “development will be designed in such a way as to preserve large, contiguous areas of green space whilst preserving overall rural densities.  All development proposals will address the concerns of the surrounding neighbourhoods relating to the environment, infrastructure, parks and recreation, and will include meeting and discussion with the local community.  Gated development will not be allowed as this further restricts the movement of wildlife.” 

 

In Section 7, Residential Urban, Murray stated that the suggested amendment was to preclude any further Residential Urban land use during the period of the Sector Plan.  He also pointed out the comment from Smart Growth that adult retirement communities are not successful at low densities, as mobility becomes a major factor with an aging population with subsequent reliance on the use of a car and access to services.

 

Finally, Murray stated that the Land Focus Group Overview Report, Appendix 4 to the Plan, had been reviewed, but no changes were suggested, but comments from the ad hoc sub-committee had been noted in red font.  He further noted that with respect to the appendices attached to the Plan, his past experience had shown him that politicians and bureaucrats read only executive summaries and rarely look at the detail of appendices and supporting data.  Therefore the plan itself must clearly indicate the intention of the plan with respect to land use over the period of the plan.  The appendices themselves are not part of the plan and the page numbering should indicate this.

 

With respect to the time line for this plan, Murray stated that once a land use plan recommends urban residential land use, the future for developers becomes the day after the plan is approved.  The ad hoc sub-committee’s approach to orderly development over the long term for this area was to support rural residential land use and over the longer term as infrastructure is improved incrementally through DCCs and planned application of local property taxes, incremental sub-division can take place. He related the example in Vernon of the veterans’ homes on the edge of town built on half-acre lots in 1946 and which are now well within the city and mostly sub-divided.

 

He concluded his presentation thanking the Steering Committee and Land Use Focus Group for giving Lee, Penny and himself the opportunity to express their views and to make these suggestions to improve on the immense work that the volunteers on these committees had completed to date.  He added that he sincerely believes that if the Plan removes all reference to zoning, rural or urban, then the plan will be more palatable and acceptable to the majority of the area residents.

 

The Chair invited Margaret Price to ask the prepared questions on behalf of the Land Use Focus Group.  The questions and her background comments are attached to these minutes.

 

#1

Q:  In what specific ways do you think you have addressed the issue of short term and long-term change for Carr’s Landing?

 

A: I use the previous Vernon example of its veterans’ homes. If you start out with rural resource and rural residential land-use designations the land use can be changed over the long term. In the short term, there will be no further residential urban designations in the CL area. For mid-term changes, current areas (e.g. Coral Beach) should revert to residential rural land use.

 

Q:  By using the Lake Country 2001 OCP as your guideline, how do your recommendations help to direct the DLC and developers deal with changes that are proposed for the future?

 

A: The 2001 OCP limits development for growth to three areas; other developments should be disallowed in the short and medium term. That should be outlined specifically in the sector plan. The suggested changes indicate that development must all be rural residential and rural resource. Developers may look at incremental uses and changes to land use as infrastructure is incrementally developed.

 

Q:  So, we ask the question, do you think community changes should be dealt with just as they were in the past under the guidelines of the OCP, as individual proposals that must be fought over and deliberated without more specific direction to decision makers?

 

A: No, but look at the proposals for that portion of Okanagan Centre in south end of the draft. Changes to land use can be proposed when there are reasonable grounds for change in this area if infrastructure development extends over the hill from The Lakes development. If rural resource and rural residential land use is clearly stated in the Sector Plan it would be clear to DLC staff and developers. (The issue of the inclusion of a portion of the Okanagan Centre area in the Sector Plan was briefly raised. Chuck clarified that both John Mardall and Barbara Leamont had agreed that the addition of this area for consideration in the Sector Plan process was fine with them.)

 

#2

Q:  How is it possible to provide infrastructure, as well as environmental protection, and other services given your status quo planning using the basic guidelines of the OCP?

 

A: Infrastructure issues as pointed out by Tom Lancaster…It has to be incremental…it has to be controlled…we’re trying to prevent further sprawl…you need innovative ways to provide infrastructure out there…ensure we keep open spaces…that’s in the plan…I would like to know, what is the percentage of taxes that come from Carr’s Landing compared to the rest of the community? There’s a huge chunk not being funnelled back into infrastructure in Carr’s Landing.

 

#3

Q:  Given that you want to keep the form and character already established and that for you, the guidelines of the OCP are for the most part adequate, how does it attempt to intervene or prevent some of the deleterious effects of sprawl?

 

A: Our suggested amendments to the sector plan do not address anything along that line. We didn’t address Tom Lancaster’s questions about crime, environmental impacts, etc.

 

Q:  And, given that you want to keep the form and character already established, how does your sector plan comprise ideas that are ‘forward thinking’ and involve “thinking outside the box”?

 

A: We tried to resolve the widely expressed opinion that the rural aspect of Carr’s Landing should be maintained.  We might have tried to put you back in the box a little.

 

Q:  Should we plan to stay on the path of creating elitist, segregated, private single-family estates at the cost of becoming a uni-dimensional and dumb growth bedroom community?

 

A: Elitist society? “Dumb” Growth community? I don’t think the current OCP encourages those ideas, but the Council is in control when it approves developments that would create such an approach. The Community Association has tried over the years to develop a cohesive rural community, working to prevent encroachment by “elitist” builders on road ends and to ensure lake access for all.  I don’t know how a sector plan can prevent our wealthy neighbours from building million dollar homes on a property zoned R1.  RU5 (.65 acres) can be divided into 1/3-acre lots down the road.  RU5 is acceptable replacement for R1 now, but again, the sector plan should not be addressing zoning, but only land use designations.

 

Q:  Should we create the legacy of a baby boomer generation that leaves behind a sprawling, polluting, exclusive community that cares only for the excesses of their own cohort with no concrete plan to resolve the issues of loss of wildlife, lake pollution, wildfire and the availability of potable water?  Assuming you will answer ‘no’ to this question, how does your approach address these potential problems and the financing of solutions?

 

A: Legacy from this generation?  I don’t understand what you are implying.  We’ve made suggestions in the land-use portion of the sector plan, keeping space around developments, suggesting the creation of buffers and wildlife corridors.  The words are there in our suggested amendments to encourage more planning in future developments.

 

#4

Q:  Many Carr’s Landing residents desire a community hall, hopefully a place to interact and thereby form a community heart and focus.  Since a community hall is a land use issue, why hasn’t it been addressed in your plan?

 

A: Land-use for community facility? We didn’t go beyond section 7.  It’s not that we considered it and didn’t agree one is needed.

 

At this point the meeting was opened to questions from the floor. 

 

Frank: The Sector Plan should affect land-use but not zoning?

 

Murray: DLC will have a new zoning bylaw that will relate to all of Lake Country. All designations will be reflected in zoning bylaw.

 

Frank: Are we leaving it up the DLC to designate land uses in CL?

 

Murray: No, it will be left up to developers to apply for zoning in identified growth areas. The public process then kicks in. I believe pre-zoning is a disaster, excluding the public from any further input. The Sept. 18th draft essentially becomes a pre-zoning document.  That may not have been the intention but it has that effect.

 

Larry: Rezoning is a separate process.  The draft was really referring to single-family housing as a density issue and should have used words like “consistent with” R1 zoning.

 

Murray: You can see why that was misunderstood and not supported.

 

Frank: On page 14 of your summary, are you suggesting we downzone from urban to rural densities?

 

Murray: Yes, that could be done.

 

Frank: You would enforce that on a landowner?

 

Murray:  I would refer that question to Larry.

 

Larry: Down zoning is a really big issue, the financial issues are huge but the suggestion is not rezoning, but designating the properties for residential rural land use.

 

Murray: Future use should be restricted to certain zoning requirements

 

Frank:  Subdivide ALR lands? I think this is completely misunderstood. I don’t think there was any attempt to remove agricultural land from the ALR.

 

Mark:   That section needs some wordsmithing…

Larry: No ALR land would be removed in Carr’s Landing. “Disallowed” …those are very difficult and awkward words in a sector plan.

 

Murray: Planning services people love the weasel words, because it’s easier for them to work with developers’ proposals.

 

Frank: Survey…on page 3 of your document you admit that community response to the survey was quite high.  We’re puzzled how we can ignore such broad community support and present only a watered down version. The survey results are the best indicator of what the community wanted…but should we put it aside?

 

Murray:  The wording is that of the original draft, not mine.  I was speaking of errors and when I looked at the focus group analysis of the survey responses. I thought that some erroneous conclusions were being made.  You can’t make a valid conclusion on some of those figures and you have to treat very them carefully.  When you have 50% agreeing with a response and 49% disagreeing, the conclusion cannot be made that the majority are in favour of a major change or argue that the silent majority exists to support the conclusion.

 

Frank: You recognize there is a certain margin of error?

 

Chuck: Let’s let that rest for now…

 

Carmen:  ALR…”disallowed” …then home-site severance would be possible?

 

Murray: I don’t think the intention was to prevent home-site severance. We had not considered those aspects of agricultural land use.

 

Carmen:  Interesting, that's very interesting.

 

Frits: Some land-use committee questions addressed infrastructure issues. Is there a suggestion that Murray should look at that section?

 

Margaret: How are we going to pay for infrastructure with this status-quo plan? Or should taxes be distributed more evenly throughout the DLC?

 

Frits: There’s a major conundrum…the infrastructure we need tomorrow won’t be put in place for 20 years. We’ll ask DLC if percentage of CL-generated taxes can be put into reserves for infrastructure.

 

Mark:   Was your group negative to neighbourhood store concept?

 

Murray:  No, but market forces will determine its future. The need for a community store would result in another zoning problem at that time.

 

Mark:   I note the reluctance to engage in pre-zoning, but in essence it’s happening now.  The sector plan would be the ideal vehicle to target specific areas that will be targeted for development.

 

Murray: It would be disastrous if the former Broome property, for example, is targeted for development. We should stick with growth areas that are already identified in the OCP. The only way you could protect that property is to recommend it for residential rural land use or rural resource.

 

Mark:   Even that requires a moderate amount of infrastructure if it were to be zoned for RU5 but there would be a need to refer to the new zoning bylaw.

 

Murray: The best way to address divergent views, is to make sure that all residential land use is residential rural.  That would go a long way to appease many people in the community.

 

Lance: You referred to comments of people at the last open house meeting and the written comments received.  Over the last three years within land-use group we attempted not to be constrained by the events of one evening or one set of issues, but rather using all information (surveys, focus groups, etc.). I’m concerned this is a knee-jerk reaction to one single event…the open house.

 

Murray: No. I’ve tried to remain neutral and considered the survey responses and reviewed the Oyama Sector Plan as well as the Lake Country OCP.  I’m well aware of what’s been done by some individuals to try to throw this sector plan process off the track.  During my first meeting with Chuck I was quite forceful in expressing my opinions about the weaknesses in the September 18th draft plan. My comments tonight reflect the ad hoc sub-committee’s input to this presentation and the careful review completed before making these suggested recommendations. Other people have offered to ‘help’ me, but I said thank you, no, because I wanted to remain neutral in any debate over the land use issues.

 

The Chairman suggested that the question period should end.  Murray again thanked those present for the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of Lee, Penny and himself.  He wished the Steering Committee luck on completing the final stages of this Sector Plan.

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.

 

 

 

 

 


 

Presentation to Carr’s Landing Sector Plan Steering Committee and the Land Use Focus Group November 22, 2005 by Murray Thom

 

 

Why am I here?: 

·        My suggested amendments that I sent to Chuck (and which hopefully he forwarded to all of you) had an introductory page that explains how Lee, Penny, and I met with Chuck and how these meetings led to some suggested changes to the draft Sector Plan.

·        Chuck initially wanted our input to the Land Use Focus Group that he chaired on one of the more problematic areas, the Broome property on either side of the Regional Park Kopje.  His focus Group had correctly identified this area as a “hot spot” for the community.

·        After reviewing the comments received from the community after the Open House, it was obvious from the reaction at the Open House that as Mark Decker has said,  “the R-1 designation has created a significant amount of resistance to the entire plan for very little potential gain.” The recommendations of the Land Use Focus Group for R-1 Urban zoning along the waterfront properties added to this resistance to the entire plan.

 

Actions taken:

·        This ad hoc committee of Chuck’s examined the Land Use Focus Group Overview Report, Appendix 4.  It was obvious that the members had examined the Carr’s Landing area in great detail and had extended its conclusions to include both Rural and Urban zoning.

·        The ad hoc committee felt that some of the Focus Group’s conclusions were not fully supported by the analysis of the questionnaire data.

·        The decision was made to also review the Sector Plan itself, particularly the Sections 4.0 through to 7.0 dealing with land use.

 

Issues identified:

·        The contradictions in the Sector Plan involved more than just the Broome property.  There is also the contradiction between the overall community response to maintain the rural atmosphere in the whole Carr’s Landing area and a more limited desire to enhance the services and infrastructure;

·        The process of the Sector Plan development was the responsibility of the Steering Committee of the Carr’s Landing Community & Recreation Association. The Focus Groups’ overview reports in the appendices were not, or should not, be part of the Sector Plan itself.  They only provide information resulting from these group deliberations and the responses to the two questionnaires; and

·        The Sector Plan on adoption would become a schedule to the Lake Country OCP bylaw, as is the Oyama Sector Plan.  Zoning issues are addressed in a separate Lake Country bylaw and therefore should not be included in the Sector Plan.  Thus, a major issue was the inclusion of zoning recommendations in a land use document.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further Actions:

·        At the end of the first meeting I was asked to make some suggested amendments to the Sector Plan, particularly Section 4.0 through to 7.0 dealing with Rural Resource, Future Land Use, Residential Rural and Residential Urban.

·        These suggestions were reviewed and further revised at the second meeting of Chuck’s ad hoc committee.

 

Suggested Amendments:

·        I would now like to turn to the suggested amendments in the emailed document.  Overall, there are some purely editorial corrections of spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. (Like not starting a sentence with a numerical number, e.g. 147!)  And my editorial board just recently returned from Victoria has pointed out a couple more – page 2, subject-predicate agreement and page 3, syntax and pronoun reference!

·        Section 1, Background, Art. 1.3: note that there is a time line of ten years here, yet in Art.1.5 the time frame of the plan is twenty years.  I am not sure what period the Sector Plan is intended to address.

·        I think the writing should be clear as to who was meeting with whom, but I could not supply that information.

·        Page 3. 3rd paragraph: to ensure the credibility of the Sector Plan and the community acceptance of it, I believe it to be essential that the process for the development of this plan is clear.  I believe it is a project of the CL Community & Recreation Association whose executive directors established the Steering Committee that then used all the volunteers in focus groups to gather data and write the overview reports.  This added sentence makes the process more clear to the reader.

·        Art. 1.4, page 4:  Penny’s comment from New Zealand – she questions the mathematics here and in Art. 1.5, page 6.

·        This is clarification of how early sub-divisions were created and have now inherited the urban zoning designation of R-1 by the District of Lake Country.

·        Page 6:  It is arguable that the use of the overall District of Lake Country projected rate of growth of 3% need not apply to Carr’s Landing and could be construed to be misleading.

·        The last sentence is emphasis on the desire for a rural single-family community for the period of the plan.

·        Page 8: Penny supplied these editorial changes for emphasis.  From New Zealand she had an additional comment whether this was contradictory to her other suggested amendment at Art. 6.3 and again to the content of the Plan in Art. 12.3

·        Section 3, Agriculture, Art. 3.3.6:  Smart Growth notes this policy as troubling, but I have no suggestions for amendment.  See the wording at Art. 5.1.

·        Section 5, Art. 5.0, Future Land Use: (page 14) – I shall have a comment on the placement of the appendices to the Sector Plan in my concluding remarks.

·        Art. 5.1:  This is an attempt to mitigate the concern and comment expressed by Smart Growth.

·        Art. 5.3:  This is the suggestion to revert Residential Urban areas to Residential Rural land use.

·        Section 6, Residential Rural: Pages 16 –17.  The current District of Lake Country OCP designates these three potential growth areas and to maintain the rural atmosphere of Carr’s Landing the suggestion is made that the Sector Plan should address these three areas for residential rural land use.

·        Section 7, Residential Urban:  The suggested amendment to this section is to preclude any further Residential Urban land use during the period of the Sector Plan.  I would also point out the comment from Smart Growth that adult retirement communities are not successful at low densities as mobility becomes a major factor with an aging population with subsequent reliance on the use of a car and access to services.

 

If you now take a quick look at Appendix 4, you will note that the only editorial suggestion I made is to change the name of the Focus Committee to its correct name, the Land Use Focus Group.  I did this to avoid any confusion between the Steering Committee and the focus groups.  The remaining comments I added in red/bold type are simply the comments agreed during the review with Chuck, Lee, Penny, and myself.

 

Concluding Remarks

When we first met with Chuck, I was unaware of the process that had been followed to develop the Sector Plan, as I had not been involved.  Lee expressed the view that the work of the Focus Groups was completed with receipt of comments following the Open House and that this group was giving input to Chuck as the Steering Committee Chair.  However, Chuck expressed the view that we had been invited to discuss land use issues with him as the Chair of the Land Use Focus Group.  So as a compromise to these two views, I am making suggestions to both the Steering Committee and the Land Use Focus Group.  As I stated earlier, I believe it is important that for the credibility of the Sector Plan, it be seen by the community that the Steering Committee is producing the Final Draft for presentation to the Community Association for endorsement before being presented to the District of Lake Country. 

 

With respect to the appendices attached to the Plan, my past experience has shown me that politicians and bureaucrats only read executive summaries and rarely look at the detail of appendices and supporting data.  Therefore the plan itself must clearly indicate the intention of the plan with respect to land use over the period of the plan.  The appendices themselves are not part of the plan and the page numbering should indicate this.  The numbering should not be consecutive to the plan but differentiated by a scheme such as A-1-1 for the first page of Appendix 1 and so on to A-7-9 for the last page of the Infrastructure Overview Report.

 

With respect to the time line for this plan, you will have noted that I suggested the removal of Chuck’s plea for understanding that the recommended density changes were for the future.  Once a land use plan recommends urban residential land use, the future for developers becomes the day after the plan is approved.  My approach to orderly development over the long term for this area is to support rural residential land use and over the longer term as infrastructure is improved incrementally through DCCs and planned application of local property taxes, sub-division can take place. (Relate the example in Vernon of the veterans homes on the edge of town on half-acre lots and now well within the city and mostly sub-divided.)

 

I would like to thank you for giving Lee, Penny and myself the opportunity to express our views and to make these suggestions to improve on the immense work that you have completed to date.  I sincerely believe that if the Plan removes all reference to zoning, rural or urban, then the plan will be more palatable and acceptable to the majority of the area residents.  I wish you luck on completing the final stages of this Plan.

 

 

LAND USE FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

 

1.  In the Smart Growth principles as applied to the Carr’s Landing proposed Sector Plan by Tom Lancaster, Tom states (p. 3) that “The rural and natural character of an area dominated by single family land use patterns will always be under threat”, and that, “the nature of settlements, whether urban or rural, is that they change over time and that they have to be dynamic”.

 

Q:  In what specific ways do you think you have addressed the issue of short term and long term change for Carr’s Landing?

 

Q:  By using the Lake Country 2001 OCP as your guideline, how do your recommendations help to direct the DLC and developers deal with changes that are proposed for the future?

 

 

Given that change will and has to occur, the land use committee considered it necessary to provide the specifics for neighbourhoods where the pressure for change will likely occur early in the change process (infrastructure from The Lakes development).  We also proposed the specifics of a plan for neighbourhoods that are attractive for development, such as Kopje Park.

Q:  So, we ask the question, do you think community changes should be dealt with just as they were in the past under the guidelines of the OCP, as individual proposals that must be fought over and deliberated without more specific direction to decision makers?

 

 

2.  Tom Lancaster makes an important point concerning the impact that results from the lack of residential development.  He specifically discusses stormwater and wastewater runoff going into the lake.  He states that, “it is important to build the infrastructure to treat this wastewater or allow the lake to suffer”.  And, connected to this need for infrastructure Tom points out and I quote “The tax base from residential, especially sprawl, is very low and seldom covers the costs of infrastructure maintenance and renewal, let alone the costs of upgrading and servicing new facilities and civic spaces” …………………. Lancaster (p. 4) goes on to state that, “Without a long term strategy in place that matches the growth expectations of Carr’s Landing, it seems as though this will be a major issue in the future”.

 

In 1.7 of your proposal, it is stated that, “The area (meaning Carr’s Landing) will have maintained its essential single-family qualities while supporting means to improve infrastructure for service, transportation and utilities for residents”

Tom Lancaster (p. 4) is clear in his assessment that without DCCs or a means to improve the tax base, infrastructure and services, whether new or upgraded, is highly unlikely and furthermore the lack of infrastructure is a threat to the environment and creates one of the biggest challenges to regional districts and municipalities.

 

Q:  How is it possible to provide infrastructure, as well as environmental protection, and other services given your status quo planning using the basic guidelines of the OCP?

 

 

3.  Tom Lancaster states that sprawl has been well researched; he recounts the attributes of sprawl in his report (p. 2).  As we see it, Carr’s Landing development so far has encouraged ‘suburban sprawl’ and many of the attributes he cites in his report.  For example, Carr’s Landing has ‘socially-exclusive’ neighbourhoods, a high and increasing cost of housing, the potential for crime in the form of home burglaries, wildlife and environmental damage, and an inefficient use of services and unsustainable cost of infrastructure.

 

Q:  Given that you want to keep the form and character already established and that for you, the guidelines of the OCP are for the most part adequate, how does it attempt to intervene or prevent some of the deleterious effects of sprawl?

 

Q:  And, given that you want to keep the form and character already established, how does your sector plan comprise ideas that are ‘forward thinking’ and involve “thinking outside the box”?

 

Q:  Should we plan to stay on the path of creating elitist, segregated, private single-family estates at the cost of becoming a uni-dimensional and dumb growth bedroom community?

 

Q:  Should we create the legacy of a baby boomer generation that leaves behind a sprawling, polluting, exclusive community that cares only for the excesses of their own cohort with no concrete plan to resolve the issues of loss of wildlife, lake pollution, wildfire and the availability of potable water?  Assuming you will answer ‘no’ to this question, how does your approach address these potential problems and the financing of solutions?

 

 

4.  The smart growth report locates the ‘nurture of engaged citizenship’ as one of the eight principles.

 

Q:  Many Carr’s Landing residents desire a community hall, hopefully a place to interact and thereby form a community heart and focus.  Since a community hall is a land use issue, why hasn’t it been addressed in your plan?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION TO SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE CARR’S LANDING

SECTOR PLAN

 

The following 17 pages have been extracted from the September 18, 2005 draft Sector Plan and suggested amendments and editorial corrections have been included and indicated in red with a change in font and font size.  One suggestion for needed change is made in blue in parentheses in the third paragraph of Art. 1.3 but the information was not readily at hand to make a suggested change.

 

Because of deletions and re-writes of some of the original draft, the page numbering is not the same as the original.  In reviewing the suggested changes, use should be made of the September draft to compare the deletions and re-writes.  Note should also be made that the language of the pages was converted to English/Canadian and that has changed some of the original spellings, including Carr’s Landing.

 

After the Open House for the Sector Plan was held, the Chair of the Steering Committee and the Land Use Focus Group invited Lee Splett, Penny Baughen, and Murray Thom to meet with him.  The purpose of this ad hoc sub-committee was to provide input to the Land Use Focus Group to assist in resolving the conundrum of maintaining the community’s desire to maintain the rural nature of the community while also expressing some need for improved services and infrastructure. 

 

One of the major issues that arose in these two meetings was that the Sector Plan, as part of the OCP process, should not be addressing land use zoning but only land use.  After reviewing the minutes of the two meetings, the DLC OCP, the Oyama Sector Plan, the many comments received following the Open House, and comments from Smart Growth, Murray Thom drafted these suggested changes to the body of the Sector Plan, pages 7 through 47. Chuck Price’s ad hoc sub-committee has reviewed these suggested changes.

 

The suggested changes reflect an approach that could help resolve that rural/urban problem.  Smart Growth suggests that maintaining the rural character while at the same time allowing for growth is almost an oxymoron.  The purpose of the Sector Plan is to provide guidance to the DLC in an effort to balance the growth and infrastructure with the desire for rural atmosphere to the satisfaction of the community.  Hopefully the final draft of the Sector Plan solves the conundrum and these suggested changes are submitted to the Land Use Focus Group and to the Steering Committee in the hopes that the final draft can and will be accepted by the Carr’s Landing community at large.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.3 Plan Preparation and Public Consultation

 

The Carr’s Landing Sector Plan was initiated by agreement between the District of Lake Country and the Carr’s Landing Community & Recreation Association in the latter part of 2002.   Initial activities included the distribution of a community-

wide survey intended to determine resident attitudes toward a number of aspects of the Carr’s Landing community.  Residents were asked what they liked about the community, what concerns they had about land uses and services, what they would like to see in the community, and what the community should look like in ten years. (See p.6)  One hundred and forty-seven responses were received, largely reflecting a desire to see the area retain its positive rural character and environmental qualities, while linking the nature and scope of future community growth to the incremental upgrade of essential roadway, water, and sanitary sewer services.  (see Appendix 1 – Community Survey #1 and Results). 

 

In early 2003 a Carr’s Landing Sector Plan Steering Committee and a focus group for each of the Environment, Infrastructure, Land Use, and Parks and Recreation issue areas was formed.  The members of the steering committee and the focus groups consisted of resident volunteers from within the Plan area.  During the spring and summer of 2003 each focus group met to discuss and define issues pertinent to its issue area.  In October and November of 2003, the focus groups presented their perceived issues in a series of four community workshops at the Camp Arbuckle facility.  Each workshop focused on a different geographic section of the Plan area.  There were approximately 20 resident participants at each session for a total of 80 attendees.  Focus group representatives provided participants with background information on current conditions within the community.  The participants were then afforded an opportunity to express their points of view regarding the direction to be taken by the Plan.  Minutes from the Workshops are available at the District offices or from the Carr’s Landing Community & Recreation Association   (see Appendix 2 – Community Workshops Notice).  These Focus Groups continued to meet throughout the next months to refine the material for the individual Focus Group overview reports.

 

A separate meeting [who was meeting here and in the next paragraph – the Steering Committee or the Focus Groups?] was held with local members of the agricultural industry, focusing on the role of agriculture as an integral part of the Carr’s Landing community.

 

During 2004 meetings were held with District staff members in Planning, Engineering, Parks and Recreation and Finance to obtain the necessary background information and guidance.  Additional meetings were held with Parks personnel of the Regional District of Central Okanagan.  These meetings provided information that allowed the refinement of the Plan area issues.

 

 

 

A follow-up community survey was undertaken in December 2004, intended to obtain community response to the directions being advanced in an initial draft Plan.  Six hundred and seventy survey envelopes each containing 2 questionnaires were mailed to the property owners within the Plan area.  The questionnaire consisted of 61 questions organized into the four issue areas of Environment, Infrastructure, Land Use, and Parks and Recreation.  Three hundred and seventy-one (28%) responses were received.  However, since each envelope sent out contained two surveys and not every household had two eligible respondents, the actual response is considered to be better than the stated numbers indicate.  The response data was analyzed on an overall area basis as well as on a neighbourhood area basis.  The responses reflected broad concurrence with the policy direction in the initial draft Sector Plan.  Where significant differences with the draft were noted, the Sector Plan was refined to reflect that resident input.  A copy of the second survey is included n the Appendices, along with the survey analysis results.  (see Appendix 3 – Community Survey #2 and Results) 

 

The draft Plan was amended to reflect the results of the second survey.  This second draft was forwarded to staff members of the District of Lake Country for their review and comments.  The Plan was then presented to the Community at an Open House in October 2005, attended by some ……….  Comments received at that forum reflected………       

 

                        (add Open House info here)

 

Refinements to the draft Sector Plan were undertaken following the Open House in preparation for submission of the Plan for the consideration by the Council of the District of Lake Country.  This final preparation involved the Sector Plan Steering Committee reviewing the final draft and presenting it to the Carr’s Landing Community and Recreation Association executive directors for final endorsement prior to forwarding the Plan to the District of Lake Country.

 

Communication with community residents consisted of milestone announcements in The View and The Calendar as well as the community web page.  Several presentations were made to the Council.  The local cable server broadcasts all council proceedings.  Minutes of the Steering Committee were posted on the website as well as the overall area data of the second survey.

 

The writing of the plan consisted of each of the leaders of the focus groups preparing an Overview Report for his respective issue areas.  This was then transferred to Integra Community Planning Services who had been contracted to assist in the preparation of the Plan.  Integra then integrated these summaries into a document that contained the required background and other information.  The Plan was transferred back and forth over several months, which allowed all of the committee participants to review and make comments.  A copy of the Overview Report prepared by each Focus Group is included in the Appendices hereto.  A resident of the community who was particularly keen in documenting the historical information prepared the Plan history section.

 

1.4  The Carr’s Landing Setting

 

The Carr’s Landing Sector Plan area includes about 3100 hectares (31 square kilometres) of land, comprised of some 635 individual properties.  These properties range in size from compact single family lots, to large individual holdings which include in excess of 7.8 square kilometres.  Along with a number of agricultural operations in the area, the community has developed largely as a rural residential area, predominantly as a single- family dwelling community.   

 

The Plan area rises in elevation from Okanagan Lake level (typically approximately 342 metres) at the western boundary to an elevation of some 1050 metres at the high point of Spion Kopf peak.  A significant portion of the Plan area has steep terrain in excess of 30% slope (see Map 2.0 – Terrain Slope Conditions).  These steeper lands are designated as Hillside Development Permit Areas within the District’s current Official Community Plan.

 

Much of the upper portion of the Plan area is forested land, with the lower reaches of the area now developed for residential and agricultural purposes.  The shoreline, extending some 10.9 kilometres, is largely committed to residential purposes along with some public open space and roadway rights-of-way.  There are major large land holdings in the northern portion of the Plan area, owned by two separate owners.  In the higher central sections of the Plan area there are Crown lands encompassing some 227 hectares.

 

A range of zoning categories has been designated in Carr’s Landing. Much of the area is currently zoned within the District’s Rural zoning categories, RU-ALR (Rural – Agricultural Land Reserve) through RU-6 (Small Holdings).  There are also limited areas of R-1 (Single Family Residential), largely along the Lake Okanagan shoreline.  Most of these smaller lots were historically approved as recreational subdivisions for cottages by the Provincial Department of Highways prior to the creation of the regional district and incorporation of Lake Country.  There are parcels with Institutional zoning, namely P-1 (Park and Open Space) and P-2 (Administration, Service and Assembly).  There is one parcel in the community with C-5 (Motel and Campground) commercial zoning.  The zoning designations within the overall Carr’s Landing community are illustrated on Map 3.0 – Current Zoning Designations.  

 

The current District of Lake Country Zoning Bylaw # 98-193 was derived from the Regional District of Central Okanagan Zoning Bylaw # 176 at the time of the District incorporation.  The District of Lake Country Official Community Plan acknowledges the need for an updated Zoning Bylaw to reflect current conditions and needs in the community.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insert Map 2 – Terrain Conditions

 

 

Penny’s Comment:  370 occupied dwellings – however, 2nd para of page 4 states that there are 635 individual properties.  Does this mean that there are 265 created but undeveloped lots?  And at an occupancy rate of 2.8 persons per household, doesn’t meant that our population could increase by up to 70% without one single new lot being created?

Just a thought!!!
1.5  Current and Projected Population

 

The 2001 Canada Census reflected a total population of 1,045 people in the Carr’s Landing Sector Plan area.  This included some 295 persons (28%) from 0 to 19 years of age, and 145 persons (13%) 65 years and over.  The average age in the Plan area was 38.9 at the time of the 2001 Canada Census.

 

The Plan area population was housed in private households, at 2.8 persons per household.  Of the 370 occupied dwellings, 315 (85%) were owner occupied, and 55 (15%) were rental dwellings.  The housing supply of 370 units was comprised of 340 (92%) single detached houses, and 30 (8%) semi-detached/row/duplex units.  There were no apartment units in the Plan area. (See also Penny’s comment)

 

A number of properties are owned by persons with permanent residences elsewhere, occupying the Carr’s Landing premises for only a portion of each year.

 

The population projection in the District’s Official Community Plan provides for an annual growth rate of 3% for the initial five years of the Plan.  The population projection envisages the overall population to increase by approximately 7,418 people to a District-wide population of 17,262 by the year 2020.

 

On the basis that the Carr’s Landing area will maintain its largely single family housing form, and the infrastructure systems will remain a challenge to new development initiatives, the population of the Carr’s Landing area is anticipated to increase at a modest pace.  The projection and application of an overall growth rate for the District of Lake Country to the Carr’s Landing sector can be misleading.  A 3% annual growth rate would provide for an overall Carr’s Landing population increase of some 787 persons, to a total of 1,832 by the year 2020.  At a continued average household occupancy of 2.8 persons per residential unit, an additional 281 single-family units would be constructed within the 20-year timeframe of the Plan, (or 10?) or an annual average of about 14 units per year.  The residential area is a predominately single-family community and will remain so in the future.          

 

 

 

 

 

Insert Map 3  - Current Zoning Designations

 

 

1.6  A Historical Perspective

 

For several thousand years before the first white settlers arrived in the Okanagan Valley in the early nineteenth century, the Interior Salish lived undisturbed.  The Okana’qen depended on hunting, gathering and fishing and many generations found the Carr’s area a bountiful source of wildlife, fish and vegetation.  They called our area Cus-in-so-nook, which has been translated as Place of Fickle Women.  Rainbow Hill, at the southern End of our community, was known as Sink-mili-may-was and was a portage route where canoes were carried between Okanagan Lake and Pelmewash (Wood) Lake.  To the north, the open range and grassland that we know as the Commonage, was called Inquicoot. 

 

Through the early 1800’s two distinct trails were established through the valley.   One was the Hudson Bay Brigade Trail on the west side of the lake; the other from Okanagan Mission to Schloocum (Duck) Lake, along the western ridge above Long (Kalamalka) Lake to Kamloops and beyond.   As traffic increased along the trails, our area remained in relative peace and isolation.  

 

Two events changed the situation and led to the settlement of our area, then known as Sunnywold.  At that time the Commonage stretched from Okanagan Landing to Okanagan Centre and was reserved for pasturage for natives and whites. However in 1889 a new agreement was reached between the Dominion and Provincial governments and the land was surveyed into quarter sections and auctioned in 1893. In addition, the sternwheeler SS Aberdeen, the first of three Queens of the Lake, was launched at Okanagan Landing in 1893 and began delivery of mail, supplies, people and animals on regular runs on the Lake. The settlers arrived.

 

Northcote Caesar and T.F. Valentine purchased the Rainbow Ranche in 1896 for the princely sum of $2,000, and soon Rainbow Landing became a regular stop for the Aberdeen.  By 1901 Andrew Carr, a Civil War veteran from Illinois, and his wife Agnes had built their home just north of where the Geen’s fruit packing house stands today, in an area then known as Sunnywold.   The Carr’s Landing wharf was built below the house and the old pilings can still be seen at Marshall Park where sailing lessons are now held each summer.    Settlers such as the Goldies, Thorlaksons, and Gibsons farmed close to the lake and newcomers eked out a living on small holdings in the Commonage.    The small Sunnywold School opened off Commonage Road and became a focal point for the new community to the north, whilst a growing Okanagan Centre became the social centre for people at the southern End.

 

A few years later the settlers were joined by the Pixtons, Nuyens, Marshalls  and by ranchers like Joseph Cools who purchased much of the land from Okanagan House north to Ellison Point and ran cattle into the Charolais area.  For several decades while Vernon, Kelowna, and even Winfield grew rapidly, Carr’s Landing remained a quiet rural, farming community.  

 

Coral Beach was one of the first areas to be subdivided in the early 1960s, and much development has occurred since then.   In true ‘pioneering’ spirit, the new residents of Coral Beach established the first unofficial fire department in the area.  Volunteers were taught to pull second hand hose from a trailer that carried a gas powered water pump, and even constructed a ‘fire hall’ to house the trailer.   Much new development occurred during the 70s and 80s and whereas the very early settlers came predominately from the USA and the United Kingdom, our population now comes from all over Canada and the world to create a community even richer in human resources.

 

The Carr’s Landing Community & Recreation Association was formed to address the needs of the growing community.  A hundred years ago, despite distances between homesteads, a strong sense of community was formed. Now as the community looks to the future with the Sector Plan, the Association is encouraging the more recent ‘settlers’ to look at ways to make the community even stronger.

 

1.7  The Community Vision

 

Throughout the public consultation process in the preparation of the Carr’s Landing Sector Plan, participants have expressed the positive qualities that make up the present   community.  They have also indicated, with a largely consistent voice, those qualities that the future community should strive to maintain.  Significantly, the District Council Vision 2003 largely complements those qualities expressed within the community.     

 

The future Carr’s Landing community is envisaged as one that has retained its overall rural and natural character, while providing for orderly and paced integration of limited new housing and associated public services and amenities.  Future development will be consistent with existing land uses, keeping the form and character already established in the residential areas.  (See also Penny’s comment, Arts. 12.3 & 6.3)

 

Carr’s Landing will remain as a true neighbourhood, where positive social values and community interaction are considered essential elements.  The area will have maintained its essential single-family qualities while supporting means to improve infrastructure for service, transportation and utilities for residents.  Significant agricultural operations will remain as important parts of the overall fabric of the community.       

 

The high-quality environment afforded by the Lake Okanagan shoreline and upland forested areas will remain as the major physical features of the area, around which much of the community lifestyle revolves.

 

A network of land and water-based public parks and recreation amenities, linked by a system of public open space connections, provide important opportunities to maintain the social well-being and physical health of community residents and visitors.  A new civic building will provide a setting for social, recreational and other associated community needs.  

 

Carr’s Landing residents continue to focus on the Winfield Town Centre for their work, shopping and recreation opportunities.  Provisions will be in place for residents pursuing a range of home-based business enterprises, providing goods and services to accommodate local and external needs.     

 

Community institutions such as protective services, school-bussing system, postal services, religious facilities will have kept pace with the growing needs of the community.

 

Community services and utility infrastructure will have been incrementally upgraded to District standards, serving both present and future citizens of Carr’s Landing.  The transportation network, including upgrades to Carr’s Landing Road and the possible provision of a new southern access road will be in place along with improved pedestrian and cyclist facilities for non-motorized movement within the community.

 

Overall, Carr’s Landing in the future will have maintained those qualities that contribute to its present lifestyle appeal, while also having achieved services and utilities upgrades     that provide for safe and efficient community living.

 

2.0  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 

2.1  Existing Conditions

 

The Carr’s Landing sector of the District of Lake Country is predominantly a residential area, and industrial and commercial activities are limited to current agricultural operations and a number of home-based businesses.  Opportunities for home-based business activities within the District of Lake Country have been clarified by the adoption of Bylaw 467, 2005.  These activities are further addressed in the respective Agricultural and Commercial sections of the Sector Plan.

 

The Official Community Plan of the District of Lake Country provides that the Winfield Town Centre will remain as the main commercial core of the overall community.  It further provides that future industrial activities will be directed to other areas of the municipality.     

 

The current Official Community Plan of the District has recognized that fringe area development without adequate services creates uncertainty in community land use patterns.  It also acknowledges the value of the agricultural sector in economic development, and encourages its intensification and diversification   

 

2.2  Objectives

 

To support economic development activities in the Carr’s Landing area which are consistent with the scale, character, environmental qualities and servicing capabilities of the community.

 

2.3  Policies and Actions

 

The District of Lake Country will:

 

1.  Require any industrial or commercial economic development activities in the Carr’s Landing area be compatible in nature and scope with the scale, character, and environmental qualities of the community, and require that economic development initiatives conform to District Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw # 139 provisions. 

       

 

 

3.0  AGRICULTURE

 

Agricultural production is a significant economic generator in the Carr’s Landing area, and is considered an essential and integral component of the community-at-large.  The lands afford opportunity for local purchase of fresh farm produce, while adding scenic qualities and favourable environmental conditions within the community.  At the same time, residents are anxious to ensure that agricultural operations co-exist within the community sensitively, with careful attention to chemical spraying practices, buffering of sounds and sights, and protection of wildlife populations in the area.  

 

The current Official Community Plan of the District of Lake Country provides policy direction that is supportive of agricultural activities and adequate buffering between urban and rural uses, and discourages subdivision within the ALR.  

 

3.1  Existing Conditions

 

Agricultural activity in Carr’s Landing is largely tree-fruit production, occurring on both

lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and a number of non-ALR parcels located along the shoreline area.  There are some 800 hectares of ALR lands within the area, encompassing over 25 percent of the total land area of the community  (see map 4.0 - Agricultural Land Reserve. These lands operate within the provisions of the Farm Practices (Right to Farm) Protection Act, and a number of agricultural uses are permitted to differing extents within seven (7) categories of the District’s Zoning Bylaw; RU-ALR (Agricultural Land Reserve), RU-1 (Rural), RU-2 (Rural), RU-3 (Small Holdings), RU-4 (Country Residential), RU-5 (Country Residential), and RU-6 (Small Holdings).

 

The Mayor’s Task Force on Agriculture completed its mandate in November 2004.  The Task Force was directed to address the means to maintain the industry as a vital and viable activity in the District of Lake Country.  The role of the agricultural lands in the Carr’s Landing community was considered as part of the Task Force proceedings.  The Task Force has recently prepared documentation on the history, trends and opportunities for the agricultural industry in the District.  

 

The initiative to establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee to advise District Council on agricultural matters has been raised pursuant to the Mayor’s Task Force on Agriculture.  Establishment of this Advisory Committee would assist in maintaining agricultural activity as a vital and integral component of the Carr’s Landing community.   

 

3.2  Objectives

1.  To maintain agricultural operations as a desirable and integral part of the Carr’s Landing landscape and lifestyle, co-existing with their non-farm neighbours in a mutually sensitive and respectful manner.   

 

2.  To develop heightened public awareness and understanding of normal farm practices and agricultural operations in the Carr’s Landing community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insert Map 4 – Agricultural Land Reserve

 

 

 

 

                                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3  Policies and Actions

 

The District of Lake Country will:

1.      Encourage and support production and value-added agricultural operations in Carr’s Landing, and give consideration to means of enhancing current activities in the community on the basis of recommendations advanced as part of the Mayor’s Task Force on Agriculture;

 

  1. Give favourable consideration to commercial agri-tourism initiatives in the Carr’s Landing area which could assist in sustaining current operations and provide potential goods and services to the community-at-large;     

 

  1. Ensure effective buffering installations between agricultural and other new land use developments in Carr’s Landing, and limit public uses within buffer areas to minimize impact on adjacent agricultural operations;

 

  1. Encourage growers to operate with ‘best farm practices’ and environmental sensitivity in the interest of harmonious relations with the non-farm neighbours in Carr’s Landing;    

 

  1. Examine means of minimizing community conflict which can occur as a result of herbicide and pesticide spray operations in the Carr’s Landing community; 

 

  1. Review future applications for subdivision of agricultural lands on a case-by-case basis, with the objective of maintaining the overall integrity of the agricultural land base in Carr’s Landing, while recognizing the changing dynamics of the industry and the potential need to consider adjustments to parcel configurations and sizes;  

 

  1. Encourage public education directed at increasing the awareness of the importance of agricultural industry contributions, normal operating practices, fencing requirements, and the need to prevent trespass infractions;

 

  1. Pursue an expanded rural road signage program, directed at informing the traveling public about the agricultural activities within the Carr’s Landing community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

4.0  RURAL RESOURCE

 

The Rural Resource designation in the District’s Official Community Plan largely addresses the natural and undeveloped land resources in the community.  These lands are not intended for urban purposes within the timeframe of the Official Community Plan.

 

4.1  Existing Conditions

 

Much of the eastern uplands portion of Carr’s Landing and an area at the northwest limit of the community is presently designated Rural Resource in the District’s Official Community Plan.  These areas include much of the forested lands with high scenic values and important natural environment qualities.  A large portion of the Rural Resource area along the Ellison Ridge area is currently designated as Development Permit areas for Hillside development and Environmental Conditions.        

 

Crown lands in the Carr’s Landing area are designated as Rural Resource within the District’s Official Community Plan.

 

A preferred minimum lot size of 30 hectares within the Rural Resource designation is identified in the Official Community Plan.  As part of the Carr’s Landing Sector Plan preparation, a review of lot size requirements suggests that a reduced Rural Resource lot size is appropriate where such areas border Rural Residential lands, and where adequate but expensive utility infrastructure is available.

 

4.2  Objectives

 

The objective of the Rural Resource designation in the Carr’s Landing Sector Plan is to seek protection and preservation of those natural environment qualities which are an essential component of the community-at-large, and to minimize development initiatives in these areas where only limited services and utilities are in place or feasible.

 

 

4.3  Policies and Actions

 

The District of Lake Country will:

 

  1. Maintain the current Rural Resource designations shown in the Official Community Plan, except for the Crown Lands recommended for Conservation designation in the Carr’s Landing Sector Plan. 

 

 

  1. Require that future Rural Resource development in Carr’s Landing will provide adequate buffering when located adjacent to ALR lands.

5.0  FUTURE LAND USE

 

Future Land Use designations in the Carr’s Landing Sector Plan identify the proposed land uses in the community during the timeframe covered by the District’s Official Community Plan  (see Map 5.0 – Future Land Use).

 

Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the District’s Official Community Plan address the rationale for its land use designations, and refer readers to other plans and bylaws in place. The Overview report of the Land Use Focus Group is attached to the Sector Plan as Appendix 4 - Issues Report and Recommendations. 

 

5.1 Rural Resource

 

The Rural Resource designation for lands in the Carr’s Landing area is to provide for the protection of non-urban lands with agricultural, forestry, aggregate resources and recreational values, as indicated on Map 5.0 - Future Land Use.  The designation also provides for large-lot, low-density residential use with limited municipal services.

 

Removal of ALR lands for future housing will lead into urban-rural conflict and must be disallowed.  If owners of land outside the ALR wish to have it returned to the ALR, such action should be encouraged.

 

5.2  Residential - Rural

 

The lands in the Carr’s Landing area designated as Residential-Rural are indicated on Map 5.0 - Future Land Use.  The minimum parcel size for Residential-Rural parcels is to be 1.0 hectare, except that a 0.5 hectare parcel size is allowed providing a satellite or other on-site enhanced septic treatment facilities that meet District requirements are achievable.

 

5.3  Residential - Urban

 

The lands in the Carr’s Landing area designated as Residential – Urban are indicated on Map 5.0 – Future Land Use.  Limited areas are currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential), largely along the Lake Okanagan shoreline.  Most of these smaller lots were historically approved as subdivisions by the Provincial Department of Highways prior to the creation of the regional district and incorporation of Lake Country.  These areas are designated in the District of Lake Country OCP, Map 3.0.  Consideration should be given to amend the designation to Residential Rural for future development.  (Refer to Art. 1.4, above.)

 

5.4  Commercial

 

There are no commercial developments in the Carr’s Landing area at the present time, and only one commercially-zoned property exists along Carr’s Landing Road towards the north of the community.  The property is currently zoned C-5 (Motel and Campground), but to date has not been developed for commercial purposes.

 

A number of home-based business activities operate in the community, regulated by the provisions of Bylaw 467 of the District.

 

No other properties are recommended for commercial designation on Map 5.0 – Future Land Use of the Carr’s Landing Sector Plan.

 

5.5 Industrial

 

There are no Carr’s Landing properties designated for industrial purposes in the District’s Official Community Plan or zoned for industrial use.  There are no properties recommended for industrial designation as part of the Carr’s Landing Sector Plan.

 

5.6 Park and Conservation

 

The lands designated as Park and Conservation in the Carr’s Landing area are shown on Map 5.0 – Future Land Use and illustrated in detail on Map 6.0 – Existing and Future Parks, Conservation Areas and Trails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insert Map 5  - Future Land Use

 

 

 

6.0 RESIDENTIAL - RURAL

 

Extensive areas for future Residential-Rural development in the District of Lake Country have been designated in the current Official Community Plan.  Within the Carr’s Landing area, three separate areas have been identified as future Residential-Rural growth areas  – Moberly Road Extension, Barkley-Commonage Road area, and Juniper Cove.  The stated objectives of the Official Community Plan are to seek appropriate servicing levels for developments, which result in a minimum parcel size of 1.0 hectare when a conventional septic system is used and 0.5 hectares if served with an approved satellite system.   

 

Additional minimum requirements for Residential-Rural developments include paved roads, open ditch, overhead wiring, a community water system meeting District fire flow requirements, and trail systems connecting neighbourhoods.

 

6.1  Existing Conditions

 

Much of the Carr’s Landing area is currently developed for Residential Rural purposes, due to both its essential rural qualities and the limited level of municipal services in place.  Many high value homes are built on large treed lots with spectacular views. Servicing deficiencies including fire flow capabilities, roadways, water, sanitary sewer, and drainage within the community are further addressed in the Infrastructure section of the Sector Plan.  Much of these areas are in high risk areas for wildfire.

 

6.2  Objectives

 

To provide opportunities for residential living in the rural environment of the Carr’s Landing community that are sensitively integrated to maintain the character of the area, while ensuring that service levels conform to the requirements of the District of Lake Country OCP making optimal use of available land resources.

 

6.3  Policies and Actions   

 

The District of Lake Country has designated potential Residential-Rural developments in the Carr’s Landing area as reflected on Map 4.0 – Rural Residential Growth Areas of the District of Lake Country OCP and will consider future developments within the designated growth areas:

 

·        Juniper Cove Road:  a potential for 40 rural single-family residential units.

 

·        Barkley/Commonage Roads:  a potential for 50 rural single-family residential units.

 

·        Moberly Road Extension:  a potential for 25 rural single-family residential units.

 

At build out with these densities in these three areas, 41% of the projected 20-year development would be achieved.

 

In order to limit the impact of Rural Sprawl, development will be designed in such a way as to preserve large, contiguous areas of green space whilst preserving overall rural densities.  All development proposals will address the concerns of the surrounding neighbourhood relating to the environment, infrastructure, parks and recreation and include meeting and discussion with the local community.  Gated development will not be allowed as this further restricts the movement of wildlife. 

 

 

7.0 RESIDENTIAL - URBAN

 

7.1  Existing Conditions

 

Besides the areas in Carr’s Landing currently designated as Residential – Urban in the District’s Official Community Plan, no additional areas are designated for future residential-urban growth

 

7.2  Objectives

 

To preclude any future additional Residential – Urban development in the Carr’s Landing community.

 

 

7.3  Policies and Actions

 

The District of Lake Country will:

Ensure that Residential-Urban designation for those areas identified on the Map 3.0 - Future Land Use, District of Lake Country OCP, will revert to Rural-Residential land use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAND USE FOCUS GROUP

ISSUES REPORT

 

A Comment on This Report

 

 

 

The community have indicated that in general they are happy with the community as it is.  There are some aspects that require changes but in general, those changes are focused around infrastructure issues. The purpose of the Sector Plan however is to review the current issues and also to PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.  This means that as time goes on there will be development proposals and as a Land Use Focus Group we have reviewed all the areas within Carr’s Landing from the point of view of “What if”.  We have determined that there are areas that have a very low likely hood of attracting development (because the Land is zoned ALR or for other reasons) – but there are some parcels whose owners currently have no intention of selling or developing, but, people do change their minds and some of these parcels, if sold, would be a prime candidate for development.

 

The recommendations that the Land Use Focus Group are making are intended to be a recommendation for the FUTURE .  The report is to be taken as a guideline for the preparation of the draft Sector Plan by the Steering Committee in the event that those parcels are sold and purchased by an owner that has development in mind.  If this happens then this is the type of development would be acceptable.

 

 

 

 


The following 12 pages consist of recommendations made by the Land Use Focus Group and were included in the first draft of the Sector Plan.  Two comments follow the discussion of each area.  The first comment is the initial recommendation of the Land Use Focus Group, and was used as a question for the second survey.  The second comment is the final recommendation made by the Land Use Focus Group based on the wishes of the community.

 

1.      PIXIE BEACH

 

This area has few vacant parcels along the lakeshore.  All of the lake shore lots are zoned R-1.  The lots adjacent to the shoreline are zoned RU2 to RU5 and are being used for residential living with some agriculture. The area adjacent to this is a combination of RU-ALR or ALR and in use agriculturally. 

The resident’s priorities for the area are Rural/Natural, Quiet and Peaceful, and they appreciate the Scenic Beauty.

 

Original Recommendation

Infill for this area with no changes in zoning or density

No change from the DLC OCP

Final Recommendation

Based on question 49 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (56% in favor of no change and 18% for change).

 

2.      LAKE PINE FOREST HILLS     (27 respondents to questionnaire)

 

Part of this area was developed approximately 10 years ago and some vacant lots still remain.  Most of this area is covered by Land Use Contract and the terms are valid for an indefinite period. 

Current zoning is RU3 and RU4, but where applicable the LUC overrides zoning.

 

The residents priorities for the area are Rural/ Natural (13), Quiet and Peaceful (12), low density (5) and close to amenities.

 

Original Recommendation

Infill for this area with no changes in zoning or density

No change from the DLC OCP

Final Recommendation

Based on question 50 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (54% in favor of no change and 19% for change).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.         BARKLEY ROAD      (8 respondents to questionnaire)

 

Identified in the OCP as potential rural-residential development. There are several vacant lots along Barkley Road.  Most of this area is zoned RU2 (24 lots) and some RU3 ( 6 lots ).

 

The residents priorities for this area are Rural/ Natural (5), Quiet and Peaceful (4), Low Density (4). The major issue for residents of Barkley Road is Lack of Water(6) and the high cost of upgrading/extending this utility. 

 

Original Recommendation

Infill and rezoning to lot sizes consistent with RU3 zoning density.  An increase to RU4 zoning density may be an acceptable option to the residents, as it would help to overcome the high cost of upgrading the water utility.

Since this area is removed from the lakeshore, it is unlikely this increased density would change the perceived Rural/Natural aspect of the neighborhood.

 

Final Recommendation

Based on question 53 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (50% in favor and 32% against)

 

4.      AREA SOUTH OF CORAL BEACH – NORTH OF MAKI/WENTWORTH

 

This area consists of 9 parcels and is covered by Land Use Contract #262.

 A possible option for future development might be the extension of Wentworth Road to Coral Beach and rezoning the properties West of the extension into densities consistent with  R-1&R-2 zoning, similar to Coral Beach.  Park reserve could be added to existing sliver and provide linking of trails as outlined by Park Focus Group.  The survey of these two areas with the highest response indicated a desire for more walking/green space and parks as well as “low density”, in spite of the fact that this area has the highest density in Carr’s Landing. The residents like the neighborly/friendliness of the area. Rezoning into R-1& R-2 would link Coral Beach and Wentworth and unite the two communities as well as provide additional lake front access for walking.

An alternative to single-family dwellings may be construction of town-homes. While maintaining the R1 & R2 zoning density, this would allow for tighter clustering and preserve green space.  Delete or re-write for Rural-Residential use

 

Original Recommendation

No changes until property owners apply for a discharge from the Land Use Contract and proceed with rezoning.

 

Final Recommendation

Based on question 54 of the second survey our proposal for development was not supported (34% in favor of our proposal and 46% against)

5.    16070 AND 16080 CARR’S LANDING ROAD

 

This property is currently zoned RU-ALR and C5 (commercial – specifically: motel, campground).  The current use is residential with a large practice soccer field. 

 

Original Recommendation

Future development to be consistent with current zoning provisions; encourage forms of agri-tourism as a possible alternative. 

No change from the DLC OCP

Final Recommendation

This question was not asked in the second survey, however the Land Use Focus group wish to make the above recommendation.

 

 

6.       JUNIPER COVE

 

Identified in the OCP as potential rural-residential development.  While the response to the Survey from this area was poor, the residents like the peaceful, rural and natural setting.

 There is a wide range of zoning designations in this area: RU1 (2 parcels), RU2 (3 parcels),

RU3 (3 parcels) and along the lake shore RU4 ( 3 parcels ), RU5 (15 parcels).

 

Original Recommendation

Infill and rezoning of the large parcels to lot sizes consistent with RU3 zoning density.

No Change

Final Recommendation

Based on question 55 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (46% in favor of the above recommendation and 36% against)

 

 

7.           South Commonage and extension to Carr’s Landing Road

 

The resident’s priorities for this area are Quiet, Peaceful, Rural/Natural, with preference for low density.

Current zoning in this area is RU2, RU3, RU-ALR and some RU4.

 

Original Recommendation

Infill and rezoning to lot sizes consistent with RU3 zoning density.

Land use consistent with Rural Residential

Final Recommendation

Based on question 56 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (53% in favor of the above recommendation and 31% against)

 

 

8.         Charolaise, Hereford, Angus, Jersey

 

Original Recommendation

Zoned ALR and RU-ALR.     No change

No change from the DLC OCP

Final Recommendation

Based on question 51 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (51% in favor of the above recommendation and 20% against)

 

 

9.    Carr’s Landing Main:  north of Whiskey Cove to Toby/Wentworth;

 

Zoning designations range from ALR, RU-ALR, RU4 (5 Lots) and R1 and some vacant RU3.

Most parcels are already occupied and there are terrain limitations on some of the vacant lots.

New development adjacent to ALR will require a buffer zone; these properties should carry a covenant notifying the potential buyer of this fact. 

 

Original Recommendation

Where applicable and contingent on availability of services, zoning density of no greater than R1 may be considered.

Maintain existing land use designations or revert to Rural Residential

Final Recommendation

Based on question 57 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (45% in favor of the above recommendation and 37% against)

 

 

10. Coral Beach

 

Some RU-ALR and ALR but most of this area is zoned R1. Some lots are consolidated (old park designation).  For some properties, conversion to town-home zoning RM1 may be an option.

Maintain existing land use designations or revert to Rural Residential

Original Recommendation :

Where applicable, zoning density no greater than R1.

 

Final Recommendation

Based on question 56 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (53% in favor of the above recommendation and 31% against)

 

 

 

11. North of Pixie / south of McCreight

 

Existing zoning ranges are  R1, RU5, RU4 and a few parcels RU3. These larger lots at the south end are already high value properties.

Remain with Rural Residential

Original Recommendation :

Contingent on availability of services, rezoning of the RU3 properties to density no greater than R1.

 

Final Recommendation

Based on question 58 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (44% in favor of the above recommendation and 38% against)

 

 

12.   COMMERCIAL AREAS

 

The only property within this criteria is at #16070 Carr’s Landing Road and the current zoning is 

C5 – commercial (motel, campground).  There are multiple dwellings on the property, all for private use. 

Future conversion to non-commercial use is possible under current zoning.

 

The Land Use Committee does not find such a development objectionable; uses and infrastructure requirements will be defined by the provisions of C5-zoning.

 

Original Recommendation

The Land Use Committee does not see the need for expanded commercial zoning in this area, but encourages enhanced commercial activities that are compatible with the rural-agricultural nature of the community.

 

Final Recommendation Delete this Recommendation

That a small store can be considered, but that it be small, non franchise, and very neighborhood friendly.  That the proposer be novel in it use, form and setting.

The original survey indicated that a small store, in general, was not of any interest.  When the individual areas were examined there was some support for a store or gathering centre toward the North end of the area.  In the second survey the results were considerably different.  Question 46 asked about a small store a, 78% of the respondents were in favor and 11% were not in favour.  When the individual areas were considered all areas were in favour of a small store, however the percentages varied somewhat.  There were 3 comments made with respect to this question, 2 of which alluded to the fact that economics may not favour a store, 1 comment favoured a restaurant/pub/general store facility but definitely not a “cookie cutter franchise”

 

 

 

 

13.    INDUSTRIAL AREAS

 

There are substantial amounts of sand, gravel and rock in the Carr’s Landing area.  Utilizing these materials in neighborhoods close to the source (as opposed to delivering from distant sources) would be beneficial in minimizing road wear.  Industrial activities on a larger scale will need to consider the impact on local roads and infrastructure.

 

Original Recommendation

The Land Use Committee recommends that gravel pit activities be discouraged from being developed next to residential areas. That development of any secondary industry related to gravel pit activities be discouraged.

The Land Use Committee is opposed to the development of Industrial Activities of an offensive nature, such as asphalt plants.  That all industrial activities should meet the highest technological standards for protection of health and environment.

 

Final Recommendation

Please refer to the “Additional Items” at the end of this report

 

 

14.         AGRICULTURAL :

 

The Land Use Committee recognizes that agriculture is an important component of the local economy and that agri-tourism would be a beneficial activity with the potential to provide needed services to residents and visitors (e.g. wine, fruit juice, refreshments, snacks,

misc. amenities).

 

Recommendation

The Land Use Committee has no objection if these activities evolve into semi-commercial enterprises of agri-tourism nature.

 

 

15.                LOCAL FACILITIES:

 

Two areas have been considered as potential sights for the Community  Center ; one at

Kopje Park and the second, alternate location to be the park area located at Terrace View/Carr’s Landing Road intersection.

 

Recommendation

The Committee recognizes the need for a Community Center.

The Committee has considered the community’s needs for local police, churches, schools and is of the opinion that none will be needed in the foreseeable future.

 

Final Recommendation

This item was reviewed with the other focus groups on a collective basis.  Please refer to the “Park Overview Report”

 

THE ISSUE OF FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT

 

To quote the introduction to his document

 

When Carr’s Landing survey respondents described what they “like about their community”; by far the most frequent descriptors are ‘rural’ and ‘natural’.  Synonymous with ‘rural’, residents also reported that they like the fact that the area is’ low density’, ‘open’ and ‘spacious’, ‘quiet and peaceful’ and replete with wildlife.  Of importance to Carr’s landing respondents are the lake and the scenic beauty. And, of equal importance to the respondents is the neighborliness/friendliness of the area.

 

When contemplating the future of the Carr’s Landing Community it is inevitable that development will occur.  Our challenge is to reconcile these apparently opposing views.  Is this possible?  The Land Use Focus Group feel that it is.  The concept of “Density” is a relative term.  As indicated above, the community wants and sees our community as currently having “low density”.  This is an overall feeling as well as the feeling of each individual neighbourhood.  Yet, currently when one neighbourhood is compared to another we see a wide disparity in “densities”.  Coral Beach zoning is R1 (lot size of as small as 750 M2) while some of Barkley Road zoning is RU2 (4 hectares).  Clearly density is a perception.  Another desire is to maintain the “open” and “spacious” nature of the area.  As with density, “open” and “spacious” are perceptions.  It is the Land Use Committees’ impression that the “open and spacious” feeling has more to do with the lake views being unobstructed than the number and proximity of ones neighbors.

 

It is these perceptions that must be kept in mind and maintained when designating future development within Carr’s Landing.

 

While there is considerable non-lakeshore property in Carr’s Landing that is potentially available for development it is unlikely to be developed in the near future because a) water orientated utilities are not readily available, b) developing requires rezoning and c) it is not as attractive as lakeshore property.  There is some Lakeshore property that could be developed but proposals to date have met with considerable resistance because they have not met the Neighborhoods perceptions of “density”, “open and spacious”, “quiet and peaceful”, the environment and road infrastructure.  Clearly, for development to be acceptable it must meet the communities perception of these concepts.

 

The OCP identifies three potential non-lakeshore locations for future Rural Residential Development.  These are the Moberly Road Extension, the Barkley/Commonage Road Areas and Juniper Cove.  Each of these locations are water utility challenged and cannot be developed until these services are available.

 

The OCP does not identify any lakeshore for development but the Land Use Committee has identified 3 properties – The Whiskey Cove Area, Postils Orchard and the property address of #16070 and #16080.  Table 3 summarizes these properties.

 

 

 

 

Non Lakeshore

Property

Recommendation

Moberly Road

See below

Barkley/Commonage

See above

Juniper Cove

See above

Lakeshore

Property

Recommendation

Whiskey Cove

See below

POSTILS Orchard

See below

#16070, 16080

See above

 

Table 3

 

 

16.         MOBERLY EXTENSION

 

The development of this area is predicated on water utilities.  Because of its proximity to the impending Pollard’s Pond project The Land Use Committee recommends that this area be designated as potential development with zoning density of R1.

 

 As the terrain in this area is sloping to the south and west, all development should keep this in mind so as to preserve the perception of the “open” and “spacious” views to and across the lake.

 

An environmental assessment prior to development would be appropriate.

 

Recommendation

That Moberly Extension be a potential development area.

 

Final Recommendation

Based on question 59 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (58% in favor of the above recommendation and 24% against).

 

17.         WHISKEY COVE AREA (12 respondents to questionnaire)

 

This is a very controversial area because of previously proposed developments and that it encompasses a park and the area is very environmentally sensitive.

 

Currently the property North and South of Kopje Park has been leased for what appears to be long-term agricultural activities (an extensive irrigation system is currently being installed).  We therefore assume that no development will be proposed in the near term (5 years).  We do expect that in the future, this property will be a prime candidate for development and at that time we recommend the following guidelines:

 

South of Kopje Park

 

 

North of Kopje Park

 

·                    The development of an adult community for retirement living, single family with a density of not greater than  R1

·                    Permanent residency to be encouraged

·                    No boat docks to be installed due to environmental sensitivity of the area

·                    Public access area to be adjacent to shoreline       

 

Kopje Park Area

 

·        That a community centre building be established on this property for use by the whole Community and serve also as an Activity Centre for the permanent residents of the properties North and South of Kopje Park.

 

Final Recommendation

The results from the survey (question 61) do not show a clear opinion.  Taking the overall opinion into account the results were 41% in favour of our proposal and 40% against.  When the responses of those who live in this area are examined the results are 22% for the proposal and 56% against.  It appears that development of this area would be very controversial.

 

 

18.   POSTILL’S ORCHARD

 

·         about 13 acres of lake-shore property, presently used as an orchard but zoned as RU-ALR

·         easy to develop; with proven services it could accommodate some form of R1 zoning

·        will require sewage collection

 

As with the Kopje Park, this area could be very controversial and the following guidelines should be strictly enforced.

 

·                    The development of an adult community for retirement living, single family with a density of not greater than  R1

·                    Permanent residency to be encouraged

·                    Public access area to be adjacent to shoreline.

 

Note that there is no island adjacent to this property, hence it is not as environmentally sensitive as the Kopje Park area.

 

Final Recommendation

Based on question 60 of the second survey the above recommendation stands (47% in favor of the above recommendation and 35% against).  While the overall response was in favour, when the views of those in the area are reviewed we see that there was only one respondent from the area and he/she was not in favour of development.  Since there is only one house in that area it must have been the owner – hence it would appear that this is a non issue as the owner has no plans to change the current situation.

 

 

19.   Provisions for a Marina

 

It is recognized that the residents of Carr’s Landing will want access to the lake, hence the recommendation that the DLC identify an area on Okanagan Lake for the establishment of a Marina complete with boat docking, a fuel supply and restaurant facilities.

 

Final Comments

The Land Use Committee has carefully considered the impact of further development on the community, the increased pressure on the environment (foreshore, green space), roads and other infrastructure.  The Committee is of the opinion that the recommendations outlined in the preceding pages, if followed, will help to eliminate major objections to future development proposals.

 

 

 

Additional Items

 

Several meetings were held to discuss and review the results of the survey.  At those meetings several items surfaced that had not been discussed previously or were not included in the survey.  Those items follow:

 

Rural Resource parcels

 

There was considerable discussion surrounding the Rural Resource parcels because in those areas utilities are a big issue (specifically domestic and fire flow water).  It was felt by the committee that reducing the minimum lot size to 4 hectares may provide an opportunity for a larger tax base and hence assist financially in the installation of water and community sewer.  As there are several areas within Carr’s Landing that currently are zoned R1, it is felt that reducing the lots sizes to 4 hectares will have no impact on the rural look and feel of Carr’s Landing.  This question was not asked in survey but was the collective opinion of the Land Use Group

 

 

 

Significant Changes to the Landscape

 

It has come to the attention of the Land Use Focus Group that significant amount of soil has been moved recently so as to accommodate a feature or purpose for that piece of property.  In some cases the soil has been shifted from one location to another within the property and in other cases the soil has been exported.  The Land Use Focus Group sees this as an issue and should be regulated by DLC under permit.  The result of altering the landscape significantly may have an effect on drainage patterns, wildlife corridors and the species habitat.

 

Industrial Lands

 

It is recognized by the Land Use Focus Group that considerable gravel potential exists within the Carr’s Landing area and that the DLC has little control over this property.  Given the recurring comment with respect to Carr’s Landing area being a “quiet rural, peaceful neighbourhood”, the Land Use Focus group feel that the development of a gravel pit or some other industrial activity within the area would alter the ambience considerably.  It is in this context that the Land Use Focus Group wish to emphasize that the establishment of any industrial activity be of a type to have essentially no impact visually, auditorially or olfactorially on the residents (which includes the animals and plants)

 

Vista Views and Energy Conservation

 

Responses to both surveys have emphasized the vista views of Carr’s Landing.  The siting of dwellings to take advantage of the views contributes to the ambience of the neighborhood.  Fortunately, the views most favoured in the Carr’s Landing area are to the West or Southwest.  The placement of windows facing west or southwest will provide pleasant views as well as provide considerable solar heat gain in the spring and fall shoulder heating seasons.  This should be encouraged by DLC.

 

New Development/Large Renovations

 

As water utilities are major issues within the Carr’s Landing area, it was the thinking of the Land Use Committee that consideration should be given to the introduction of a Utilities Levy where an existing dwelling is torn down and replaced with a new building.  It should also be applied to a major renovation (greater than 50%).  This levy would go into a trust fund to be used for the future provision of water and sewer for the area.

 

Land Use Recommendations

 

The opinions expressed in both surveys strongly advocated no change.  Residents liked the area as it now exists and wish to see few changes with the exception of providing water utilities.

 

The Land Use Committee are acutely aware of this and because of this included the following statement in the second survey:

 

The community has indicated that in general they are happy with the community as it is.  There are some aspects that require changes but in general, those changes are focused around infrastructure issues. The purpose of the Sector Plan is to review the current issues and to PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.  As time goes on there will be development proposals.  The Land Use Committee has reviewed all the areas within Carr’s Landing from the point of view of “What if”.  We have determined that there are areas that have a very low likelihood of attracting development (because the Land is zoned ALR or for other reasons).  There are also some parcels whose owners currently have no intention of selling or developing, but, people do change their minds and some of these parcels, if sold may attract development proposals.

 

The recommendations that the Land Use Committee is making are intended to be recommendations for the FUTURE.  The recommendations are to be taken as a guideline to the DLC in the event that rezoning is proposed.  If the appropriate infrastructure is in place then the Land Use Committee are recommending the following changes be considered only if changes are requested, and not as a matter of course. 

 

The Land Use Committee recommends that a paragraph be included in the Sector Plan to indicate the above point of view.  It will serve as background information to prospective developers that the residents wish minimal changes and at the same time reinforce the point that the recommendations are for future consideration only.

 

Agricultural Buffer Zones (question 47)

 

The concept of buffer zones adjacent to agricultural land was strongly supported (80% for  and 12% against).

 

Maximum Density (question 43)

 

The residents felt strongly that the maximum density be not greater than that provided for under R1 zoning. (63% for  and 18% against).

 

Increased Zoning Density to help pay for Water Utilities (question 48)

 

While this concept was supported (54% for and 39% against) the comments provided some useful provisos to this concept.  There were 7 comments, 4 agreed as long as it did not comprise the “flavour of the community”, 1 questioned whether utilities needed to be upgraded given the existing population density, 1 didn’t understand the question, 1 disagreed.

 

Adult Living Development (question 45)

 

While this concept was supported (54% for and 36% against) the comments provided some useful additional information.  There were 6 comments, 3 indicated that the community needs all ages, 2 suggested that the distance from medical care, 2 alluded to the fact that the average age of the community is higher than the BC average.

 

Enabling Cluster Housing (question #44)