Home  Directors |  Meeting Minutes Membership |  Projects  BBQ |  Neighbourhood Plan |  About Us |  Businesses   | Contact Us 

  

"Future of Carr's Landing"

CARRS LANDING

SECTOR PLANNING WORKSHOPS

 

MINUTES OF THE CARRS LANDING SECTOR PLANNING

WORKSHOP #3 ( Lake Pine, Moberly, Pixton, Carrs Landing, Forest Hill, McCreight )

 

                                                               DATE:         October 22, 2003

                                                                TIME:         7:00 PM – 9:30 PM

                                                      LOCATION:        Camp Arbuckle

 

         IN ATTENDANCE: Joanne Devries- Facilitator          

         Chuck Price                                                      Frits Bakker                 

         Stan Brynjolfson                                                Larry Foster                                                                 

         Lance Marshall                                                 Frank Toplak

         Margaret  Price                                                 Flo                                            Mark Decker (absent)

 

PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE:  ~     25

 

RECORDING SECRETARY:  Liisa Cook, Platinum Personnel

 

 

1.      CALL TO ORDER          7:00pm  Joanne Devries, Meeting Facilitator.

Joanne lives in Lake Country but not in the Carrs Landing area.

Joanne introduced the Sector Planning members and asked that when the public in attendance begin giving their comments that they first give their name and speak clearly, as these meetings are being recorded as accurately as possible.

 

2.      REVIEW OF AGENDA   Joanne reviewed how the meeting would be conducted. A member of each focus group: Parks & Recreation, Environment, Infrastructure and Land-Use will give a presentation with open discussion time following. The handout was available for everyone to use for jotting down notes as the presentations are underway. A Comment Form was handed out for attendees to fill out with any further comments and handed back to Joanne at the end of the workshop.

 

The process began with the strategic plan and a simple questionnaire went out to the Carrs Landing residents. The Planning Hierarchy includes: 1)The Strategic Plan, 2) Official Community Plan, 3) Sector Plan, 4) Neighbourhood Plan, 5) Zoning Bylaw, and 6) Supporting Plans/Bylaws.

 

SECTOR PLANNING OBJECTIVES

·         Meet statutory requirements as an amendment to the OCP and be based on the policies of the existing OCP

·         Reflect broad community involvement and support.

·         Be easy to read, understand and use on a daily basis at Municipal Hall

·         Have policies that are fiscally responsible, technically feasible and legally enforceable.

·         Be completed on time and within budget.

·         Have the endorsement of Council and DLC staff.

 

The Carr’s Landing Sector Plan: Process and Timeline is at about the half way point of this process. The next step after the four Sector Planning Workshops is to gather the information about the issues and components and present these issues to the Council and the public.  A draft Sector Plan will be prepared for review from December 2003 / March 2004. Following will be another Community Survey, conducted in March 2004, which will be much more detailed and more specific than the first survey conducted in 2002.  The draft Sector Plan will be presented to the public at an Open House in March of 2004. April 2004 the draft Sector Plan will be revised to reflect the public input at the Open House and will be fine-tuned until the public can condone the plan. May 2004 a revised draft of the Sector Plan will be presented to Council and they will work together with the DLC staff to fine-tune the Sector Plan. Finally in June 2004 the proposed Sector Plan will be presented at a Public Hearing.

 

Joanne congratulated all the people involved with this process and their commitment to this plan

 

CONSULTATION MODEL

·         “Complete” and “progressive” consultation

-“ Complete” consultation includes opportunities for qualitative and quantitative input and review

o        Qualitative processes (focus groups and open houses) identify broad-based issues through discussions with small groups of people.

o        Quantitative processes (mail-in surveys) validate information gathered during qualitative processes.

-“Progressive” consultation uses the broad-based information gathered during qualitative process to craft more specific and meaningful questions for quantitative review.

 

CONSULTATION TOOLS     

1.             Community survey #1

2.             Ongoing focus groups

3.             Neighbourhood workshops

4.             Community survey #2

5.             First Nations liaison

6.             Open House

7.             Public Hearing

 

COMMUNITY SURVEY #1

         1) What do you like about your community? (In order of priority)

a)      Rural and natural

b)      Quiet and peaceful

c)      Neighbourly and friendly

d)      Scenic beauty

e)      Close to amenities

f)       Wildlife

g)      Lake

h)      Low density/open and spacious

 

         2) What existing land uses, services or issues presently concern you?

a)      Roads, CLR deterioration, road ends

b)      Lack of planned development, development proposals

c)      High-density growth.

d)      Water quality, safety

e)      Environmental damage

f)       Lack of water

g)      Safety of CLR, speed

 

         3) What types of new land uses, activities or services would you like to see in your community?

a)      Recreation, green space, walk/bike

b)      Low-density, rural

c)      Carrs Landing village store, restaurant, recreation centre

d)      Public lakeshore access

e)      Roads

f)       Leave same

g)      Community-directed planning

 

         4) How would you like to see your community look in 10 years and grow for your children and

  Grandchildren?

a)      Low-density, rural, family residences

b)      Recreation, green space, walks, bikes

c)      Leave same

d)      Roads

e)      Public lakeshore access

f)       Community-directed planning

g)      CL village store, restaurant, community centre

h)      Environmental protection

 

CARR’S LANDING RESIDENTS WANT:

Ø      Rural and natural area

Ø      Low-density development

Ø      Community-directed planning

Ø      Expanded amenities

Ø      Green space with associated recreational opportunities

Ø      Quality water

Ø      Good roads

Ø      Lakeshore access

 

KEY SECTOR PLANNING ISSUES Focus groups developed for these four key sector issues.

§         Parks & Recreation

§         Environment

§         Infrastructure

§         Land-Use

 

CONSULTATION TOOL #3

·         Focus Groups

                  - Who participates in the focus groups?

                  - Community volunteers

·         How often do they meet?

                  - Once monthly

·         What are the objectives of the focus groups?

                  - To gather information about community issues

                  - To gather residents’ input about the issues

                  - To prioritize the issues and make recommendations to Council

 

Joanne showed an Issue Analysis Worksheet and reviewed it to show how detailed the process is. A sound plan is based on complete knowledge.

 

3.       PARKS & RECREATION PRESENTATION BY STAN BRYNJOLFSON

Mark is the Chair of the Parks & Recreation focus group.

-     Areas/issues of study identified by survey, information gathering, and focus group members

      -           Parks and facilities

      -           Road end/foreshore access development

      -           Boat launches

      -           Trails and parklands

 

1.       Parks & Facilities

- Existing facilities and how they are used

- Improvements for existing facilities

- Future requirements

- Location of future parks

 

 

2.       Road-end Development (Foreshore access to lakeshore)

- What are “road ends”?

- Preserve and maintain in the public trust

- Inventory road ends

- Categorize the inventory as to park development potential

- Link road ends to trail system

 

3.       Boat Launches

- Why is this an issue unto itself?

- Analyze the need for additional boat launch facilities

- Survey locations for suitability

- Evaluate potential sites for positive and negative impacts

- Make recommendations

 

4.       Parklands & Trails

- Where should trail corridors be established?

- How do we acquire property for trail corridors?

- Linking trails

- Multiple benefits of trail or parkland corridors

- Develop and integrated plan

 

4.       ENVIRONMENT PRESENTED BY STAN BRYNJOLFSON  

- Areas/issues of study identified by survey, information gathering, and focus group members

-           Lakeshore preservation/access

-           Wildlife conservation and corridors

-           Rural/urban mix

-           Wildland/urban interface fire hazard

-           Other

 

      OCP vs. SECTOR PLAN

·         OCP contains broad statements regarding “formulation of policies”

·         Sector Plan needs to refine some statements and ensure their relevance to our specific area.

 

OCP FEATURES

·         Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) are identified in the “Natural Features Inventory” conducted by CORD

·         Besides ESA’s,  specific mention is made of:

o        Shoreline

o        Watercourses & wetlands

o        Wooded areas & forests

o        Watershed management

o        Airshed management

·         OCP Objectives

o        Protect ESA’s

o        Protect development from hazardous conditions

o        Minimize loss of life and property

o        Maintain the scenic character of the area

o        Preserve or enhance fish and wildlife habitat

o        Maintain or improve air and water quality

·         OCP Policies

o        Establish criteria for evaluating development proposals in hazardous areas

o        Regulate development adjacent to water bodies to preserve or enhance fisheries habitat

o        Establish development permits for areas of wildfire risk

o        Cooperation with other local governments and agencies including First Nations

o        Identify land in the community to identify it’s parks and environmental potential and contact the province re acquisition

 

 

 

 

1.       Lakeshore Preservation/access

- Obstruction of foreshore to wildlife by docks, fences, walls, and human activity

- Water quality degradation from runoff and septic waste leaching into the lake.

- Impact of water craft (especially power boats) on wildlife and lakeside residents

- Light pollution from increased shoreline development (dock lighting, etc.)

 

2.       Wildlife conservation and corridors

- Preserve/restore habitat and access to lakeshore

- Obstruction of wildlife corridors by agricultural and residential fencing

- Pesticide use

- Gull sanctuary

- Preserve/restore shoreline ecosystems

- Minimize “roadkill”

 

3.       Rural/urban mix

- Coexistence of agriculture/urban areas

- Agricultural Land Reserve/Right to Farm Act

- Pesticide use and other farm operations

- Air quality

- Fencing

- Noxious weed control

 

4.       Wildland/urban interface fire hazard

- Recent extreme example of Okanagan Mountain Park Fire

- Combustibility of building materials

- Design and layout of development

- control of vegetative fuels which surround structures and developments

- Fires can spread both ways

 

5.      OTHER ISSUES

-    Jurisdictional conflicts (OCP vs. provincial legislation (Right to Farm Act, Noxious Weed Control Act, Pesticide Control Act. etc.)

-    Regional, provincial and federal government policies may impinge

 

6.      SUMMARY FOR DISCUSSION

There are eight topics to cover:

-    PARKS AND RECREATION

     - Parks and facilities

     - Road-end development

     - Boat launches

     - Parklands and trails

-    ENVIRONMENT

     - Lakeshore preservation/access

     - Wildlife conservation/corridors

     - Rural/urban mix

     - Wildland/urban interface fire hazard

 

7.      DISCUSSION PARAMeTERS

Participation should be:

     - Balanced

     - Respectful

     - Positive

     - Forward-thinking

     - Concise

     - Creative

We are here to come up with positive solutions for the community as a whole. This forum is not the place to come and air your complaints. There are a lot of people and a limited amount of time so following the discussion parameters will ensure that everyone will have a chance to be heard. Everyone was asked to stick to the topic as noted in the Summary for Discussion. This brainstorming session can be a very creative time; some ideas may not seem feasible at the time but may trigger thoughts on other subjects for discussion.

 

8.      DISCUSSION TIME – Topics of Parks & Recreation and Environment

Joanne: What would you like to see?

Rick: Road ends don’t just imply lakeshore access. There is a road end off Moberly, which is private property.

There are no parks in the Moberly area. No walking trails, parks, etc. Hillside living so there is difficulty in finding a level property. We are in fact Okanagan Centre, does the plan in fact include us, is there going to be a political issue regarding boundaries?

: From McPherson’s south – others not in political area.

From Oceola Road to the north seems to make sense. Must make sure there is not a conflict, so this area will be covered

Rick: Water quality, having water for fire flow, definitely impact on the interface.

Stan: There is an overlap, which will be discussed.

Joanne: Where is the Border between Okanagan Centre and Carrs Landing?

Chuck: When the irrigation water went up to McPherson’s the boundary followed naturally. OK Centre is integrated with Carrs Landing.

Lance: The boundary was based on fire district areas.

: This sector planning process doesn’t affect the political boundaries. Makes logical sense to incorporate.

Rudy: We live at the south end of Carrs Landing Road, so we feel very much a part of OK Centre. Agree Hillside behind is wilderness, which is private land we access this along the deer trails. In the future can foresee problems when owners want to develop the land. That will impact people like us. Pixton road, ownership of land and docks, we use the beach there and conflicts arise as a result.

Joanne: Boat launches are a hot topic at these workshops, do you feel there are enough boat launches, and how would you like to see them developed?

No comments

 

Going onto Parks development then, are there any comments or concerns?

Rick: Linking Barkley area down towards Coral Beach.  Carrs Landing Road not a good place to go for a run.

If we want to go bike riding or running, currently we have to use roadways. Land would have to be acquired.

Elaine: Have recently moved here and looking for places to walk have taken getting into vehicle and driving.

Came from another community where there were trails no such thing here. Is there not a natural area to do these things? Currently just walking on the roads.

Fritz: Definitely a shortage of trails here. Also not very well noted where these trail are.

Very few places to walk a dog.

Vince: Lots of trails behind us, lots of dirt bikes also. Is it public or private?

:Behind forest hill. Get dirt bikes all the time. Don’t want trails if dirt bikes are going to show up.

People are also dumping a lot of material up there.

Chuck: What are they dumping?

:Wood , shrubs, mattress etc.

Fritz: This will come under proper trail construction, and bylaw enforcement. There should be police that can go in periodically. Crown land is open to anybody who wants to go in. If private the owner can ask police to monitor. If they don’t ask then nothing we can do.

Joanne: Pollard pond development. Many dirt bikes come in from Ponderosa Road and over to here. When the development begins to go ahead then dirt bikes may move into these other areas.

Lance: Development, like deer fencing, will force bikes onto the roadways.

Rick: The Private land above Rudi’s place, it’s beautiful grassland. It’s a beautiful meadow with places to walk and bike. Laced with dirt bikes trails and hills. Wonderful place for bikes, but has destroyed it as grassland.

Ritz: Is this an absentee owner?

:We need a designated dirt bike area.

Noreen: Just as a note there is a dog park at the north end of coral beach road and it’s fenced and designated

 

Lance: There is a booklet published called “Walk Around Lake Country” and available at the district office.

Started by the Citizens Voice.

 

Joanne: Getting on to environmental issues? How are you feeling about wildlife in the area and the rural/urban mix? How does it affect you in your neighbourhood?

Rudi: Deer: I’m an orchardist. Deer fencing, numbers of deer, hunting!

Chuck: How do you feel about Orchardists building corridors within their orchards?

Rudi: We don’t have fencing so it is a deer corridor. Don’t like them feeding on my trees and garden though.

: Could you selectively fence?

Rudi: Big mean dog is option.

What is growing in orchard? I have peaches and garden. They eat the bark off of the trees.

Joanne: How do we solve this any suggestion?

: The idea of corridors is great. Population of deer needs to be maintained.

Chuck: Are there more deer now?

Rudi: Lived here for 12 years and we are definitely experiencing more deer.

Dave: Use to see deer all the time. Now we see them hung up on the fences more. Because of fencing in the middle portion of Carrs Landing more deer are noticed at north and south ends of Carrs Landing. If we provide a corridor through large orchards for deer, this could also be used as part of a trail system for humans and wildlife. What has been proposed is that the district could compensate the Orchardists for the extra fencing costs and land.

Chuck: Hunting: Are you in favour or not in favour?

: Not wise up here. Just a week ago we heard a lot of shooting, not known if it was because of deer or for fun.

: Hunting is allowed up on Spionkopje, 200 – 300 yards from buildings or property.

: At the end of Moberly, can’t go walking in the bush because of hunting.

Frits: I use to walk up there with no problem. Now property has been purchased by a Toronto interest and signs are up warning trespassers. Lots of valuable walking areas lost because of private interests.

Spionkopje is considered unique. This is an area we must protect.

Fritz: There are some opportunities to create trails on crown land that there are on top of Spionkopje. However, access is difficult as the lower properties are private land.

 

Joanne: Are you affected by burning?

Pat: How is our air quality with all the airplanes going over.

Fritz: The amount of air traffic has minimal impact on air quality; cars and  burning have a greater impact.

 

Joanne: What about light pollution? People have installed very bright lights does this affect anyone? Is it a concern?

Rudi: Yes, a big problem. I’m concerned about light more than burning. I want to be able to burn my orchard waste.

Stan: The smaller trees lend themselves to chipping more than burning.

Rudi: Prunings get burned once a year.

 

Joanne: In the Parks & Recreation area some people feel there is a need for a recreation facility in the Carrs Landing area for meetings, parties, community complex. Any interest?

Pat: A lot of us here are on the boundary of Okanagan Centre and Carrs Landing, so effect depends on the actual boundary. Think it will be very nice for the Carrs Landing people, however we are kind of split a bit.

Fritz: a lot of people here may not be interested in this process. How many people feel more connected to Okanagan Centre (3)

:It’s a matter of the current facilities we use and connections we’ve made with individuals. That’s why we feel more connected to Okanagan Centre.

 

Joanne: If Carrs Landing had a community centre somewhere, where would be a good place?

Kopje was volunteered.

Chuck: Kopje Park is not controlled by Carrs Landing it lies with CORD.

Vince: Doesn’t feel that smaller halls everywhere are necessary, we should use what we have in Winfield.

Fritz: We tried to meet in the local fire hall. It’s not that great. Ran into a lot of scheduling trouble with fire hall.

For people (like me) at the north end of Carrs Landing it adds more traveling time. We want place we can call our own, a location where people could get together to meet, perhaps large enough to hold weddings, Bbqs, etc. This came from the survey.

Diane: Nuyen’s park is straight down the bank. It’s just an access that had to be provided. Why not sell it and use the money to develop trails.

Dave: Neighbours are using it regularly. It is currently under development plans. These lakeshore access’ are required by law they cannot be sold. They belong to the province; they are in title in the province. When we see development going up, these little parcels of land access down to the water are going to be very critical in future. We have them all the way from Juniper Cove; there is one roughly every 600 metres.

 

Chuck: My hobby is solar energy. Generate our water from solar collectors. The south side of house has them. Neighbour has trees that will, in future, grow to shade these solar collectors. You will find in the next 20years that people are going to use more of these types of systems. Bylaws need to be put in place now to protect our “ Sun Rights”.

 

9.      BREAK 8:15pm – 8:25pm

 

 

10.  INFRASTRUCTURE PRESENTATION BY FRITS

-     Areas/issues of study identified by survey, information gathering, and focus group members.

      - Potable Water

                  - Standard of operations for entire area

                  - Acquire systems/maintenance and operations by DLC

                  - Link systems

                  - Ensure fire flow standards are met

                  - Ensure long-term supply                     

      - Sewer Systems

                  - Ensure quality standards of existing systems

                  - Stay abreast of new developments in industry

                  - Promote additional satellite systems

                  - Maintain system density policy

      - Storm water Drainage

                  - Need for drainage master plan

                  - Developers and private builders responsible for own drainage requirements

                  - Where possible, create holding ponds

      - Roads

                  - Ensure current transportation policy meets needs for community

                  - Improve CLR in areas of dangerous curves and narrow sections

                  - Bypass may be desired but costs may be prohibitive

                  - Access for emergency personnel

 

      - Waste Removal

                  - Continue removal of solid waste to Glenmore Landfill site

                  - Promote recycling/composting

                  - Be vigilant in discouraging local (illegal) dumping

      - Emergency Services

                  - Fire department – standards and vigilance in reducing wildland/urban-interfacing risks

                  - Policing requirements

                  - Ambulance service

                  - Local bylaw enforcement requirements and standards

      - Other Issues

                  - Education

                  - Public Transportation

                  - Social Services

- Any other????

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

We do not have any water; we are on the Lake Pine Utility. Most here are.

Rick: Have been on the Users Committee since 1979. Request that the sector plan make strong recommendation for the master water plan to go ahead. Don’t’ know who wants to take that forward. The will to move forward on that seems to be missing. Did hear strongly suggested that waiting for the Carrs Landing Sector plan. Want to hear what is going to happen.

Frits: The overall Sector Planning process is long and tedious. Guarantee you that there will not be a plan in place until summer of next year. At this point the current OCP has a mandate for a water master plan. No reason to wait for the new input from this sector planning process.

 

Joanne: what components are critical to your situation?

Rick: Potable nature of the water. The standards from the health department don’t know if that is properly attended to. We are on perpetual boil water advisory. We also need  to address fire flow. And an on going notion of a guarantee that the structure is correct. Lake Pine hanging by a thread. Only 1/3 to capacity. To fight fire in this area nothing has changed since 1986. Province protects the rights of the owner of the water utility. Their owner lives in Kelowna the guy that runs it lives in Oyama. It ‘s all about whose holding who. Like to see that the municipality will stand up for us. We realize that it’s going to come out of our pockets. Need to pull together with Barkley road and above

Joanne: In principle, would you support the entire water district being run by the District of Lake Country and operated by DLC?  Everyone supports.

Frits: has your group looked at doing a survey within your group to buyout your supplier? Yes

Al: To me water is just like royalty, it’s the districts responsibility. You shouldn’t setup private companies that reap the benefits. Heading in the direction your heading in is wrong. Should be a district wide thing. Because there may be so many in Oyama that need support some time down the road.

Frits: Agree its not ideal answer.

Al: May not address the problem in the future down the road. It’s a district problem and should be addressed as district problem

Rick: The amount of money that should have been dedicated to reserve capacity that money has disappeared. As has happened with Eastside. Another purveyor has purchased.

Lance: We may have a unique opportunity, now because of fire flow issues and protection issues, it overlaps over onto general public issue. Everybody should be funding this. Really if a fire starts there, where is it going to go? It’s going to affect everybody. This is fresh in memory with regard to fire of past summer, may be to our favour.

Rudi: Tap water, fire flow/hydrant water could be from another source. All connected. When experiencing the drought, when building a house use the gray water, is it legal to do that? Holding ponds with storm water drainage and use in irrigation. We need to begin to think a little more.

Joanne: Water reclamation, many communities are looking at this option. Expensive to begin with but in the long term very inexpensive.

Frits: The Vernon golf course uses partially treated effluent on the grass.

Al: Water reclamation is good but if we can’t get council to supply water how will we get them to look at reclamation. Look at district as a whole.

 

Joanne: Getting onto roads, how do you feel about Carrs Landing Road and other transportation links? What about paving Barkley as another access?

: In cases of emergency.

: Some for some against.

: Encourages more traffic.

Tony:  CL road left alone.

: Barkley road turns into Moberly and becomes private. Very expensive to do. Moberly can’t handle the traffic. Moberly & CL road connection. CL Road nothing wrong with it just enforce the speed limit

Rick: Against Moberly road connection. There needs to be some sort of enforcement. Pull-outs would help. There is one dangerous spot to note; a little rise after you pass Richie farm. Rise in the road is a blind spot. Speeding around bend, cross centre line, then blind spot.  Two head on collisions have resulted. The rise in the road to be addressed, to improve the sight line.

Diane: Bike path along Carrs Landing Road.

 

Frank: Water issue: Metering water? How does this group feel about it?

Frits: Currently being charged a flat fee. The alternative is a meter and you are charged per your usage of water.

Rudi: Does it include all water including water to outside of house.

Frits: Yes it is metered from the point of entry onto your property.

Joanne: How many support this? Overall support.

Joanne: Water metering is so progressive. That is what saves water, better than anything else.

 

11.  LAND USE PRESENTATION BY CHUCK

Areas/issues of study identified by survey, information gathering, and focus group members

Rural/natural character

Planned development that reflects community’s wants and needs

Expanded community amenities

 

ALR LAND USE

OBJECTIVES

·         To Encourage Agricultural Diversification

·         To preserve Agricultural Land

·         To Maintain Integrity and Prevent Fragmentation

 

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

Policies

·         Support AG Industry

·         Do Not Support Subdivision

·         Require Buffering AG/Urban Using LRC* Guidelines

·         Will Develop Farm Bylaw

·         Ensure that a water supply is reserved for agricultural

·         Supports Agri-Tourism, Agri-Comm. & Cottage Ind.

·         Continue to maintain low levels of Taxation

*Land Reserve Commission

 

RESIDENTIAL RURAL

Objectives

·         To Provide Opportunities for Residential Living

·         To ensure appropriate servicing levels

·         To establish a minimum parcel size based on sewage disposal

·         To maintain the rural amenities that attract people to the area

 

RESIDENTIAL RURAL

Policies

·         To Insure a 5 year Supply of Rural Residential Lots

·         In the next 20 years Growth Areas to be:

·         Moberly Road Extension Area

·         Barkley/Commonage Road Area

·         Min lot size for septic field to be 1 ha

·         Min lot size if serviced  by a satellite sewer system to be .5 ha

 

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

Policies

·         Min servicing to include paved roads, open ditches, o/h wiring, community water system meeting fire flow requirements and a trail network

·         Supports Cluster housing provided existing zone density is not exceeded*

* to be less than 2 units per ha.

 

 

 

RURAL RESOURCE

Objectives

·         To Preserve the Biodiversity and Ecological Capabilities of these Lands

·         To Protect Views and Vistas

·         To Protect Landscape Features having cultural or ecological values

·         Minimize Servicing Costs by developing areas having existing infrastructure

 

RURAL RESOURCE

Policies

·         Preferred minimum lot size of 30 ha

·         Subdivision only where natural divisions exist

·         All watersheds, lakes, ponds, wetlands, forest and wildlife corridors to be maintained

·         Placing of roads to respect natural corridors, contours and ecosystems

 

ALR LAND USE

QUESTIONS/ISSUES

Are you considering Agri-Tourism, Agri-Comm.or a Cottage Industry

How would a farm by law help you?

What is the effect of Predator Ridge?

Do you want any changes to your area?

Do you shop at Vernon or Kelowna?

 

FOR THE BARKLEY ROAD RESIDENTS

We see three ways to pay for water

·         By taxes

·         By increased residential density

·         By DLC

Do you have any other ideas

If you had water what else would you be concerned about?

 

12.  INFRASTRUCTURE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION

Joanne:  Handed out outline of possible development that could happen.

 

Rick: Has the DLC initiated action to the addition of Moberly road?

Frits: Not aware of any.

Rick: Personally does not support taking that property out of the ALR. It is for sale right now. There are for sale signs all along CL road. Not supporting 25 houses.

: There is no water there now how can they support this development.

Rick: You can bet that Lake Pine utility would sell them the water.

Chuck: No water no development.

 

Joanne: Who are in favour and who are not with the Moberly Carrs extension?

Frits: It is not in the current OCP. It is not officially mentioned.

Stan: Road allowance McFarland road, included in old roads book

 

Moberly to Pow road connection who is in favour?  5 for  8 against

Those who don’t why not?

: It will take traffic off Carrs Landing Road. Good for those on CL not good for those on Moberly Rd.

: Moberly is not capable  of handling the traffic.

:At least Carrs Landing Road is relatively flat

:Moberly connection is not as feasible. Taking that amount of traffic down Moberly is just not feasible.

Frits: There will be extensive acquisition required to put this in.

: Heard that the Moberly Pow extension was put on the OCP because they wanted to shut some people up.

Chuck: We have an opportunity to say whether we want it or not.

Joanne: People who live in other parts think it’s a great idea but can understand their view.

: So why did they widen Barkley road at that point if not because they plan to develop another road.

: It is crazy to think of that as a road the terrain is steep and treacherous 

: The 25 lot subdivision is in plans. What is the level of support? In favour to develop?

: Road and water has to be there to support the 25 houses. WATER is biggest consideration

: What is the zoning for the 25 houses RUALR which is different than ALR.

: There are conditions where you would support this expansion. Water and Road networks need improvement to handle it.

 

Joanne: Looking at that RUALR what agricultural activities would you allow?

: Vineyards. Only one have trouble with would be a feed lot.

: Other general consensus is that the environmental impact has to be considered. RU1 area allows some activities.

: Must fit into the environment, not obtrusive. We believe there will be development and so we want to have some guidelines.

Rudi: Some is presently privately owned. Has anyone asked what they want to do with it?

: There are people who have purchased the land with the idea to not do anything with it

Frits: do you consider a golf course a good idea?  Yes

Rudi: What about water, golf courses use a slot of water!

: The Barkley Road Committee want to start up a master plan. Don’t want to buy Lake Pine or Eastside. At a road end put up a pump house and extend to Barkley, and basically supply water to the people who don’t have water. Doing it in an upgraded situation and add on Lake pine and eastside. Have updated to standard.

:It was noted that communities all along the lake having difficulty acquiring water licenses to draw from the lake.

: Licenses are beginning to arrive in the mail now.

Vince: Home base businesses. Against any commercial business, this is really a non-commercial area.

Lance: What about sculpture?  We have people who have commercial art studios in the area. It’s important to know where the acceptable boundaries are.

: Smell and Noise and Parking would put limitation on what would be allowed.

 

Joanne: If you could stand in front of council what would you like them to hear, what is import to you, what are you passionate about, with regard to what we have discussed tonight or not?

Crystal: Don’t want it too feel like a city. Keep the rural feel, the solitude.

Vince: Same as wife if I wanted to live in Kelowna I would live there.

: Speed on Carrs Landing Road and Water of course.

Tony: I like the way it is. Go to town at later hours to avoid speeders. Happy where I’m at.

Al: Water is main concern. Strongly feel should be an issue. District in charge of water not a multitude of people setting up many systems. Roads improved, no dips and bends. Rural yet close to a city type centre. Should be maintained. More trails and parks and things for people to do in that area.

: Love it the way it is. Water is an issue and enforce speed on Carrs Landing Road.

Diane: Maintenance. Got to put some money into the roads. Wildlife, trails and environmental issues.

Margaret: Water. Interested in getting some sort of recreation trails together. Need to develop better public beach access. Lots of people not on the lakeshore do no have adequate access to lake.

Chuck: Develop road ends. Signs on the lakeshore that says this is public access. It is public property along  the lakeshore, private lakeshore owners do not own the lakeshore.

Frits:  It’s an educational process to let people know this as well as letting the land owners know.

 

Joanne: The draft plan will be created from these workshops followed by a draft survey and then an open house will be held and before being adopted by council it will go to public,

 

Web site www.carrslanding.org.

 

 

13.  NEXT WORKSHOP

 

Date:          November 6, 2003

Time:          7pm

Location:     Camp Arbuckle

 

14.  ADJOURNMENT

 

Meeting be adjourned at 10:00pm