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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.