REGULAR AGENDA - Regional District of North Okanagan

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN 

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 

Thursday, June 6, 2013 

2:00 pm 

REGULAR AGENDA 

A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 

1. Regular Agenda – June 6, 2013 

(Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items) 

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

RECOMMENDATION 1 

That the Agenda of the June 6, 2013 Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting be 

approved as presented. 

B. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 

1. Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 9, 2013 

RECOMMENDATION 2 Page 1 

That the minutes of the May 9, 2013 Electoral Area Advisory Committee Meeting be 

adopted as circulated. 

C. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 

1. Vernon / North Okanagan Safe Communities Unit 

- Report dated May 28, 2013 

- May Speed Watch Report 


That the report dated May 28, 2013 from the Vernon / North Okanagan Detachment 

– Safe Communities Unit be received for information. 

2. Rezoning Application 

- Guild, J & L (File No. 13-0104-E-RZ) 

- See Item E-2 Page 70 

3. South Sub Area Owners Group (Pusey, D) 

- Delegation Request Form (Page 11) 

- South East Sector- South Sub Area- Spallumcheen BC-Traffic Review Page 12 

- See Item G.1 Page 142

Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

Agenda – Regular - 2 - June 6, 2013 

4. Interior Health Authority Holding Tank Permit Issuance Policy HP-HE-100 

- Hesketh, Courtney (Team Leader, Infrastructure Programs) 

- See Item G.2 

D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

1. Regional Agricultural Plan - Draft Terms of Reference 

- Letter dated April 15, 2013 

FOR DISCUSSION Page 39 

E. NEW BUSINESS 

1. Agricultural Land Commission Application 

- Hatfield, A and Richards, K (File No. 13-0068-F-ALR) 

- Staff report dated April 15, 2013 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the application of Ann Hatfield 

and Keith Richards under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act 

which proposes to subdivide the property legally described as That Part NW 1/4, Sec 

27, Lying to the West of the Right Bank of the Shuswap River as Shown on Plan 

B17102, Twp 18, R7, W6M, KDYD, Except Plan 34054 and located at 1866 Enderby 

Mabel Lake Road, Electoral Area “F” be authorized for submission to the Agricultural 

Land Commission, subject to inclusion of the portion of the property which is not 

located within the Agricultural Land Reserve. 

2. Rezoning Application 

- Guild, J & L (File No. 13-0104-E-RZ) 



That Rezoning Bylaw No. 2591, 2013 which proposes to rezone the property legally 

described as Lot 3, Sec 24, Twp 57, ODYD, Plan 33142 and located at 49 Pine 

Road, Electoral Area “E”, from the Non-Urban (N.U) zone to the Country Residential 

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

3. Agricultural Land Commission Application 

- Krause, A & K (File No. 13-0101-F-ALR) 



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

Krause under Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to place a 

second residence for family farm help on the property legally described as The 

Fractional SW 1/4 of Sec 29, Twp 19, R8, W6M, KDYD, Including All Timber 

Thereon and located at 7261 Highway 97A, Electoral Area “F” be supported and the 

Building Inspector be authorized to issue a Building Permit for the proposed 

residence.


Agenda – Regular - 3 - June 6, 2013 

4. Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan – Genetically Modified 

Organisms (GMOs) 

RECOMMENDATION 7 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be directed to prepare 

bylaw amendments to incorporate the matter of Genetically Modified Organisms 

(GMOs) into the Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan. 

5. Bylaw No. 2332 - Official Community Plan Electoral Area “F” 

Bylaw No. 2333 - Rezoning 

- TILLAART, Tony c/o RABE, Michael (File No. 07-0985-F-OR) 


FOR DISCUSSION Page 89 

F. REPORTS 

1. Advisory Planning Commission Meetings 


That the minutes of the following Advisory Planning Commission meetings be 

received for information: 

a. Electoral Area “B” APC – May 29, 2013 (to be distributed at meeting) 

b. Electoral Area “C” APC – May 29, 2013 (to be distributed at meeting) 

c. Electoral Area “E” APC – May 27, 2013 (to be distributed at meeting) 

d. Electoral Area “F” APC – May 13, 2013 

2. General Manager’s Report 

G. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS 

1. Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.2012 – South Sub Area - 

Southeast Sector, Spallumcheen, BC 

- Letter dated March 21, 2013 

- Staff report dated January 28, 2013 

Page 142 

2. Interior Health Authority Holding Tank Permit Issuance Policy HP-HE-100 

- Hesketh, Courtney (Team Leader, Infrastructure Programs) 

H. ADJOURNMENT


Agenda – Regular - 4 - June 6, 2013

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA 

June 6, 2013 - Item B.1 


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

in the Board Room at the Regional District Office on Thursday May 9, 2013 

Members: Director B. Fleming Electoral Area “B” Chair 

Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” Vice Chair 

Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area “C” 

Director E. Foisy Electoral Area “E” 

Director J. Pearase Electoral Area “F” 

Staff: L. Mellott General Manager, Electoral Area Administration 

R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building 

A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator 

C. Elley Clerk (taking minutes) 

Others: Director P. Nicol City of Vernon (Board Chair) 

R. Morgan Regional Crime Prevention Coordinator, City of Vernon 

Public 

RCMP 

CALL MEETING TO ORDER 

The chair called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA 

Regular Agenda – May 9, 2013 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Pearase 

That the Agenda of the May 9, 2013 Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting be approved 

with the following amendments: 

- Addition of In Camera matter under Section 90(1)(f) 

- Removal of Item E.6 – Boundary Extension Request 

CARRIED 

ADOPTION OF MINUTES 

Electoral Area Advisory Committee – April 4, 2013 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Foisy 

That the minutes of the April 4, 2013 Electoral Area Advisory Committee Meeting be adopted as 

circulated. 

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 

CARRIED 

Vernon / North Okanagan Safe Communities Unit 


That the report dated April 29, 2013 from the Vernon / North Okanagan Detachment Safe 

Communities Unit be received for information. 

CARRIED 

Page 1 of 191


Minutes – Regular - 2 - May 9, 2013 

The Regional Crime Prevention Coordinator provided an update on activities he has undertaken 

over the past month. 

The Committee was advised that during a speedwatch set up in Electoral Area “D”, a number of 

residents indicated their support for the speedwatch program. 

Rezoning Application (Illot, J. c/o Shortt, J -File No. 13-0049-F-RZ) 

No one was present to speak to the application 

Development Permit with Variance Application (Brown, P c/o Brown, V - File No. 13-0056- 

B-DP / 13-0055-B-DVP) 

Victor Brown (applicant) spoke in favour of the application 

Development Permit with Variance Application (Stussi Sports Ltd. c/o Korobanik, T - File 

No. 13-0108-B-DP / 12-0057-B-DVP) 

No one was present to speak to the application 


June 6, 2013 - Item B.1 

NEW BUSINESS 

Rezoning Application (Illot, J. c/o Shortt, J - File No. 13-0049-F-RZ) 

Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Fairbairn 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Bylaw No. 2586, 2013 which 

proposes to rezone the property legally described as Lot 1, Sec 25, Twp 18, R8, W6M, KDYD, 

Plan KAP65384 and located at 1121 Enderby Mabel Lake Road, Electoral Area “F”, from the 

Non-Urban (N.U) zone to the Country Residential (C.R) zone be given First and Second 

Readings; and further, 

That a Public Hearing not be held unless and until the applicant has submitted a report prepared 

by a professional engineer, or a groundwater geologist, or by a hydrogeologist verifying that 

water of sufficient quantity and quality is available year round to service the proposed lots and 

that the extraction of water from the proposed water supplies will not deplete the water supply of 

neighbouring wells. 

CARRIED 

Development Permit with Variance Application (Brown, P c/o Brown, V -File No. 13-0056- 

B-DP / 13-0055-B-DVP) 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Foisy 

That is be recommended to the Board of Directors that, a Development Permit with Variance be 

issued for the property legally described as Lot A, Sec 23, Twp 8, ODYD, Plan EPP18745 and 

located at 7250 Meadowlark Road, Electoral Area “B” to allow a variance to Section 504.10.d of 

the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 to permit a dwelling unit 

for an owner, operator or employee of the principal and permitted use to be located within 

existing detached single family dwelling subject to the following: 

1. the dimensions and siting of the buildings and parking and loading spaces on the land 

be in general accordance with the site plan attached to the Planning Department report 

dated April 15, 2013; 



June 6, 2013 - Item B.1 



2. the form and character of the buildings on the land be in general accordance with the 

elevations attached to the Planning Department report dated April 15, 2013; 

3. landscaping and screening on the land be in general accordance with the landscape 

plan and plant list attached to the Planning Department report dated April 15, 2013; 

4. signs to be installed on the land be in general accordance with Section 1401 of Zoning 

Bylaw No. 1800 and the Swan Lake Commercial District Sector Plan Landscape 

Guidelines; 

5. an on-site sewage disposal system be designed by an engineer and installed to provide 

an adequate method of sewage disposal; and, 

6. a storm water management system on the lands be in accordance with the plans 

prepared by Franklin Engineering attached to the Planning Department report dated 

April 15, 2013. Storm water outlet facilities shall not be installed directly into Swan Lake 

or into a tributary watercourse, drainage ditch or gully except where a storm water 

renovation system is being implemented; and further, 

7. That prior to issuance of the Development Permit with Variance, security be provided in 

an amount equal to 1.25 times the estimated cost of installing the landscaping and 

screening, and of paving and curbing the parking, driveway and loading areas. 

Estimates are to be prepared by qualified contractors. 

CARRIED 

Development Permit with Variance Application (Stussi Sports Ltd. c/o Korobanik, T -File 

No. 13-0108-B-DP / 12-0057-B-DVP) 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Foisy 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a Development Permit with Variance be 

issued for the property legally described as Lot B, DL 11, Twp 8, ODYD, Plan KAP70189 and 

located at 4823 Silver Star Road, Electoral Area “B” to vary Section 1401.4.b.i of the Regional 

District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 by permitting a flashing and animated 

sign in accordance with the schedules attached to the staff report dated April 15, 2013; and 

further, 

That the operation of the flashing and animated aspects of the sign be limited to business hours 

only. 

CARRIED 

IN CAMERA 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Macnabb 

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

Area Advisory Committee convene In Camera to deal with matters deemed closed to the public 

in accordance with Section 90(1)(f) of the Community Charter. 

CARRIED 

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

2:56 p.m. 

The regular meeting of the Electoral Area Advisory Committee reconvened at 3:40 p.m. 



June 6, 2013 - Item B.1 



Holding Tank Application – Referral from Interior Health Authority (IHA) 


That the report dated April 24, 2013 regarding a referral from the Interior Health Authority for an 

Application to Construct a Holding Tank which proposes to serve an existing seasonal dwelling 

on the property legally described as Lot 4, DL 1272, ODYD, Plan 14291 and located at 5853 

Cosens Bay Road, Electoral Area “B”, be received for information; and further, 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, staff be directed to prepare amendments to 

Holding Tank Bylaw No. 671, 1985 to more clearly prohibit the use of holding tanks on 

properties which permit seasonal residential use except under unique circumstances as outlined 

in the Interior Health Authority’s Holding Tank Permit Issuance Policy HP-HE-100. 

CARRIED 

Moved and seconded by Directors Foisy and Macnabb 

That the Interior Health Authority be invited to attend as a delegation to an Electoral Area 

Advisory Committee meeting regarding holding tank regulations. 

CARRIED 

Bylaw 2587 - Drainage Conversion and Establishment Repeal Bylaw 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that "Regional District of North Okanagan 

Drainage Conversion and Establishment Repeal Bylaw No. 2587, 2013" be given First, Second, 

and Third readings and be forwarded to the participants for consent; and further, 

That following receipt of consent by 2/3 of the participants, "Regional District of North Okanagan 

Drainage Conversion and Establishment Repeal Bylaw No. 2587, 2013" be forwarded to the 

Inspector of Municipalities for statutory approval. 

CARRIED 

Utilities Commission - Two Tiered Rate 

Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Pearase 

That the letter dated April 3, 2013 from the British Columbia Utilities Commission be received for 

information. 

CARRIED 

Okanagan Regional Library – Funding Requests 

Discussion ensued regarding the Okanagan Regional Library’s policy that the constituent unit in 

which a branch is located is responsible for funding furniture and fixtures, and that the 

constituent unit shall approach surrounding neighbours to share in the costs. It was noted that 

there is no RDNO service to fund expenditures for library furnishings, and no amounts were 

included in the 2013 discretionary fund budgets. 

Regional Agricultural Plan - Draft Terms of Reference 

The Committee agreed to defer the discussion regarding the Regional Agricultural Plan – Draft 

Terms of Reference until the next Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting being held on 

June 6, 2013. 



June 6, 2013 - Item B.1 



Annexation Impact Study Workshop 

There was no further discussion arising from the Annexation Impact Study Workshop held prior 

to the May 9, 2013 Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting. 

Boat Patrols – Agreement with RCMP 


That the Memorandum of Understanding, as amended with the addition of dry land foot patrols, 

be endorsed in principle, subject to further clarification of the boat patrol schedule. 

CARRIED 

REPORTS 

Advisory Planning Commission Meetings 


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

information: 

a. Electoral Area "B" – Meeting of April 24, 2013 

b. Electoral Area "C" – Meeting of April 24, 2013 

c. Electoral Area "E" – Meeting of April 22, 2013 

d. Electoral Area "F" – Meeting of April 15, 2013 

CARRIED 

Sustainability Program Report 


That the Sustainability Report dated April 23, 2013 from the Sustainability Coordinator be 

received for information. 

CARRIED 

Planning and Building - 2013 First Quarter Summary 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Fairbairn 

That the report dated April 23, 2013 regarding Planning and Building – 2013 First Quarter 

Summary be received for information. 

CARRIED 

General Manager’s Report 

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

matters: 

• Southern Interior Local Government Association (SILGA) 

- Resolution re: Joint Flood Management (co-sponsored by the RDNO / CSRD) 

passed, but with amendment to remove reference to “Incident Command” 

• Internet (Cherryville) 

- RFP closes May 10th 

- Has been quite a bit of interest – no submissions yet received 



June 6, 2013 - Item B.1 



• Conservation Officer Service 

- Inspector Barb Leslie is scheduled to attend the May 15, 2013 Board Meeting 

• Conversion of Volume Based Forest Cutting to Area Based Tenure 

- Response letter (simple thank you) received from Ministry of Forests, Lands and 

Natural Resource Operations 

• ICBC – Abandoned Vehicles 

- Attempts to contact ICBC to confirm process for abandoned vehicles will continue 

ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. 

Certified Correct: 

Chair 

Corporate Officer 



June 6, 2013 - Item C.1 

Vernon/North Okanagan RCMP 

Regional Crime Prevention Programs Coordinator 

Report to the Regional District North Okanagan 

Board of Directors 

Date: May 28th 2013 

• Coordinator attended the North Okanagan Seniors Action meeting. 

• Coordinator attended JPW HQ, Armstrong formerly Argo, and met with Jim 

Jensen regarding Block Watch signs placements in Herry Road. 

• Coordinator attended Ministry of Highways/Transportation Head office and met 

with Raylene Otto regarding future Block Watch sign placements in RDNO area. 

• Continuing to promote the Block Watch program in the 5 Electoral Areas. 

• Coordinator met with ICBC area representative Christine Silver in Vernon, 

regarding Speed Watch/ Lock out auto crime and Bike Safety Rodeo programs 

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

• Coordinator prepares his lesson plan for the WITS anti bullying for schools 

• Coordinator has prepared Internet Safety/ Cyber Bullying presentations. 

• Coordinator prepares Drug Awareness talks at the Community Policing office. 

• Coordinator prepares Personal Safety talk for community groups. 

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

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

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

• Coordinator submits 4 monthly, 200 plus words, Crime/Safety articles to 

newsletters in the RDNO electoral areas. 

• Regular emails sent and contact with Block Watch Captains and program 

members with crime alerts, updates and Crime tips. 

• Coordinator continues to visit Electoral Areas on daily visits and talks to 

residents and businesses regarding safety / crime concerns in their community 

• Coordinator attended monthly Safe Community Unit staff meeting. 

• Coordinator has taken 1 sick day off in May. 

• Coordinator has taken 1 Statutory Bank Holiday, Victoria Monday in May. 

• Coordinator has taken 2 compressed working week days off in May. 

• Coordinator has worked 18 days in May. 


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


June 6, 2013 - Item C.1 

• Coordinator met with Laura Frank RDNO to discuss recent public survey results 

regarding Area B/C OCP regarding community safety. 

• Attended RDNO conference room meeting with representatives regarding 

activities in Upper Hartnell Rd / Dixon Dam and Crown land access. 

• Visited hiking recreational parks regarding Lockout Auto crime signs. 

• Liaison between resident in Dixon Dam Rd regarding vehicle incident. 

• Block Watch signs permit granted and signs placed in area for Sandford 

Road/Herry Road programs, 28 households participating in this program. 

• Meeting with Block Watch Captain of Keddlestone Road/ Wilson Jackson/Deer 

Park area regarding increasing membership in the area. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 3 occasions on Silver Star Road, in school 

zone, close to BX Elementary School during school times, during May. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 1occasion on Pleasant Valley Rd in May. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 1occasion in May on BX Road, near to BX 

Dog Park, due to community concerns regarding speeding motorists. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 2 occasions during May on Pottery Road 

monitoring the school zone at Hillview Elementary school. 

• Attended BX Dog Park and spoke with motorists, Lockout auto crime operation. 

• Citizens on Patrol (two volunteers) spent 10 hours patrolling in the BX area. The 

patrols in this area are a regular and on-going part of the Vernon COP program. 

• Maintaining regular contact with the 9 Block Watch programs in the area, which 

gives Coordinator access to over 206 households / family members by the e-mail 

system and Block Watch Captains set up. 

• Coordinator patrols and visits area 1 day a week, split into 2 morning/afternoon 

periods. 

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

• Coordinator attended and spoke with businesses in Cherryville regarding security 

of chip and pin counter machines. 

• Liaised with Cherryville resident and Purolator regarding parcel delivery to area. 

• Liaising with Principle Lance Johnson at Cherryville Elementary school regarding 

drug awareness. and bike safety rodeo for students 

• Slow Children playing signs placed on Creighton Valley, Cherryville due to 

residents’ concerns regarding children’s road safety/ traffic concerns 

• Coordinator attended and spoke regarding Crime Prevention advice at the Seniors 

Drop in and Wellness centre in Lumby, 

• Speed Watch program performed on 1occasion on Mabel Lake Road, Rural Lumby 

in May, close to JW Inglis Elementary school during school zone times. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 2 occasions in May on Highway 6 

Westbound, near to Frank’s store in Cherryville. 

• Submitted Crime Prevention article for Cherryvillan monthly newsletter. 

• Maintaining regular contact with the 1 Block Watch program in area, Whitevale 

Road, Lumby which gives Coordinator access to 18 households / family members 


periods. 



June 6, 2013 - Item C.1 

RDNO Area F (Enderby Rural) 

• Coordinator attended resident of Grandview Bench and liaised with RDNO By 

Laws staff regarding noise complaints in area. 

• Liaising with residents regarding illegal dumping on Inch Logan Rd, Rural Enderby 

• Coordinator again attended Mabel Lake Resort Kingfisher to discuss with staff RV 

and vehicle problems during resort weekends and relieving traffic congestion. 

• Continuing to support the Block Watch Captain in introducing the program in Mara 

and liaising with Ministry of Transportation/Highways regarding positioning of signs 

• Speed Watch program performed on 2 occasions in Grindrod during May, 

monitoring traffic over bridge and through area, 50k zone. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 2 occasions on Mabel Lake Rd, Enderby 

during May, and monitoring traffic by Ashton Creek store. 

• Speed Watch performed on Mabel Lake Rd Kingfisher on 1 occasion in May 

• Visited the Deep Creek, Mallory Rd, Rural Enderby Block Watch program and 

liaised with the Captain regarding increasing membership there. 

• Visited Block Watch Captain in Grandview Bench regarding increasing 

membership in the area. 

• Visited BlockWatch Captain in Mara regarding Block Watch membership. 

• Liaising with Principle at Grindrod Elementary school regarding Drug Awareness. 

• Submitted my 3 monthly Crime Prevention/Safety articles for the Mara,Rivertalk 

and Kingfisher community newsletters. 

• Maintaining regular contact with the 6 Block Watch programs in area which gives 

the Coordinator access to over 165 households / family members by the email 

system and the Block Watch Captain set up. 


periods. 

I submit this May Coordinators monthly report and the May Speed Watch monthly report 

for your information and consideration, 

Kind regards, 

Roy Morgan. 

Regional District of North Okanagan. 

Crime Prevention Program Coordinator. 

RCMP Community Policing Unit. 

Office 250 550-7845 or Cell 250 9382260 



June 6, 2013 - Item C.1 

SPEED WATCH MONTHLY REPORT FOR May 2013 

RDNO Speed Watch PROGRAM COORDINATOR: Roy Morgan 

PHONE: 250-550-7845 FAX: 250-260-5866 E-MAIL: rmorgan@vernon.ca 

Locations 

(Intersection/ Corridor/ 

Highway) 

# of Speed 

Watch 

Deployments 

Total 

Vehicles 

Checked 

Over 10 

km/h 

Pleasant Valley Road B 1 43 0 

Pottery Road, 

2 163 0 

Hillview school B 

Silver Star Rd, BX school C 3 898 0 

BX Road C 1 27 0 

Mabel Lake Road, near JW 

1 97 0 

Inglis Elementary. Lumby D 

Cherryville North Fork Road, 

0 0 0 

near Elementary school. E 

Highway 6E, near Franks 

1 47 1 

store, Cherryville E 

Highway 97N, Mara, near 

0 0 0 

Putula Recreation park. F 

Mabel Lake Road, Ashton 

2 68 0 

Creek school, Enderby F 

Grindrod, Highway 97S F 2 229 0 

Mabel Lake Road, Kingfisher F 1 27 0 

# of 

deployments 

with police 

presence 

(2 or 3 strikes) 

# of 

tickets 

issued 

TOTALS 

14 1599 1 

Total visibility hours 

14 

# of Warning Letters issued 

0 

Total admin hours 

1.0 

# of Active Volunteers 

0 

TOTAL HOURS 

15 

# of Seat Belt Surveys 

0 

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



June 6, 2013 - Item C.3 


REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION 

Type of Meeting: C Board of Directors e-E'iectoral Nea Advisory C Regional Growth Management 

C Greater Vernon Advisory C White Valley Parks & Rec Cather 

Meeting Date Requested: jvNf" ~ 2.-o\2_ 

Name of Person or Group Making Presentation:

CTO-....f--~c~on~su~lta~nts~L~tdr---.-. 

November 16, 2012 

File: 12151-5 002 

David Pusey 

Willowhaven Investments. 

2907 32"d Street 

Vernon BC V1 T 5M2 

Dear: David: 

Reference: 

South East Sector- South Sub Area- Spallumcheen BC 

Traffic Review 

We are pleased to provide the revised review of the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed 

single family large lot residential development within a portion of the South East Sector 

Neighbourhood in Spallumcheen, BC. 

Background Information 

The South Sub Area of the South East Sector of Spallumcheen is the subject of an Official 

Community Plan Amendment Application (File 11-0082-SPL-OCP). 

The proposed Land Use and Density figure (Concept Plan L-2) for the South Sub Area of the 

South East Sector is appended. 

At the October 22 2012 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Spallumcheen Planning Staff 

recommend the following: 

AND THAT prior to Second Reading of the OCP amendment bylaw, the following 

information be submitted to the Township of Spallumcheen: 

2. a revised traffic impact study which addresses the requirements outline


Willowhaven Investments 

Page 2 of5 

Reference: 



Site Generated Traffic 

Traffic impact reviews are based on trip generation rates . The rates are based on information 

collated from actual traffic studies, and presented for the average weekday Peak Hour volumes 

the specific land use will generate, during normal operations. The trip generation rates applied 

for typical single and multi family residential developments are from the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers Trip Generation Rates Manual (8 1 h Edition), as follows : 

• Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 21 0) 

o 

o 

A.M . Peak Hour of Generator average rate of 0.77 trips per unit; 26% entering, 

74% exiting; 

P.M. Peak Hour of Generator average rate of 1.02 trips per unit; 64% entering, 

36% exiting. 

The proposed South Sub area development is based on a maximum build out of 140 single family 

home sites, with a combination of small (1 ha) and large holding lot sizes. Based on the above 

trip generation rates and the projected build out, the area is anticipated to generate the following: 

• 108 AM Peak Hour Trips, 28 inbound and 80 outbound; 

• 143 PM Peak Hour Trips, 91 inbound and 52 outbound. 

Existing Road Network 

Greenhow Road - collector roadway that connects the northern end of Pleasant Valley Road 

(south of the Highway 97 I 97 A interchange) to Highway 97 A. 

Ridgeview Road- local gravel roadway that connects to Baker Hogg Road to the south of the 

site. Baker Hogg Road is in the Regional District. Ridgeview Road currently serves 

seven home sites. 

Glenhayes Road - local gravel roadway that connects to Baker Hogg Road to the south of the 

site . Glenhayes Road and Baker Hogg Road are in the Regional District. Glenhayes 

Road currently serves twelve home sites. 

Mclennan Road - local gravel roadway that connects to l & A Road to the south of the site. 

Most of Mclennan Road and l & A Road are in the Regional District. Mclennan Road 

currently serves four home sites within Spallumcheen, and twenty five home sites within 

the Regional District. 

Keddleston Road - local gravel roadway that connects to Silver Star Road to the south of the 

site. Most of Keddleston Road and Silver Star Road are in the Regional District. 

Keddleston Road currently serves five home sites within Spallumcheen, and thirty home 

sites within the Regional District. 

L \Genoral Oala\Projects-2012\, 2151 - South East Sector Traff1c RevieW\5-Correspondence\5~002 Traffic revteW 20t2-1 t -15 doc 




Page 3 of 5 

Reference: 



New Road Network 

Rural Collector- Spallumcheen Subdivision Bylaw Drawing F-2 

Rural Local- Spallumcheen Subdivision Bylaw Drawing F-3 

All new roadways with in the South Sub Area shall conform to the rural local and collector 

roadway standards as presented in the Spallumcheen Subdivision Bylaw, as presented on the 

following page. The new roadway grades and alignment will also conform to the Subdivision 

Bylaw requirements. 

Greenhow Road 

The western access to the site would be via a new collector roadway developed off of the 

northern end of Greenhaw Road, adjacent to the Highway 97A at grade intersection. 

The collector roadway is planned to extend through the site to allow for a future 

connection to the north and central sub areas, 

The 145 plus home sites to be accessed for the south sub area would be well within the 

operational limits of the proposed collector roadway. 

The internal roadway connecting the collector roadway to the remaining eastern portion 

of the south sub area would be developed to a rural local standard. 

The recently constructed at grade intersection of Greenhaw Road and Highway 97A has 

more than sufficient capacity to accommodate the addition of up to the proposed 145 plus 

home sites. 

L \General Oala\ProJed.s-2012\12151 · Sou1h East Sector Traff1c Rev;ew\5-Co rTespondeoce\5-002 Traffic review 2012·11-15 doc 


November 16,2012 



Reference: 



Ridgeview Road 

Approximately ten new home sites are anticipated to be developed with direct access 

onto Ridgeview Road. 

No alignment or roadway infrastructure improvements would be required for the portion of 

Ridgeview Road and the intersection of Ridgeview Road and Baker Hogg Road, located 

in the Regional District, as a result of the additional home sites. 

Ridgeview Road would retain the rural local roadway classification both within 

Spallumcheen and to the south in the Regional District. This new roadway would also 

allow for an alternate exit route from the portion of Ridgeview Road located within the 

Regional District. 


Ridgeview Road and the intersection of Ridgeview Road and Baker Hogg Road, located 

in the Regional District, as a result of the additional home sites. 

Glenhayes Road 

Approximately sixty new home sites could be developed with direct access onto 

Glenhayes Road. 

The existing alignment of Glenhayes Road, both within Spallumcheen, and to the south in 

the Regional District, could be used to serve up to ten new home sites. 

Additional development beyond the ten home sites would require the phased 

development of a new collector roadway extending from the southern edge of the South 

Sub area allowing for a connection with the collector road off of Greenhaw Road. This 

new roadway would also allow for an alternate exit route from the Regional District lands. 

The internal roadway extending from Glenhayes Road, to serve the south sub area lands 

to the east would be developed to a rural local standard. 


Glenhayes Road and the intersection of Glenhayes Road and Baker Hogg Road, located 

in the Regional District, as a result of the additional home sites. The portion of 

Glenhayes Road located within the Regional District would retain the rural local 

classification. 

Mclennan Road 

The central portion of the South Sub Area is anticipated to develop up to 70 home sites. 

An internal local roadway with a connection to the collector roadway is part of the overall 

South Sub Area Plan. This new roadway would also allow for an alternate exit route from 

the adjacent Regional District lands. 

In the event the lands served by the Greenhaw extension have yet to be developed, up to 

seventy new home sites could be developed with direct access onto Mclennan Road. 


Mclennan Road and the intersection of Mclennan Road and l & A Road, located in the 

Regional District, as a result of the additional home sites being developed prior to the 

completion of the Greenhaw connection. The portion of Mclennan Road located within 

the Regional District would retain the rural local classification. 

L \Genoral Oata\P•ojeets--2012\12151 - SOuth East Soctor TraffiC RevleW\5-Correspolldence\5-002 Traffic revieow 2012-11-15 doc 


November 16, 201 2 



Reference: 



Keddleston Road 

Up to twenty five new home sites are anticipated to be developed with direct access onto 

Keddleston Road. A future connection to the northern portion of the South East Sector is 

also part of the overall South Sub Area Plan. 

Keddleston Road would be developed to a rural local standard. 

No alignment or roadway infrastructure improvements would be requ ired for the portion of 

Keddleston Road and the intersection of Keddleston Road and Silver Star Road, located 

in the Regional District, as a result of the additional 25 home sites. Keddleston Road 

would retain the rural local classification for both the Spallumcheen and Regional District 

portions. 

Current Township of Spallumcheen Bylaws requires all development to have direct access 

through the Townships roadway infrastructure. The anticipated level of rural residential traffic 

anticipated with in the South Sub area is best supported by the utilizing the existing rural road 

network located both within the Township of Spallumcheen and the adjacent Regional District. 

Allowing rural development to proceed from extensions to existing infrastructure prevents major 

hill side roadway construction impacts from occurring over large areas that will service a minor 

number of home sites. 

The collector roadways identified are planned to be constructed in phases based on the 

progressive build out and servicing requirements of the South Sub Area parcels. 

We trust the above meets your requirements. Please contact the undersigned if you have any 

questions on the above or require further information. 

Sincerely, 

CTQ CONSULT ANTS LTD. 

Per: 

Mr. David D. Cullen, P.Eng. 

Transportation Engineer 

DDC:dc 

L 'Gerleral Data\Projeds-2012\12151 ·South East Sector Traffic Revtew\S·Correspondence\5-002 traffic rev)ew2012·11· 15.doc 


July 27, 2012 

~ 

conceDC•~• 

~elllngs 

To whom it may concern: 

I am a residential contractor in Vernon and also live just above the water slides in 

Vernon. I enjoy the fact that I am so close to either Vernon or Armstrong as well as west 

side as I work throughout the valley. 

I remember when I first moved to the Okanagan, in the 70's, from the lower mainland 

and looking at Middleton Mountain with only a few houses on it. Now it is completely 

fult I believe that the south hillside of Spallumcheen would benefit from small acreages. 

I live in a beautiful area with a gorgeous view and feel more people could enjoy this 

natural setting without creating a city on the hill. I find that I am so close to so many 

amenities without having to live in the city. My children get to be free and enjoy the 

nature around them and other families could enjoy the openness if there were more 

opportunities for people to own small acreage in the area. 

I enjoy the rural community I live in. 

Regards, 

Michael Thiem 

THEMES CONCEPTS & DWELLINGS 

7710 Baker Hogg Road 

Vernon, BC V1B 353 


July 2, 2012 

To Whom It May Concern: 

I understand that a group of people are wanting to subdivide their properties in the 

southeast sector in Spallumcheen. I like the idea of having smaller acreages with rural 

servicing rather than the current large holding zoning. It is important to keep to the 

guidelines of the Official Community Plan so that in the future, smaller single family lots 

may be available once the proper infrastructure is in place. The location is ideal; only a 

few minutes into downtown Vernon or Armstrong. 

I fully support a rezoning application for this area. 


748 Upland Heights, Vernon, BC VlB 2X9 

Tel/Fax 1-250-545-3971 email gphomes@shaw.ca 

Date: July 25, 2012 

To: 

Re: 

Municipality of Spallumcheen 

Subdivision 

Gavin Parsons Homes Ltd has been building in the Vernon area for thirty seven 

years. We have built hundreds of homes, as well as condominiums and 

townhouses. We have also done some subdivision developments. 

We used to own property on McLennan road, so are familiar with the terrain and 

type of ground for building. The land has very little value for any traditional 

farming but would work for small acreages where one could have some horses or a 

few chickens. 

We have also built in the area and have put in wells. On our projects we were able 

to find water, one more successful then the other. A storage tank was needed for 

one of the properties. 

The ground is rock and glacial till, so suitable for any kind of buildings. The area is 

also good for septic fields. They are easy to install and have good drainage. 

The Vernon, Spallumcheen, Armstrong corridor has a shortage of rural small 

acreages or large septic lots, especially with any kind of view. 

These types of properties would find a ready clientele and would be a good fit for 

the community as well as increasing the tax base. 

We would like to see this go forward and would be interested in something like this 

for ourselves personally. 

Thanks you for listening 

Regards 

Gavin Parsons 


July 27, 2012 

Township of Spallumcheen, 

Mayor and Councillors 


We are writing this letter in support of our proposal for small acreages in the South East 

Sector of Spallumcheen. 

We've loved having acreage and were thrilled when we purchased our home complete with 

22 acres in 1990. 

Previous to this acreage we lived on 25 acres near Pillar Lake, in the Falkland area. On our 

numerous drives into Vernon, I would look up the hillside in front of me and say, on many 

occasions - wouldn't it be great to buy a house up there. What a beautiful view it would be. 

It was many years later that the opportunity arose and we bought our house with acreage 

just where we wanted to be. Being close to either town; Armstrong or Vernon, we had our 

choice of schools, which we took advantage of. 

Although that was many years ago, I'm sure there are plenty of new homeowners or long 

term residents who would love the opportunity to have a small piece of land to call their 

own - without the hub-bub of the city life - and yet only minutes away from either 

community. 

The fact that the South East Sector is NOT in the A.L.R. utilizes a hillside that would 

otherwise remain in large holdings. Having small holdings so close to town, means families 

can purchase acreage without having to buy a big parcel of land. More people would be 

able to move into the area and enjoy the rural lifestyle we enjoy in Spallumcheen. Our 

children have fond memories of the lifestyle it provided. 

With more residents moving into Spallumcheen, that will provide the opportunity for 

established businesses to grow and for new businesses to succeed. And of course with 

more tax revenue coming in, it will only better the community at large. 

Our well water is wonderful. We have raised a family of five and we've never run out in all 

the years we've been here. 

We have participated in this proposal and believe great lengths have been taken to ensure 

that our reports will satisfy councils plan and the way that we all envision the future of the 

South East Sector. 

...2 


This proposal has been in the works for a long time, and by taking the time, we believe 

we've met all the bylaw requirements, and feel we've come up with a comprehensive and 

sensitive plan for the South East Sector and for the future of Spallumcheen. We are 

extremely happy with the result of our plan and look forward to your support and help in 

making our dream a reality. 

Sincerely, 

AI and Terry Gamache 

10 Ridgeview Road 

Vernon, BC VlB 3S2 


Small acreages in the Southeast Sector of Spallumcheen 

I am writing in support of the proposal of Small Acreages in 

Spallumcheen. What a wonderful opportunity for people to live so close 

to Vernon, Armstrong and Spallumcheen -I do mean LIVE! Having 

space around each home and not ruining the look of the hillside. (ie 

Middleton Mountain, Turtle Mountain etc.) 

I think, this is a great opportunity to showcase rural services- imagine 

a safe and effective use of Wells and Septic for the residents. 

Regards 

Janet Fish 

3301 Coldstream Avenue 

Vernon BC 

V1T 1Y1 


July 26, 2012 

Mayor and Council, 

District of Spallumcheen 

We are writing this letter in support of the proposal for small acreages in the 

Southeast Sector of Spallumcheen. 

First, it makes sense to us to utilize land that is not in the ALR for small acreages. 

We believe this would fill a need for people who would like to live on a bit more land 

without "buying the whole farm". 

Second, this area is a great location. Being situated between Vernon and 

Armstrong gives easy access to shopping, entertainment, etc. without having to 

drive a long distance. 

Third, the services of well water and septic systems seems to be a very viable 

solution for this area. 

We respectfully request that this proposal be given your positive consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Myron and Caroline Stogrin 

1272 Otter Lake X Road 

Armstrong, B.C. 

VOE 186 


~ 

BenefitwEST ( 

Toll Free 1-877-558-5488 

~ ' > • - 

Ute Sour:" Easr Sec:tc: c:f S;.:.:a:.i:_.:;:;:"::ee·--: a:: s!:or;g!y :av8; of :·ezor::ng ~he 

a:-ge ac:-eages n ti"1s area sc :r~at cts a:~o s"~:ali a::reages are ava%oie tnat prov:de for 

a :ural ar;d serr:-.-rura cor::'""l""h.Hi;ty The ·::l..lner·';t S1t0a~.::1r, appears to be tr"1a~ t::ere are mar;y 

;arge 80 acre plus o:eces of ;and for sa!e at the oase ot S:··ver Star mounta1n vVhiCh makes ;t 

ha.--::: 7o: faf'l;Hes tc :::ove :o:t::. : .. ~.~ a1ea T}je area ::;ffe:s 3 ,.~~ra .,fe s:y~e bt~1 !S sru~ \tery 

C;cse t:J the Anderso:· snopp;ng

Ur Karl F. Denk 

8110 Deerwc>Od Road 

Vernon B.C V1H3N 5 

Open letter to Spallumcheen Council regarding: 

Support ofSpaBumchccn South-East Sector South Sub~Arca Concept Plan 

My name is Karl Denk and I am the owner of 80 acres at 8110 DeeiWood Road .My 

land is considered a large holding and part of the South-East sector sub~area 

concept plan J have lived on this property for the past 12 years and have enjoyed 

the beautiful vistas of the lakes and Spallurncheen valley from my house. As you may 

be aware of the fact,lhat given the sloping topography of the South-Sub Area the 

land hl~comcs unfeasible for farming and is therefore excluded from the ALR. 

However, this hilly nature of the South-Sub Area affords spectacular vistas of Swan 

Lake and Spallumcheen Valley with great hiking trails for people to enjoy .Thus it 

truly lends itself to become a Hural Residential" Mckka" for lots of nature loving 

families to enjoy .There is already an extensive network of hiking and horseback 

riding trails .The tranquility ot'living in the midst of nature and yet so close to all 

am em ties of Silver Star Mountain and Vernon I Armstrong Shopping Areas makes 

this area an ideal candidate for Rural Residential living. It will surely attract many 

families that are seeking this healthy lifestyle close to nature away from the hustle 

nf the big cities. 

As a participant in the Plan and Vision to subdivide the South-Sub Area ,we have 

spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars tn insure that the South 

East Sector Bylaw 1744 requirements are being met or exceeded .I truly believe that 

we h

Lori Mitchell 

8041 Me Lennan Rd 

V1B 3NS 

Dear Spallumcheen Council 

My name is Lori Mitchell. I live at 8041 McLennan Road. For the past 3 years I have 

enjoyed hiking the wonderful hiking trails provided by the South Sub Area with my 

two dogs. Many of my friends and family who frequently join me on my hikes love it 

up here. I am therefore in support of the proposed South Sub-Area concept plan 

with the vision of creating a small Rural Residential Community. It is a great area 

and will allow nature-loving families with animals to establish their future homes 

and dreams. There is plenty of unused space with quick and easy access to Silver 

Star, Vernon and Armstrong. I think it would be a great way for Spallumcheen to 

attract quality families and build a nice little community along the hillside that will, I 

believe, provide excellent future revenue potential for the area. 

Sincerely, 

h·"'. -~c·._{P~' 

' \ ·' .. /'\.... '- 

/ I '"\. '-· 

LORI MITCHELL 


George and Edith Rosset 

8070 Jackpine Road 

Vernon B.C 


My name is George Rosset and I am a good friend of Karl Denk. who lives on 8110 

Deerwood Road . As long as we have known Karl we have admired the fantastic 

views from his property and always expressed interest in acquiring 5 acres from 

Karl as soon as he would be able to subdivide. We love the South West exposure of 

the land with long evening sun. We know and hiked in the area extensively with our 

dogs and would love to see the OCP ofSpallumcheen amended so this area could be 

made more available to nature loving families. I am therefore very much in favor of 

the OCP amendment of the South East Sector Sub Area. 

Sincerely 

Edith and George Rosset 



pat and heather 

From: 

To: 

Sent: 

Subject: 

"Cheryl Maclean" 

 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:29PM 

land rezoning 


We, Bart Eacrett and Cheryl Maclean, owners of the property at 7801 Mclennan Rd. Vernon B.C., do not object 

to the rezoning or subdivision of the property belonging to Heather and Pat Corbett at 8125 Mclennan Rd. 

Sincerely, 

Bart Eacrett and Cheryl Maclean 


7/25/2012

6620 Orchard Hill Road 

Vernon, BC VlH 1B8 

Ju1y 24, 2012 

To Whomever it May Concern: 

I am a long-time resident of the area, and I am writing to express my full support for the 

pending decision to rezone Pat and Heather Corbett's 30 acre Me Lennan Road parcel. 

I love the area myself and I am seriously considering purchasing a parcal from them if 

they can sub-divide. I desire to be a part of a rural and semi-rural community. I appreciate 

that the Corbett family is focussed on keeping the parcels a manageable size and not 

willing to see the entire hillside built up. They have planned for the future. 

The location of the property is convenient with its proximity to Vernon, Spallumcheen 

and Armstrong, offering my family many choices to the amenities offered by surrounding 

communities. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Evelyn and Greg Huss 



pat and heather 

From: 

To: 

Sent: 

Subject: 

"Karyn Rooney " 

 

Tuesday, July 24,201211:14 PM 

Re-zoning 


I, Karyn Redekopp, of7566 McLennan Road, have no 

objections to Pat and Heather Corbett re-zoning their property at 8125 McLennan Road. If need be, I 

may be contacted at (250) 558-5073. 

Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry 


7/25/2012

July 23rd, 2012 

Patrick & Heather Corbett 

8125 Mclennan Road 

Vernon B.C V1b 387 

250-549-0784 

Spallumcheen Mayor and Council 

We have resided on our 28 acres for the past 30 plus years. We are part of the group that has submitted 

an application for rezoning. Our long term goal is to create 3 or 4 lots 5 to 10 acres in size. We feel that 

doing this will not adversely impact the rural area that we enjoy. It will allow others to enjoy a rural lifestyle 

and will also create an increased tax base for Spallumcheen. 

Over the past 3 years we have worked closely with your planning department and professionalls in 

completing the required studies to meet or exceed the bylaw. We are sure that you appreciate the amount 

of time and money that was involved in hiring professionals to complete the required reports. 

We are looking forward to your support . 

Thank You 

Heather & Pat Corbett 

. A _) L (J .-, \I -IT· \ 

-~ 00\. L- 0 \ .... '\>-.._y_ j\ 

1-~ . I·A C c:r0L-d~ 


July 30, 2012 

We are owners of property located at 12 Ridgeview Road (Legal Desc: Lot A Sec 356 TP8 Plan 

35469 ODYD) located in the south sub-area of the southeast section plan. 

We are in agreement with and are hoping to see development in this area. We would like to have 

our property re-zoned as small holdings to allow the land to be subdivided into small acreages. 

We have spent countless hours and thousands of dollars to ensure South East Sector Bylaw 

requirements are met and we believe we have planned to allow for today' s growth as well as 

allowing for future potential. We are pleased with the plan we have devised and sincerely hope 

you will support us. 

Yours truly, 

Terry and Pat Goertz 


July 25, 2012 

District of Spallumcheen: 

I support a rezoning application for this area. Subdividing properties in the 

southeast sector to allow for smaller acreages will keep a semi rural type of 

community as opposed to city living. After all, city amenities are only minutes 

away in Vernon and Armstrong. I'm all for having wells instead of hooking to 

city water. There's nothing like fresh well water. Smaller single family lots will 

increase tax revenues for Spallumcheen in the future should servicing become 

available in the area. 

fTL 

s -r () f3!3r;- 


July 5, 2012 

To The District of Spallumcheen 

Rezoning the southeast sector in Spallumcheen is a plan I am in favor of, especially if 

a mix of small acreages are made available and a rural atmosphere is retained. It's a 

very desirable location with downtown Vernon, Spallumcheen and Armstrong so 

close by. I like the idea of having wells and septic fields as that will keep my utility 

costs lower. 

I support rezoning in this area. 

a£~/2;_(? 

C L f}f' c ~ 

f/crte' 


Meeting Notes 

FINAL 

Date of Meeting: April 17, 2013 

Location: 

RDNO Conference Room 

Subject: 

South Sub-Area Traffic Studies 

File: 

11-0082-SPL-OCP 

Attendees: 

Marnie Skobalski, Greg Betts, Dave Pusey, Dave Cullen (P.Eng. – CTQ) 

GB/MS: Possible mis-understanding to date with respect to the intent of Council’s resolution 

regarding traffic study information to be provided prior to Second Reading. 

One concern is that, from a layperson’s perspective, the RD roads appear to be sub-standard 

so it is difficult to understand how CTQ could conclude the roads are capable of serving any 

additional development without upgrades. 

DC: From a traffic volume perspective, the roads will function fine and could handle more traffic 

than the amount currently using the roads. The pre-existing condition of the roads is another 

matter. 

“Traffic Review” and “Traffic Impact Study” are traffic volume related & address primarily the 

ability of existing or proposed roads to handle current and projected traffic volume. 

A Traffic Impact Study may also be referred to as a Traffic Impact Assessment. Generally, a TIS 

/ TIA is an in-depth analysis, involving modeling, and consideration of level of service, road & 

intersection functionality, need for turn lanes, deceleration/acceleration lanes, signal lights etc. 

A TIS/TIA is usually done prior to rezoning or subdivision. A Traffic Review is more ‘high level’ 

and done at conceptual stage when full details of build out may not yet be known. 

GB/MS: Applicant is encouraged to be prepared to address the concern of having even one 

more lot approved which would access any one of the RD roads given their pre-existing 

condition. 

Access to/from South Sub-Area using roads in RD will be an issue with some residents. It is 

contrary to OCP policy in terms of being Primary Access. These roads already provide access 

to some homes/properties in Spallumcheen so it would not be possible to block them off to 

public traffic however, OCP policy indicates they should not be used for primary access. Can 

subdivision be designed such that no additional Spallumcheen traffic accesses these roads? 

DC: That is not in keeping with proper traffic planning, and it's not possible or safe. Over the 

longer term when the road up from Greenhow is built, residents may of their own choice, prefer 

to drive down to Greenhow/Hwy. 97 rather that to wind through the RD as it may just be more 

direct, faster, and easier. RD residents may also choose this route and benefit directly from the 

faster more convenient access to Hwy 97 when it is complete. This will be a reversal of what the 

residents of RD are currently against. Traffic will likely increase in the South East Sector 

Spallumcheen development(s) from RD traffic, and not the other way around. Roads are for the 

public use and as such will benefit all residents - both RD and Spall. 

1 


It may not be economically feasible to construct a road up from Greenhow immediately to serve 

only a few rural lots. It would be expensive, possibly impair development and would add a road 

to the hillside when not yet needed. It makes much more sense to use the existing roads and 

then build the connection to Hwy 97 as development progresses. 

MS: When the SE Sector policies of the OCP were prepared the vision for the area was for a 

higher density, urban-scale, fully serviced, mixed use, “Smart Growth” type of development. 

That form of development would have made the Spallumcheen primary access road 

construction more feasible than the current proposal of a large-lot, rural type of development. 

Regardless of whether anyone thinks the road access policies are good, bad, right, wrong or out 

of date it is still Council’s policy. Access via RD roads has been raised as a significant concern 

at recent EAAC and APC “C” meetings. The Committees’ comments will be in their meeting 

Minutes. RD residents may appear at the Public Hearing opposed to the development on the 

basis that their roads are in no condition to handle more traffic. Some residents are well aware 

of Spallumcheen’s OCP policies and may make a point of reminding Council of it. 

Applicant is advised to be prepared to address this issue. 

The current proposal is a departure from the vision for the South Sub-Area as described in the 

OCP. This has been considered by Council. A fully serviced plan for the South Sub Area may 

have resulted in 10 or 20 times the number of units currently proposed (+/- 140). 

DC: In comparison, using the existing (RD) roads to accommodate the small amount of traffic 

generated by 140 units plus possible Carriage Homes and suites isn't a problem or concern 

from a traffic or safety standpoint. Because the OCP Bylaw was based on an urban scale, and 

now what is being proposed is a rural scale, the requirement for Primary access from 

Spallumcheen to be developed doesn't really make sense, and using the current roads makes a 

lot of sense. 

MS: We can’t assume that the OCP policies re ‘access from roads within Township’ [policies i) 

ii and iii on p. 25 of OCP] would have been any different had a rural concept been envisioned 

when those OCP policies were written. Concern being that, from a pre-existing road condition 

perspective (not necessarily a traffic volume perspective) any new development on those RD 

roads may be considered too much. Any additional Spall traffic on those roads potentially 

places a greater burden on the Township both from a maintenance perspective (Township has 

an agreement with MoTI to maintain certain sections) and also from a public-accountability 

perspective. If any problems associated with road conditions and traffic from the Township, the 

Township may get the complaints. 

DC: From my perspective, if the South Sub Area was not originally planned as a major urban 

growth area, then the OCP Access Policies would not have been prepared in the first place, and 

connectivity to adjoining lands would be the same as for the rest of the community, with public 

access rights of way allowing for connectivity and movement both ways across municipal 

boundaries. Any connection to the Regional District lands proposed for the southern limit of the 

South Sub Area would not be providing for “Primary Access to the Comprehensive Planning 

Area” (as stated in Policy i)ii. Thus no variance is required to allow initial development to occur 

using existing roads. 

2 


DP: We are not saying that the primary access road from Greenhow will not be built or asking 

for a variance to eliminate it, we will meet the Bylaw and build the road(s) as our Concept Plan 

indicates, we are just making note of the fact that it will/should be built as the lots that are 

developed reach that connection point instead of first. Also of note is that development of the 

SE Sector and use of the existing roads is totally feasible and will not result in any more 

maintenance even at full build out according to the Engineer that did our study. 

GB: Township and RD want to be good neighbours, what goes around comes around. 

DP: Although we understand that some of the RD neighbours may be "concerned" that new lots 

are being proposed next door in Spallumcheen, we are simply adding some more rural lots to 

the area and not a massive city that was allowed under the OCP and South East Sector Plan. 

This is in keeping with the neighbourhood and the area that these residents currently reside in 

and by doing so we believe we are acting as good neighbours and following a logical, areasensitive 

and market-based approach by developing the same kind of properties the area 

currently supports. 

GB: Regarding staff’s role, Township and Planning staff are compelled to remain objective and 

to evaluate the application in terms of how it complies with Council’s policies & bylaws. Staff 

are not in role of applicant’s advocate. 

MS: At Council, staff will present report on the application and applicant can request to be on 

agenda as a delegation. That way applicant can speak directly to Council and ‘advocate’ for 

their proposed development. 

DP: How does this traffic review impact the Financial Cost Recovery Analysis? 

GB: The FCRA is progressing. I have contacted USL to discuss status. 

GB/MS: Staff can prepare the next report to Council based on information received to date or 

applicant may want to supplement this information, now that the concerns are better understood 

(i.e. access via RD roads in relation to OCP policies and pre-existing conditions). Staff will 

leave it to the applicant to decide if they want to submit any additional information prior to 

Council’s consideration of Second Reading. 

Prepared by: Marnie Skobalski, Planner 

Meeting Notes FINALIZED April 26, 2013 

3 


Mav 2013 

Regarding the approximately 27 acres belonging to Pat and Heather Corbett, 8125 

McLennan Road in Spallumcheen, BC: 

l am not opposed to Pat and Heather Corbett's plan to rezone and subdivide their land 

into two, or possihly, three parcels. Nor do l oppose their plan to use McLennan Road 

as access. 

Name (please print) :Address Signature 

f.l '-, -rr.LCTk 0 ::>~- 

./ 

; I I l.itlti(fi) 

. l .i 

( ~- i ' ) l ( ,\ \ " . -· 

I () ,. I • '\,.A ' 

[Cl ,; ... \ r.. 1,\ f--:·,r....l ~: ,,......,, 

/ 



June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 


MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES: 

ELECTORAL AREAS: 

CITY OF ARMSTRONG VILLAGE OF LUMBY “B” – SWAN LAKE “E” – CHERRYVILLE 

DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM TOWNSHIP OF SPALLUMCHEEN “C” – B.X. DISTRICT “F” – ENDERBY (RURAL) 

CITY OF ENDERBY CITY OF VERNON “D” – LUMBY (RURAL) 

OFFICE OF: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

April 15, 2013 

OUR FILE No.: 3045.12.03.04 


c/o RDNO 

9848 Aberdeen Road 

Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9 

Dear Electoral Area Directors: 

Re: Regional Agricultural Plan Draft Terms of Reference for Review and Comment 

The Board of Directors passed the following resolution on April 3, 2013: 

“That the Regional Agricultural Plan Draft Terms of Reference and the report dated 

February 22, 2013 regarding Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Roundtable 

Results be referred to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee and member municipal 

councils for review and comment to provide feedback by May 31, 2013.” 

The Board of Directors recognizes that concerns and opportunities regarding agriculture 

continue to arise and that a Regional Agricultural Plan could expand upon previous work 

completed and explores opportunities to achieve a vibrant, prosperous and resilient agricultural 

sector in all communities of the North Okanagan. 

The Board of Directors requests that Mayor and Council of the six member municipalities 

(City of Armstrong, District of Coldstream, City of Enderby, Village of Lumby, Township 

of Spallumcheen and City of Vernon) and the Electoral Area Advisory Committee review 

the Regional Agricultural Plan Draft Terms of Reference and provide comments that will 

be considered prior to endorsement. 

If you have any questions, require more information or would like to request a delegation to 

present on this subject, please contact the undersigned at 250-550-3750 or rgs@rdno.ca. 

Yours truly; 

Anthony Kittel 

Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator 

AK/ak 

Regional District of North Okanagan 


Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9 


Phone: 250-550-3700 

Fax: 250-550-3701 

Web: www.rdno.ca 

E-Mail: info@rdno.ca


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

REGIONAL DISTRICT 

of 

NORTH OKANAGAN 

REPORT 

File No.: 3045.12.03.04 

TO: 

FROM: 

Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee 

Planning Department 

DATE: March 6, 2013 

SUBJECT: Draft Regional Agricultural Plan Terms of Reference 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That the draft Regional Agricultural Plan Terms of Reference be referred to the Regional Agricultural 

Advisory Committee, Electoral Area Advisory Committee and member municipal councils for review 

and comment by May 31, 2013. 

PURPOSE: 

This report has been prepared as background information for the Regional Growth Management 

Advisory Committee to provide an overview of the purpose of the Regional Agricultural Plan (the 

“Plan”) and sets out the proposed Terms of Reference and deliverables for consideration. 

DISCUSSION: 

Agriculture is an important part of North Okanagan communities’ history and a significant contributor 

to the economy. Over 76,500 ha (or 189,000 acres) is used for agriculture in the North Okanagan and 

the majority of these lands (66,000 ha or 163,000 acres) are located within the Agricultural Land 

Reserve (ALR). In 2010, there were 1,167 farms reported in the North Okanagan and approximately 

5% per cent of the regional workforce is employed within the agricultural sector. The agricultural 

industry is a major economic driver in the region, with approximately $126 million in farm receipts in 

2010. 

The RDNO’s Regional Growth Strategy and rural Official Community Plans recognize agriculture as a 

significant contributor to the region's cultural landscape, identity and economy. Collectively, these 

plans express a commitment to the preservation and strengthening of the region's rural economy and 

lifestyle, including the protection of lands capable of agricultural productivity. These goals are an 

integral part of the region's vision to be recognized for an outstanding quality of urban and rural life 

and a commitment to environmental protection and agricultural sustainability and resilience. 

Despite an active agricultural industry, long term farmland protection and the promotion of agriculture 

as a viable economic sector have emerged as significant issues in the region. Past agricultural 

planning initiatives in the North Okanagan include the completion of the Agricultural Land Reserve 

Boundary Review for all Electoral Areas, North Okanagan Food System Plan, the Township of 

Spallumcheen Agricultural Area Plan and the District of Coldstream Agricultural Area Plan. 

Agricultural policies have been included in municipal and Electoral Area Official Community Plans 

(OCP) and the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). 


Draft Regional Agricultural Plan Terms of Reference 

Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – March 6, 2013 Page 2 

The Board of Directors recognizes that concerns and opportunities regarding agriculture continue to 

arise and that a Regional Agricultural Plan could expand upon previous work completed and explores 

opportunities to achieve a vibrant, prosperous and resilient agricultural sector. 

The preparation of a Regional Agricultural Plan (the “Plan”) was supported by the Board of Directors 

on January 2, 2013. The Plan will differ from current Regional District strategic planning documents in 

that it will be drafted from a distinctly agricultural perspective. It is anticipated that the Plan will provide 

an overview of current agricultural activities in the North Okanagan, identify opportunities for the 

Regional District and member municipalities to support agriculture and make recommendations to 

amend existing policies and regulations. 

The purpose of the Plan is to define the Regional District’s role with respect to agriculture and identify 

appropriate policies and actions to support the long term viability and resilience of agriculture in the 

North Okanagan. The Plan may complement OCPs and may be adopted as a sub-plan or schedule of 

the RGS. The Plan will consider agriculture in its regional context and anticipates future changes in 

the industry. The Plan will propose solutions to issues and identify opportunities to strengthen farming. 

Thirty-four local and regional governments in British Columbia have completed, or are completing, 

agricultural plans for their farming areas. The Agricultural Land Commission and the Ministry of 

Agriculture actively support the development of agricultural plans. Funding for these plans has been 

encouraged by the Investment Agriculture Foundation. 

BACKGROUND/HISTORY: 

The RGS was adopted on September 21, 2011 and implementation priorities are established every 

year. The Board of Directors selected four priority actions for 2013, of which the initiation of a 

Regional Agricultural Area Plan was selected as the primary initiative. 

During the development of the RGS, the North Okanagan Food System Plan Steering Committee, 

Agriculture and Food System Working Group and the communities of the North Okanagan identified 

several issues, possible solutions, strategies and actions to support regional agriculture. Some of 

these broad strategies have been included within the RGS and in rural OCPs. The Regional 

Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC), at the February 21, 2013 meeting, identified several 

challenges that have been experienced by the agricultural industry. 

The Plan would establish a clear vision and set of priorities that the Regional District, municipal 

partners, the agricultural sector and senior levels of government could undertake to support the North 

Okanagan farming community. This would assist the Board of Directors in addressing matters related 

to agriculture that affect communities such as meat processing licensing, genetically modified foods 

and transportation related issues (such as rail access). 

AGRICULTURAL AREA PLANS 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

An agricultural plan refers to the general planning process concerning agriculture. The scope and 

contents of an agricultural plan can be very broad, covering all aspects of agriculture, from a shared 

vision to economic development, healthy communities, food security, land uses, and on-farm 

activities. 

An Agricultural Area Plan (AAP) is a local government policy tool for agricultural land use planning 

that is intended to be formally adopted as a sub-area plan of an Official Community Plan. The 

Agricultural Land Commission, in Planning for Agriculture, provides the most comprehensive 




discussion of AAPs. The Local Government Act makes provision for municipalities and regional 

districts to develop OCPs. There are no provisions in the Local Government Act that explicitly address 

sub-area plans, although local governments have created sub-area plans as a matter of practice. 

Local government have developed sub-area plans that provide a greater level of detail for addressing 

objectives not sufficiently covered in an OCP. These sub-area plans are often referred to as 

neighbourhood or local area plans. When applied to agricultural lands they are referred to as 

Agricultural Area Plans. 

The primary benefits of an AAP are that it provides a level of policy detail that is greater than the OCP 

and specific to an area’s agricultural features. The key elements are: 

a sub-area plan applied to an agricultural area that will be predominantly within the ALR; 

may involve two or more jurisdictions; 

adoption is similar to an OCP as prescribed in the Local Government Act although there is a 

need for policy consistency with an adopted OCP; 

expresses agricultural policy at a level of detail that can effectively deal with issues important 

to the farm community, enhance the potential for land use and resource compatibility and 

clearly define agriculture’s place in the larger community; 

strive to achieve: 

o an enhanced understanding of agriculture 

o greater focus policies that address agricultural issues; 

o inclusive planning processes where members of the agricultural community are involved in 

the Plan’s development; and 

o improved local and provincial (and federal) government policy integration. 

The Board of Directors and partnering member municipalities should determine the extent of the 

scope of the regional agricultural planning process and agree upon the desired outcomes. 

DRAFT REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL PLAN TERMS OF REFERENCE: 

Scope and Approach: 

The majority of AAPs are either municipal or sub-regional in scope. The Regional District of Nanaimo, 

Cowichan Valley Regional District and the Regional District of Central Kootenay developed 

comprehensive, regional AAPs through partnerships with their member municipalities. 

A region wide approach to planning for agriculture enables a collaborative effort that can maximize the 

capabilities across the North Okanagan. It also supports planning that recognizes the distinct nature 

of each community while ensuring a consistent policy approach to agriculture. 

Goals & Objectives: 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

The goal is to ensure the long term viability, prosperity and resilience of agriculture in the North 

Okanagan. This will be accomplished through creation of a plan containing actions and innovative 

approaches that support and maintain a strong and sustainable agricultural industry within our diverse 

communities. 

The planning process will review and draw upon previous work, including current bylaws, policies and 

plans developed over the years by our municipal partners and in consultation with senior agencies 




and the farming community, including the RGS. An integral component will include examining other 

British Columbia local government approaches to improve agricultural viability and prosperity. 

The following outcomes are expected: 

Develop a vision for agriculture for the next 20 years; 

Identify and explore current issues and opportunities relating agriculture; 

Determine creative actions and approaches to address issues and opportunities; 

Develop an implementation strategy; 

Engage stakeholders to contribute to a comprehensive action plan that is reflective of their 

input; 

Identify opportunities and policies that will support and enhance the economic sustainability 

and resilience of the agricultural industry; and, 

Develop an innovative agricultural area plan which addresses long term viability and resilience 

of farming. 

The specific objectives for the Plan are: 

To undertake a comprehensive analysis of the agricultural industry and the resource base; 

To identify agricultural issues, trends, opportunities and challenges facing the agricultural 

industry; 

To develop strategies and policies to take advantage of opportunities and mitigate challenges; 

To develop policies to protect agricultural land; 

To provide recommendations to changes in Provincial legislation, regulations and policies to 

reflect the goals of the Plan; 

To develop policy and establish criteria to assist in the evaluation of ALR exclusion, non-farm 

use and subdivision applications; and, 

To provide recommendations that will promote public awareness of the importance of 

agriculture. 

The Plan is not intended to review the boundaries of the ALR or reduce local autonomy on 

agricultural issues. The Plan is intended to provide guidance to local government and support local 

and regional agricultural planning efforts. 

Regional Agricultural Plan Overview & Scope of Work: 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

A Regional Agricultural Plan will involve developing a vision and identifying strategies that address 

current and future issues to ensure the long term prosperity and resilience of agriculture in the North 

Okanagan. Through discussions with the Agriculture and Food System Working Group, Regional 

Growth Management Advisory Committee and the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC), 

the following issue areas have been noted as significant to agricultural sustainability and industry 

resilience: 

encouraging innovation and investment; 

loss of agricultural lands and reduction of actively farmed lands; 

financial and regulatory barriers for existing and new agriculturalists; 

optimizing farming opportunities; 

public education and linkages between community and agriculture; 

services and infrastructure (eg. irrigation and agricultural water rates); 

transportation; 

succession planning; 

edge planning; 



June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 



 

 

 

environmental challenges; 

food security; and, 

climate change impacts on the agricultural industry. 

Draft Plan Development Process: 

The purpose of this project is to conduct a comprehensive planning process to research, develop 

policy alternatives, undertake public and agricultural stakeholder consultation and create realistic and 

achievable recommendations for a Regional Agricultural Plan for the North Okanagan. The Plan 

should provide guidance on how the Regional District and municipal, partners can implement the 

objectives and policies adopted in existing plans and it should identify priority actions needed to 

support the long term sustainability and resilience of agriculture in the region. 

The planning process has two Phases. The goal of Phase I is to develop an information base and a 

common understanding of the issues and opportunities facing agriculture in the North Okanagan. The 

focus of Phase II will be to develop strategies, actions and an implementation strategy that address 

these issues and opportunities. The deliverable will be a Regional Agricultural Plan that will provide 

guidance on agricultural land use issues and the long term sustainability and resilience of the 

agricultural sector. 

Phase I: Agricultural Profile 

The purpose of the Agricultural Profile is to provide a basis on which to build a Plan that is 

representative of the North Okanagan context. The objectives of Phase I are: 

Investigate historical and current agricultural information, in order to develop an agricultural 

profile for the region; 

Complete an agricultural Land Use Inventory (LUI) using existing information and identify 

gaps; 

Communicate with stakeholders in the region to determine strengths, weaknesses, 

opportunities, and threats facing agriculture in the North Okanagan; 

Conduct a preliminary market opportunities analysis; 

An in-depth review of current agricultural policies and the legislative environment; and, 

Review relevant local, regional and provincial policies, programs and regulations, including: 

o Regional Growth Strategy 

o North Okanagan Food System Plan 

o Township of Spallumcheen Agricultural Area Plan 

o District of Coldstream Agricultural Area Plan 

o Official Community Plans 

o Zoning Bylaws 

Phase II: Regional Agricultural Plan 

Phase II will focus on an in-depth review of current agricultural policies, develop recommendations to 

enhance agriculture in the region, create an implementation strategy, and identify funding 

opportunities. The overall process to develop the plan will be to: 

 

Recommend goals, objectives and actions for resolving the main issues and capitalizing on 

opportunities. 

Develop policy priorities and recommendations in collaboration with the RAAC, Board of 

Directors, the agricultural community, participating jurisdictions, senior levels of government 

and residents. 




Identify recommended amendments to existing policies and bylaws. 

Develop a detailed implementation strategy for the Regional Agricultural Area Plan and 

Regional Agricultural Economic Development Strategy. 

Make recommendations on funding opportunities and evaluation strategies. 

Identify implementation steps and recommend appropriate priorities to address the issues 

facing farming and agriculture in the region. 

Proposed Deliverables: 

Regional Agricultural Plan 

The purpose of the Regional Agriculture Plan is to ensure that the agricultural capability of the North 

Okanagan is enhanced as part of a secure food supply for the region through improved decisionmaking 

related to agriculture and agricultural land uses. Agriculture in the Region is characterized by 

its diversity, with larger operations predominantly in Coldstream, Spallumcheen and the Electoral 

Areas and many small lot farms spread across the North Okanagan. 

The Plan’s recommendations will need to address all sizes and forms of farm operations, from the 

largest fruit growers in Greater Vernon to homesteaders in Cherryville and diversified small lot farmers 

that exist throughout the region. This Plan will address issues related to the preservation of the 

agricultural land base and maintaining and expanding agricultural capabilities throughout the region. 

The objectives that the Plan will address will focus on four policy areas: 

Support Designated Farmland Uses 

Increase the Productive Use of Farmland in the ALR 

 

 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

Enhance the Agricultural Resource Base 

Create policy on issues including: a. criteria to evaluate the various forms of Agricultural Land 

Commission applications (ALR exclusions, non-farm uses, and subdivisions) 

This Plan will provide guidance on local and regional opportunities to support the agricultural sector. 

Provincial or federal issues may be identified, but resolving these issues is beyond the authority of 

local and regional government or the local agricultural industry. Regional, provincial and national 

organizations are best equipped to address those concerns. The Strategy should explore local and 

regional opportunities, including: 

improved farm business management that can be realistically implemented by farmers and 

farm organizations; 

local, regional, provincial and federal policies which will encourage agricultural activity within 

and outside the ALR and allow agriculture to become more profitable, resilient and 

sustainable; 

identification of agricultural crops and products with potential for enhancing agriculture in the 

region including opportunities in smaller and medium scale agricultural farm operations; 

strategies to attract new farmers and new investment in primary and value-added production; 

improve education and information exchange between the farm community and the public 

including better education of youth with respect to farm practices and the role that the industry 

plays in the community; 

promote local agriculture; 

Identify new markets, approaches and opportunities that will increase the profitability of the 

agricultural sector; and, 

address environmental issues related to agriculture. 




The emphasis of this Plan will be on taking advantage of the opportunities, and addressing the issues 

that are local and regional, although senior government ministries will be requested to support 

regional agriculture through policy actions and/or financial support. 

The regional emphasis for this Strategy will mean that current social, economic and environmental 

links between agriculture and the community will have to be recognized and new links established if 

change is to take place. Both the agricultural sector and the community will have to be involved in 

developing a vibrant, sustainable and resilient agricultural sector in the North Okanagan. 

The Plan will define the Regional District’s role with respect to agriculture and identify appropriate 

policies and actions to support the long term viability of farming by protecting the agricultural land 

base. The Plan is meant to be a sub-strategy of the RGS and complement OCPs and may be 

adopted, in a locally amended form, as a sub-plan or schedule of OCPs. 

Implementation Strategy 

The Regional Agricultural Plan policies are proposed to be implemented by the appropriate local, 

regional and senior governments, agricultural organizations, agriculturalists and agricultural 

community groups, within immediate, short, medium and long-term timelines, according to priority and 

anticipated ease of implementation. 

Care must been taken to organize policy implementation in a manner that does not unreasonably 

burden specific local, regional and senior government agencies, in terms of required resources and 

timelines. 

Agriculture Area Plan Consultation Process: 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

The Plan will need to be developed with consultation with the agricultural community, key 

stakeholders, residents, First Nations and senior levels of government to ensure that the Plan is 

reflective of regional concerns and issues regarding long term agricultural sustainability and 

resilience. Consultation will provide the opportunity for developing creative and realistic solutions and 

policies to respond to those challenges. It is the experience of other local and regional governments 

that an inclusive public and agricultural community engagement program is one of the most important 

elements for creating robust and comprehensive agricultural planning outcomes. 

The RAAC will act as the Plan’s steering committee throughout the Plan’s development process and 

will assist in facilitating farming community involvement. 

Based upon the agricultural area plan work programs of other local and regional governments, the 

following public and stakeholder engagement actives are recommended: 

Workshops were with a range of agricultural stakeholder groups, including specialty (smallscale, 

organic) agriculture, field horticulture (plant agriculture), intensive horticulture, 

horticultural processing, supply-managed (dairy, poultry) operations, supply managed 

processing, livestock operations and livestock products processing. 

Interviews with prominent stakeholders (to be identified). 

Community meetings to enable farmers and residents to provide input about the agricultural 

areas they work and live in. Feedback from these meetings can play a key role in identifying 

agricultural issues and policy solutions. 

Surveys targeted at specific groups, such as agricultural producers, processors, retailers and 

consumers to provide insight on issues, barriers, agricultural awareness and potential 

solutions. 



June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 



 

 

Open houses and information sessions at key points within the process. 

Farm Tours for stakeholders, local and senior government representatives and other agencies, 

with the goal of providing farmers the opportunity to demonstrate their operation and discuss 

their challenges and barriers directly. 

Responsibilities: 


The Plan is considered a priority RGS implementation action and a potential sub-strategy of the RGS. 

The Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee (RGMAC) is responsible for overseeing RGS 

development, implementation and review. Although the RGMAC will not be directly involved within the 

development of the Plan, this Committee will be responsible for: 

Developing Regional Agricultural Plan Terms of Reference; and, 

Reviewing and commenting on the draft Plan deliverables. 

Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

The Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC) was appointed in early 2013. Each of the 

agricultural representatives brings their experience and understanding of agriculture in the North 

Okanagan to the planning process. The RAAC members will provide support and, through the 

planning process, act as liaisons with the agricultural community. The core responsibilities of the 

RAAC will be to: 

Assist with defining key components of the Terms of Reference for the Plan, including advice 

on the goals and objectives and priority issues to be considered within the Plan. 

Assist with engaging and consulting the agricultural community, rural residents and industry 

 

during Plan development. 

Provide advice and technical support to Regional District staff and the selected consultant(s) 

on the history of agriculture in the region and current agricultural issues and priorities. 

Review and provide feedback on the draft Plan including policies, recommendations and 

implementation strategies. 

EXISTING POLICY: 

The development of a Regional AAP corresponds with the following policies of Regional Growth 

Strategy Bylaw No. 2500, 2011: 

UC‐2.7: protect the character of rural areas: Rural Protections Areas contain a variety of lands with 

natural resource value including agriculture and forestry. These lands have historically 

played a significant role in shaping North Okanagan character and identity, offering rural 

lifestyle choice, as well as providing important economic benefits. Their long term viability 

and productivity is increasingly threatened by urban encroachment and the spread of 

incompatible land uses. 

GOAL AG‐1: Water is Managed Sustainably so all Reasonable Needs, including Agriculture, 

are met in a Balanced Manner. 

GOAL AG‐2: Maintain and Diversify the Agricultural Land Base 

GOAL AG‐3: Support a Robust and Diverse Agricultural Economic Sector 




GOAL AG‐4: Encourage a Healthy, Accessible and Resilient Food System 

The development of a Regional AAP corresponds with actions identified by the Agriculture and Food 

Systems Working Group and has been included within Schedule ‘C’: Potential Implementation Actions 

of Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 2500, 2011: 

Action AG‐1.1: Development of a Regional Agricultural Economic Development Plan. 

Action AG‐1.2: Create an inventory of agri‐industrial operation, infrastructure and lands 

Action AG‐1.3: Undertake a Regional Agricultural Area Plan. 

The Board of Directors passed the following resolution on January 2, 2013 which outlined the 2013 

Regional Growth Strategy project priorities: 

That the following Regional Growth Strategy implementation projects be included within the 

2013 Regional Growth Strategy Action Plan and 2013/2014 Regional Planning (031) Financial 

Plan: 

1. Regional Agricultural Area Plan, with a focus on economic development and longterm 

industry resilience; 

2. In-kind support for regional economic development initiatives; 

3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment, in partnership with the City of Vernon; and 

4. Regional Parks Legacy Fund Feasibility Study, to be undertaken by Greater Vernon Parks, 

Recreation and Culture. 

The development of a Regional Agricultural Area Plan that focuses on economic development and 

long-term industry and food system resilience was considered the top Regional Growth Strategy 

implementation priority of the Board of Directors for 2013. 

FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS: 

The development of a Regional Agricultural Area Plan, contingent on scope, scale and focus, is 

anticipated to cost $70,000 to complete. The Investment in Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia 

(IAF), through the Local Government Agricultural Planning Program, may provide up to 50 percent of 

the cash costs of an agriculture area plan project, up to a maximum of $45,000, if a grant application 

is successful. It is recommended that an application be made to the IAF for $35,000 (50% of the 

proposed budget) prior to the April 16, 2013 deadline. 

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS: 

The development of many elements of the Regional Agricultural Plan could be undertaken by the 

Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator, with support from the Regional Growth Strategy Support 

Team, consisting of senior planning staff representing all North Okanagan communities. Consultants 

would be used to assist with tasks that require additional capacity that does not exist within the 

Regional District. 

COMMUNITY CONSIDERATIONS: 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

Consultation in creating the Regional Agricultural Plan would include targeted input from the farming 

community and key stakeholders as well as provide opportunities for input and feedback from North 

Okanagan residents. 



June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 


Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee- March 6, 2013 Page 10 

SUMMARY: 

The Regional Agriculture Plan would reflect the priorities and needs identified by the farming 

community and residents of the North Okanagan. It will provide direction to the Regional District on 

the measures within its purview and sphere of influence that can be acted upon to assist in supporting 

a thriving sustainable and resilient agricultural sector that will continue to contribute to North 

Okanagan communities. The Plan will identify priority areas that can be readily achieved and that will 

help build momentum and support for Plan implementation, which is expected to result in: 

consistent information and support to farmers; 

a stronger working relationship between the Regional District and farmers of the region; 

an increased understanding of and support for farming by North Okanagan communities; 

the preservation of the land base and water for food production; 

collaborative approaches that benefit agriculture and assist in local food access; and, 

stronger support for agriculture in Regional District bylaws. 

The draft Terms of Reference reflects these desired outcomes. It is recommended that, prior to 

adoption, these Terms of Reference be referred to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee, 

Electoral Area Advisory Committee and member municipal councils for review and comment by May 

31 , 2013. The input received will assist the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee in 

refining the Terms of Reference prior to adoption. 

Submitted by: 

y Coordinator 

Approved For Inclusion: 

Endorsed by: 

Rob Smai/es, MCIP 

General Manager, Planning and Building 


Scope and Approach: 

RDNO Regional Agricultural Plan Draft Terms of Reference 

April 5, 2013 

REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL PLAN 

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE (For review and comment) 

The majority of AAPs are either municipal or sub-regional in scope. The Regional District of 

Nanaimo, Cowichan Valley Regional District and the Regional District of Central Kootenay 

developed comprehensive, regional AAPs through partnerships with their member 

municipalities. 

A region wide approach to planning for agriculture enables a collaborative effort that can 

maximize the capabilities across the North Okanagan. It also supports planning that recognizes 

the distinct nature of each community while ensuring a consistent policy approach to agriculture. 

Goals & Objectives: 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

The goal is to ensure the long term viability, prosperity and resilience of agriculture in the North 

Okanagan. This will be accomplished through creation of a plan containing actions and 

innovative approaches that support and maintain a strong and sustainable agricultural industry 

within our diverse communities. 

The planning process will review and draw upon previous work, including current bylaws, 

policies and plans developed over the years by our municipal partners and in consultation with 

senior agencies and the farming community, including the RGS. An integral component will 

include examining other British Columbia local government approaches to improve agricultural 

viability and prosperity. 

The following outcomes are expected: 

Develop a vision for agriculture for the next 20 years; 

Identify and explore current issues and opportunities relating agriculture; 

Determine creative actions and approaches to address issues and opportunities; 

Develop an implementation strategy; 

Engage stakeholders to contribute to a comprehensive action plan that is reflective of 

their input; 

Identify opportunities and policies that will support and enhance the economic 

sustainability and resilience of the agricultural industry; and, 

Develop an innovative agricultural area plan which addresses long term viability and 

resilience of farming. 

The specific objectives for the Plan are: 

To undertake a comprehensive analysis of the agricultural industry and the resource 

base; 

To identify agricultural issues, trends, opportunities and challenges facing the 

agricultural industry; 

To develop strategies and policies to take advantage of opportunities and mitigate 

challenges; 

To develop policies to protect agricultural land; 

To provide recommendations to changes in Provincial legislation, regulations and 

policies to reflect the goals of the Plan; 

1 



April 5, 2013 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

 

 

To develop policy and establish criteria to assist in the evaluation of ALR exclusion, nonfarm 

use and subdivision applications; and, 

To provide recommendations that will promote public awareness of the importance of 

agriculture. 

The Plan is not intended to review the boundaries of the ALR or reduce local autonomy on 

agricultural issues. The Plan is intended to provide guidance to local government and support 

local and regional agricultural planning efforts. 

Regional Agricultural Plan Overview & Scope of Work: 

A Regional Agricultural Plan will involve developing a vision and identifying strategies that 

address current and future issues to ensure the long term prosperity and resilience of 

agriculture in the North Okanagan. Through discussions with the Agriculture and Food System 

Working Group, Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee and the Regional 

Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC), the following issue areas have been noted as 

significant to agricultural sustainability and industry resilience: 

encouraging innovation and investment; 

loss of agricultural lands and reduction of actively farmed lands; 

financial and regulatory barriers for existing and new agriculturalists; 

optimizing farming opportunities; 

public education and linkages between community and agriculture; 

services and infrastructure (eg. irrigation and agricultural water rates); 

transportation; 

succession planning; 

edge planning; 

environmental challenges; 

food security; and, 

climate change impacts on the agricultural industry. 

Draft Plan Development Process: 

The purpose of this project is to conduct a comprehensive planning process to research, 

develop policy alternatives, undertake public and agricultural stakeholder consultation and 

create realistic and achievable recommendations for a Regional Agricultural Plan for the North 

Okanagan. The Plan should provide guidance on how the Regional District and municipal, 

partners can implement the objectives and policies adopted in existing plans and it should 

identify priority actions needed to support the long term sustainability and resilience of 

agriculture in the region. 

The planning process has two Phases. The goal of Phase I is to develop an information base 

and a common understanding of the issues and opportunities facing agriculture in the North 

Okanagan. The focus of Phase II will be to develop strategies, actions and an implementation 

strategy that address these issues and opportunities. The deliverable will be a Regional 

Agricultural Plan that will provide guidance on agricultural land use issues and the long term 

sustainability and resilience of the agricultural sector. 

2 


Phase I: Agricultural Profile 


April 5, 2013 

The purpose of the Agricultural Profile is to provide a basis on which to build a Plan that is 

representative of the North Okanagan context. The objectives of Phase I are: 

Investigate historical and current agricultural information, in order to develop an 

agricultural profile for the region; 

Complete an agricultural Land Use Inventory (LUI) using existing information and identify 

gaps; 

Communicate with stakeholders in the region to determine strengths, weaknesses, 

opportunities, and threats facing agriculture in the North Okanagan; 

Conduct a preliminary market opportunities analysis; 

An in-depth review of current agricultural policies and the legislative environment; and, 

Review relevant local, regional and provincial policies, programs and regulations, 

including: 

o Regional Growth Strategy 

o North Okanagan Food System Plan 

o Township of Spallumcheen Agricultural Area Plan 

o District of Coldstream Agricultural Area Plan 

o Official Community Plans 

o Zoning Bylaws 

Phase II: Regional Agricultural Plan 

Phase II will focus on an in-depth review of current agricultural policies, develop 

recommendations to enhance agriculture in the region, create an implementation strategy, and 

identify funding opportunities. The overall process to develop the plan will be to: 

Recommend goals, objectives and actions for resolving the main issues and capitalizing 

on opportunities. 

Develop policy priorities and recommendations in collaboration with the RAAC, Board of 

Directors, the agricultural community, participating jurisdictions, senior levels of 

government and residents. 

Identify recommended amendments to existing policies and bylaws. 

Develop a detailed implementation strategy for the Regional Agricultural Plan. 

Make recommendations on funding opportunities and evaluation strategies. 

Identify implementation steps and recommend appropriate priorities to address the 

issues facing farming and agriculture in the region. 

Proposed Deliverables: 

Regional Agricultural Plan 

The purpose of the Regional Agriculture Plan is to ensure that the agricultural capability of the 

North Okanagan is enhanced as part of a secure food supply for the region through improved 

decision-making related to agriculture and agricultural land uses. Agriculture in the Region is 

characterized by its diversity, with larger operations predominantly in Coldstream, 

Spallumcheen and the Electoral Areas and many small lot farms spread across the North 

Okanagan. 

The Plan’s recommendations will need to address all sizes and forms of farm operations, from 

the largest fruit growers in Greater Vernon to homesteaders in Cherryville and diversified small 

3 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 



April 5, 2013 

lot farmers that exist throughout the region. This Plan will address issues related to the 

preservation of the agricultural land base and maintaining and expanding agricultural 

capabilities throughout the region. The objectives that the Plan will address will focus on four 

land use policy areas: 

Support Designated Farmland Uses 

Increase the Productive Use of Farmland in the ALR 

 

 

Enhance the Agricultural Resource Base 

Create policy on issues including: a. criteria to evaluate the various forms of Agricultural 

Land Commission applications (ALR exclusions, non-farm uses, and subdivisions) 

This Plan will provide guidance on local and regional opportunities to support the agricultural 

sector. Provincial or federal issues may be identified, but resolving these issues is beyond the 

authority of local and regional government or the local agricultural industry. Regional, provincial 

and national organizations are best equipped to address those concerns. The Strategy should 

explore local and regional opportunities, including: 

improved farm business management that can be realistically implemented by farmers 

and farm organizations; 

local, regional, provincial and federal policies which will encourage agricultural activity 

within and outside the ALR and allow agriculture to become more profitable, resilient and 

sustainable; 

 

identification of agricultural crops and products with potential for enhancing agriculture in 

the region including opportunities in smaller and medium scale agricultural farm 

operations; 

strategies to attract new farmers and new investment in primary and value-added 

production; 

improve education and information exchange between the farm community and the 

public including better education of youth with respect to farm practices and the role that 

the industry plays in the community; 

 

 

 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

promote local agriculture; 

Identify new markets, approaches and opportunities that will increase the profitability of 

the agricultural sector; and, 

address environmental issues related to agriculture. 

The emphasis of this Plan will be on taking advantage of the opportunities, and addressing the 

issues that are local and regional, although senior government ministries will be requested to 

support regional agriculture through policy actions and/or financial support. 

The regional emphasis for this Strategy will mean that current social, economic and 

environmental links between agriculture and the community will have to be recognized and new 

links established if change is to take place. Both the agricultural sector and the community will 

have to be involved in developing a vibrant, sustainable and resilient agricultural sector in the 

North Okanagan. 

The Plan will define the Regional District’s role with respect to agriculture and identify 

appropriate policies and actions to support the long term viability of farming by protecting the 

agricultural land base. The Plan is meant to be a sub-strategy of the RGS and complement 

OCPs and may be adopted, in a locally amended form, as a sub-plan or schedule of OCPs. 

4 


Implementation Strategy 


April 5, 2013 

The Regional Agricultural Plan policies are proposed to be implemented by the appropriate 

local, regional and senior governments, agricultural organizations, agriculturalists and 

agricultural community groups, within immediate, short, medium and long-term timelines, 

according to priority and anticipated ease of implementation. 

Care must been taken to organize policy implementation in a manner that does not 

unreasonably burden specific local, regional and senior government agencies, in terms of 

required resources and timelines. 

Agriculture Area Plan Consultation Process: 

The Plan will need to be developed with consultation with the agricultural community, key 

stakeholders, residents, First Nations and senior levels of government to ensure that the Plan is 

reflective of regional concerns and issues regarding long term agricultural sustainability and 

resilience. Consultation will provide the opportunity for developing creative and realistic 

solutions and policies to respond to those challenges. It is the experience of other local and 

regional governments that an inclusive public and agricultural community engagement program 

is one of the most important elements for creating robust and comprehensive agricultural 

planning outcomes. 

The RAAC will act as the Plan’s steering committee throughout the Plan’s development process 

and will assist in facilitating farming community involvement. 

Based upon the agricultural area plan work programs of other local and regional governments, 

the following public and stakeholder engagement actives are recommended: 

Workshops were with a range of agricultural stakeholder groups, including specialty 

(small-scale, organic) agriculture, field horticulture (plant agriculture), intensive 

horticulture, horticultural processing, supply-managed (dairy, poultry) operations, supply 

managed processing, livestock operations and livestock products processing. 

Interviews with prominent stakeholders (to be identified). 

Community meetings to enable farmers and residents to provide input about the 

agricultural areas they work and live in. Feedback from these meetings can play a key 

role in identifying agricultural issues and policy solutions. 

Surveys targeted at specific groups, such as agricultural producers, processors, retailers 

and consumers to provide insight on issues, barriers, agricultural awareness and 

potential solutions. 

Open houses and information sessions at key points within the process. 

Farm Tours for stakeholders, local and senior government representatives and other 

agencies, with the goal of providing farmers the opportunity to demonstrate their 

operation and discuss their challenges and barriers directly. 

Responsibilities: 



June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

The Plan is considered a priority RGS implementation action and a potential sub-strategy of the 

RGS. The Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee (RGMAC) is responsible for 

5 



April 5, 2013 

overseeing RGS development, implementation and review. Although the RGMAC will not be 

directly involved within the development of the Plan, this Committee will be responsible for: 

Developing Regional Agricultural Plan Terms of Reference; and, 

Reviewing and commenting on the draft Plan deliverables. 


The Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC) was appointed in early 2013. Each of 

the agricultural representatives brings their experience and understanding of agriculture in the 

North Okanagan to the planning process. The RAAC members will provide support and, 

through the planning process, act as liaisons with the agricultural community. The core 

responsibilities of the RAAC will be to: 

 

Assist with defining key components of the Terms of Reference for the Plan, including 

advice on the goals and objectives and priority issues to be considered within the Plan. 

Assist with engaging and consulting the agricultural community, rural residents and 

industry during Plan development. 

Provide advice and technical support to Regional District staff and the selected 

consultant(s) on the history of agriculture in the region and current agricultural issues 

and priorities. 

 


June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

Review and provide feedback on the draft Plan including policies, recommendations and 

implementation strategies. 

6 



June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 




REPORT 

File No.: 3045.12.03.10 

TO: 


FROM: Planning Department 

DATE: February 22, 2013 

Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Brainstorming 

SUBJECT: 

Roundtable Results 


That the report dated February 22, 2013 regarding Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

Brainstorming Roundtable Results be considered during development of the Regional Agricultural 

Area Plan Terms of Reference. 

DISCUSSION: 

The inaugural meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee was held on February 21, 

2013. At the end of the meeting, the Chair (Director Macnabb) requested that each member present 

their perspective on the issues and direction that the Committee may explore over the next two years, 

which included: 

the role of community organizations within agriculture; 

the role of agricultural in biodiversity conservation; 

the need to revitalize direct agricultural producer representation with senior levels of 

government; 

examine the agricultural implications of the BC Water Sustainability Act; 

the implications of the various scales of agriculture: small and large farms, rural and urban 

settings, corporate and individual; 

local agriculture promotion workshop that is facilitated and focuses on easily implementable 

actions (local production inventory, barriers and opportunities); 

local buying strategies and opportunities, including corporate and institutional buyers; 

agricultural education opportunities for young people; 

opportunities for strengthening North Okanagan farmers’ markets, including a Farmers’ Market 

Program; 

opportunities to expand agricultural water provision to lands in need of irrigation; 

explore what is considered sustainable agricultural production and a resilient food system; 

consider the economics of scale – the challenges and opportunities are different across 

dissimilar scales of agricultural production, including appropriate technology and supportive 

policy (small scale producer to large agri-industrial operation); 

water and the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) – water is a major agricultural production within 

the Okanagan, although not associated with the agricultural capabilities of an ALR parcel; 

agricultural sovereignty, with a focus on agricultural producer self-sufficiency and resilience; 

implementation of agricultural actions (associated with any agricultural area plan) that will 

assist in agricultural profitability – defining the steps and specifics of what can be done to 

assist agriculture; 



June 6, 2013 - Item D.1 

Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Brainstorming Roundtable Results 

Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee- February 22, 2013 Page 2 

• explore options for long-term sustainability and resilience of the agricultural section, including 

succession planning, farmers education and recruitment; 

• youth agricultural engagement program, including opportunities for 'on-farm' experience and 

mentorship; 

• fewer producers is resulting in less contact between agricultural production and the consumer 

base, resu lting in a lack of consumers' understanding regarding how food is produced; 

education and communication opportunities to bring the public and agriculturalists together; 

• explore unique models for adding value to local agricultural products, services and 

opportunities; 

• climate change effects and the long-term impact on Okanagan agriculture; 

• Committee farm tour of member's agricultural operations (rotating) for education and 

discussion purposes; and, 

• Partnership opportunities with community agricultural organizations, including the 4H Club 

headquarters in Vernon. 

The input received from the Committee could be considered by the Board of Directors when providing 

direction on the Terms of Reference of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee and the 

Committee's 2013/2014 work program. 

FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS: 

The Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee financial plan currently allocates RAAC meeting costs 

only. The Regional Planning (031) financial plan has included partial funding ($22,000) for a Regional 

Agricultural Area Plan. Any additional proposed RAAC initiatives, projects or plans would require 

review for budget and service delivery implications. 

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS: 

The Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting schedule and development of a Regional 

Agricultural Area Plan have been included within the 2013 Regional Growth Work Plan and staff 

resources are sufficient for undertaking these initiatives. If the Board of Directors considers additional 

Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee activities and initiatives, limited staff resources may require 

a reassessment of 2013 priorities. 

SUMMARY: 

The inaugural meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee was very positive and the 

membership is very interested in contributing their experience to assisting in the long term 

sustainability of North Okanagan agriculture. The input received at the end of the meeting by the 

membership should be considered during the development of the Terms of Reference of the Regional 

Agricultural Area Plan. 

Rob Smai/es, MCIP 




J 

._ A 7 -r -f}t./l 

rytr;rd Hall, Admihistrator


June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 




PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

INFORMATION REPORT 

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 21(2) OF THE 

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT 

DATE: April 15, 2013 

FILE NO.: 

APPLICANT: 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

13-0068-F-ALR 

Ann Hatfield and Keith Richards 

That Part NW 1/4, Sec 27, Lying to the West of the Right Bank of 

the Shuswap River as Shown on Plan B17102, Twp 18, R7, W6M, 

KDYD, Except Plan 34054 

P.I.D.# 014-015-862 

CIVIC ADDRESS: 

PROPERTY SIZE: 

SERVICING: 

1866 Enderby Mabel Lake Road 

16.89 ha (41.74 acres) 

On-site water supply and sewage disposal 

SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Class 5 and 7 improvable to Class 3 and 7 

ZONING: 

O.C.P. DESIGNATION: 

PROPOSED USE: 

Non Urban (N.U) 

Agricultural / Major Road / Development Permit Area for Protection 

of the Natural Environment and Floodplain 

1 lot subdivision plus remainder 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: 

That the application of Ann Hatfield and Keith Richards under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural 

Land Commission Act which proposes to subdivide the property legally described as That Part 

NW 1/4, Sec 27, Lying to the West of the Right Bank of the Shuswap River as Shown on Plan 

B17102, Twp 18, R7, W6M, KDYD, Except Plan 34054 and located at 1866 Enderby Mabel 

Lake Road, Electoral Area “F” be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land 

Commission subject to inclusion of the portion of the property which is not located within the 

Agricultural Land Reserve. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 

Agricultural Land Commission Application 

13-0068-F-ALR (Ann Hatfield & Keith Richards) Page 2 

BACKGROUND: 

This report relates to an Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) application for a one lot plus 

remainder subdivision of the property located at 1866 Enderby Mabel Lake Road. The 

applicants are proposing to subdivide the property by creating one 8.0 ha parcel and one 8.89 

ha parcel. As the property is located in the ALR, approval of the Agricultural Land Commission 

(ALC) under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act is required in order to permit 

the proposed subdivision. 

Site Context and the Proposal 

The subject property is located on the east side of Enderby Mabel Lake Road and the west side 

of the Shuswap River and the Shuswap River Islands Park approximately half way between the 

City of Enderby and Mabel Lake. The majority of the south half of the property is steeply sloped 

and treed. The north half of the property is mostly cleared and contains the home site and 

horse pasture. The home site contains a mobile home, two barns and a shop. A driveway 

connects to Enderby Mabel Lake Road in the northwest corner of the property. 

The subject and surrounding properties to the north, west and south are zoned Non-Urban 

(N.U). The properties to the east are zoned Large Holding (L.H). The ALR boundary runs along 

Enderby Mabel Lake Road adjacent to the subject property and then continues south. A 1.49 

ha portion of the subject property is not located within the ALR. The properties to the north, 

east and south are within the ALR. 

The following orthophoto of the subject and surrounding properties was taken in 2007. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 



The following map shows the ALR boundary in relation to the subject and surrounding 

properties. 

The owner is proposing to subdivide the subject property into one 8.0 ha parcel and one 8.89 ha 

parcel near a natural divide of landforms and soils. The proposed northern parcel (proposed Lot 

A) would contain the existing driveway and buildings while the proposed south parcel (proposed 

Lot B) would be vacant. A new driveway from Enderby Mabel Lake Road would be constructed 

for proposed Lot B. 

Agricultural Capability of the Subject Property 

The BC Land Inventory agricultural capability classification system groups land into seven 

classes according to the land’s potential and limitations for agricultural use depending on soil 

and climate characteristics. As the class numbers increase from Class 1 to 7, the range of 

crops decreases. Associated with each class is a subclass that identifies limitations or special 

management practices needed to improve the soil. The classification usually gives land two 

ratings: unimproved and improved. Unimproved ratings describe the land in its native condition. 

Improved ratings indicate the land’s potential once management practises have been 

implemented, such as irrigation, stone removal or drainage. 

Class 1 land is capable of producing the very widest range of crops. Soil and climate conditions 

are optimum, resulting in easy management. Class 2 land is capable of producing a wide range 

of crops. Minor restrictions of soil or climate may reduce capability but pose no major difficulties 

in management. Class 3 land is capable of producing a fairly wide range of crops under good 

management practices. Soil and/or climate limitations are somewhat restrictive. Class 4 land is 

capable of a restricted range of crops. Soil and climate conditions require special management 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 



considerations. Class 5 land is capable of producing cultivated perennial forage crops and 

specially adapted crops. Soil and/or climate conditions severely limit capability. Class 6 land is 

considered to be important in its natural state as grazing land and cannot be cultivated due to 

soil and/or climate limitations. Class 7 lands have no capability for arable culture or sustained 

natural grazing. 

The owners have supplied an agrologist report which rates the southerly (non-ALR) portion of 

the subject property as Class 5 with an improvement rating of Class 3. The subclasses 

associated with the unimproved and improved rating are identified as soil moisture deficiency 

and undesirable soil structure. The southern half of the ALR portion of the subject property is 

rated as Class 7 with an improved rating of the same. The subclasses associated with this 

rating are identified as topography, stoniness and shallow soil over bedrock and/or bedrock 

outcroppings. The northern half of the ALR portion of the subject property is rated as Class 5 

with an improvement rating of Class 3. The subclasses associated with the unimproved and 

improved ratings are shallow soil over bedrock and/or bedrock outcroppings and excess water. 

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN: 

The Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan designates the land use of the ALR portion of 

the subject property as Agricultural and the non-ALR portion as Non Urban. The areas with 30 

metres of the Shuswap River and its tributaries are designated Development Permit Areas for 

protection of the natural environment and floodplain. Enderby Mabel Lake Road is classified as 

a Major Road. The following Land Use Policies are relevant for this application: 

Agricultural Policies 

1. All uses and subdivision of agricultural land, except those exempted under Part 2 and Part 5 

respectively of the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, 

B.C. Reg. 171/2002 shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Land 

Commission Act, regulations thereto, and the orders of the Commission. 

2. Parcel sizes are to be consistent with the agricultural capability and productivity bearing in 

mind that land with lower capability and productivity requires larger acreage. However, this 

condition should not be used to build a case for exclusion of existing small parcels which are 

in agricultural use and have a capability for agriculture. 

3. Lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve shall be protected from conflict with nonagricultural 

use by a separation varying with the type and intensity of conflicting land use 

through adoption of appropriate setbacks and buffering within the non-agricultural areas, in 

which the recommendations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands shall be considered. 

4. Notwithstanding the minimum lot size standards and land use policies cited in this Plan or 

the Regional District Zoning Bylaw in force from time to time or any other policy or bylaw that 

has been adopted to guide decision-making, the Regional Board may, after due 

consideration, not authorize an application to the Commission if the proposed subdivision or 

use would have a negative impact on agricultural land or the farming community. 

Development Permit Areas 

A 30 m wide area on either side of the Shuswap River and its tributaries are identified as being 

within a Development Permit (DP) Area for the Protection of the Natural Environment and 

Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions (Floodplain). Issuance of a DP would be 

required prior to final subdivision approval. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 



Transportation Policies 

Transportation policies relevant to this application state that Major Roads shall have a minimum 

width of 25 m. 

ZONING BYLAW: 

The subject property is zoned Non-Urban (N.U) in Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning 

Bylaw No. 1888, 2003. The minimum lot size standard of the N.U zone is 7.2 ha. Uses 

permitted in the N.U zone include accessory farm sales, intensive agricultural uses, resource 

uses, bed and breakfast uses, boarding house uses, fruit and produce pickers’ cabins and work 

force housing units, home occupations uses, packing houses, wineries and cideries, single and 

two family dwellings, ancillary dwellings and manufactured homes. The number of dwellings 

allowed per lot in the N.U zone may not exceed: 

1. one single family dwelling or one two family dwelling or one manufactured home; and 

2. for lands that are located within the ALR, additional single family dwellings shall not be 

permitted unless the owner has first submitted an application to the ALC; 

3. one ancillary single family dwelling on land in and out of the ALR; and 

4. one additional single family dwelling on lots 14.4 ha or larger in size for lands located 

outside the Agricultural Land Reserve. 

PLANNING ANALYSIS: 

The applicants are proposing to subdivide the property by creating one 8.0 ha parcel (proposed 

Lot B) and one 8.89 ha parcel (proposed Lot A). The owner has supplied an agrologist report 

which indicates that the ALR portion of proposed Lot B is comprised of Class 7 lands that is not 

capable of arable culture or natural grazing and suggests this land should not be within the ALR. 

The agrologist also notes that the non-ALR portion of proposed Lot B is Class 5 with an 

improved rating of Class 3 and is capable of supporting agriculture. Given the above, the 

Planning Department recommends the application be supported subject to inclusion of the non- 

ALR portion of the subject property into the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). 

Although proposed Lot B is not currently used for farm purposes, a portion of this property could 

potentially be used to support agriculture; however, its location is well removed from the existing 

farmable portion of the parcel and the proposed subdivision would not adversely affect the 

overall use of the farm parcel. The owner has indicated that a topographical divide exists 

between proposed Lots A and B which prohibits using the parcel as one agricultural unit. The 

Planning Department concurs that the topography of the property limits the ability to farm the 

property as one unit. It is acknowledged that farm vehicle access to the arable land on 

proposed lot B is limited due to the steep ridge separating this area from the remainder of the 

parent property and due to the fact that the only alternative access is from a sloping and curving 

portion of Enderby Mabel Lake Road. 

Given the above, Planning suggests that the application be supported on the condition that the 

non-ALR portion of proposed Lot B be included into the ALR. With inclusion of the arable lands, 

the proposal would be generally consistent with the OCP. Planning staff acknowledge that 

while the agrologist has indicated the non arable portion of the property should be excluded 

from the ALR, the owners have applied for a subdivision within the ALR rather than exclusion. 

Given the request of the owners, staff suggest that the inclusion of the non ALR portion would 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 



better serve to meet the policies of the OCP as the inclusion of these lands would buffer and 

protect the arable land on the subject and surrounding properties from conflicts with non 

agricultural areas. Staff note that the non ALR portion of proposed Lot B has the potential for 

subdivision without further consideration of the Board or ALC (pursuant to Section 946 of the 

Local Government Act). Inclusion of these lands would limit the potential for future subdivision 

of proposed Lot B as further support of the Board and ALC approval may be required for any 

further subdivisions. 

Planning staff recognise the proposal may not be consistent with the OCP Policy which states 

that land with lower capability and productivity requires larger acreage; however, staff suggest 

that with the inclusion of the non ALR portion into the ALR, that the subdivision would have 

minimum impact on the agricultural use of the subject and surrounding properties and any 

negative impacts would be offset by the inclusion. 

SUMMARY: 

This is an Agricultural Land Commission application for a one lot plus remainder subdivision of 

the property located at 1866 Enderby Mabel Lake Road. The owner has supplied information 

from a Professional Agrologist which indicates the ALR portion of the subject property which is 

proposed to be subdivided is non arable while the non-ALR portion is arable. Given this, the 

Planning Department suggests the application is consistent with the Agricultural Policies of the 

Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan and recommends the application be supported 

subject to inclusion of the arable non-ALR portion of the lands into the ALR. 

REFERRALS: 

The application was referred for comments to the following: 

1. Electoral Area “F” Director 

2. Electoral Area “F” Advisory Planning Commission 

3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

4. Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

5. Interior Health Authority 

Interior Health advises they have no comments on drinking water or onsite sewage disposal 

based on private drinking water supplies and a lot size >2ha, per the Interior Health 

Subdivision Guideline. 

6. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 

The Ministry advises there is a recorded Archaeological Site within the property boundaries. 

During subdivision a referral will be made to the Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural 

Resource Operations, Heritage Conservation Branch. The Ministry of Transportation has no 

objections at this time. This office will provide further comment once we have received 

application for subdivision. 

7. Ministry of Agriculture 

The Ministry advises they do not support this application and note that generally, 

subdivisions in the ALR do not benefit agriculture and there is limited rationale provided on 

how this would do that. 

8. Building Inspection Department 

The Building Inspector commented that he has no concerns with respect to this application. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 


13-0068-F-ALR (Ann Hatfield & Keith Richards) 

Page 7 

9. Ministry of Environment 

The Ecosystems Section of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 

provided the following: Residential activities or ancillary activities on this property would be 

subject to the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) if they are within 30m of a stream. The 

assessment defines the required Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) 

setback, which must be determined prior to subdivision and/or development. 

Submitted by: 

Endorsed by: 


Rob Smailes, MCIP 




June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 

File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

ELECTORAL AREA "F" 

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION APPLICATION 

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP 

13-0068-F-ALR 

Ann Hatfield and Keith Richards 

1866 Enderby Mabel Lake Road 


f}JP 

(Jq" 

ao . 681 

t 

N 

JP 

IP 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 

l¥.,'·· ... 1 •• 

f:·~ 

... 

'.... . 

LOT I 

4 .01 

Q 

.. 

If 

- ~ 

,,. 

1/4 

27 

Rtltld (IF(XJ rMI~· "' 4. 469 Itt~. 

(fl~ll' " 16.89 ha..} 

Arilf1 ~ wrlflir • 1.927' }Jtl, 

$111 RtfertJMij PlUn BU/02 

~4oRSs 

~\Jl


June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 

5~(3w) 

17102 0 

K~ 02. 

~2. 28 ho. 

12.7& 

!J .. ": 7 hD. 

34342 

Figure 1. Agricultural capability ratings, soil pit locations and polygon 

boundaries at the Richards property. 

\ . 

, .. ~ -\ ')) 


Legend 

Notes 

Contours 20M 

Parcels 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 

Regional District of North Okanagan Mapping Site 


1: 11,105 

564.2 

NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_11N 

© Regional District of North Okanagan 

0 282.08 

564.2 Meters 

Date and TIme Printed: 5/16/2013 4:00 PM 

This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and 

is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be 

accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 

THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION


June 6, 2013 - Item E.1 


Extract from the Minutes of a Meeting of the 


Held on 

Thursday, March 21, 2013 

NEW BUSINESS 


HATFIELD, Ann and RICHARDS, Keith [File No. 13-0068-F-ALR] 

 

Subdivision at 1866 Enderby Mabel Lake Road 

Comments: 

concerns regarding destroying the potential for agricultural use through 

parcelization 

piece outside the ALR is not able to be subdivided 

rationale for subdivision was not provided by the applicant 

property is not being used to its full potential for agricultural purposes, based on 

its location adjacent to Shuswap River 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 






REZONING APPLICATION 


FILE NO.: 

APPLICANT: 

13-0104-E-RZ 

John and Lorna Guild 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Sec 24, Twp 57, ODYD, Plan 33142 

P.I.D.# 003-238-971 



SERVICING: 

PRESENT ZONING: 

PROPOSED ZONING: 


PROPOSAL: 

49 Pine Road 

7.77 ha (19.2 acres) 

On-site wells and septic 

Non-Urban (N.U.) 

Country Residential (C.R.) 

Country Residential 

To allow for a one lot plus remainder subdivision 


That Rezoning Bylaw No. 2591, 2013 which proposes to rezone the property legally described 

as Lot 3, Sec 24, Twp 57, ODYD, Plan 33142 and located at 49 Pine Road, Electoral Area “E”, 

from the Non-Urban (N.U) zone to the Country Residential (C.R) zone be given First and 

Second Readings and referred to a Public Hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

This report relates to an application to rezone the property located at 49 Pine Road. The 

applicant is proposing to rezone from the Non-Urban (N.U) zone to the Country Residential 

(C.R) zone. If successful, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 7.77 ha property into 2 lots 

of 2.2 ha, and 5.57 ha. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 

Rezoning Application 

13-0104-E-RZ (John & Lorna Guild) Page 2 

Site Context 

The subject property is located on the north side of Pine Road to the east of the Cherryville 

townsite. Crown Land lies to the north and Agricultural Land Reserve on the south. The subject 

property is zoned Non-Urban (N.U) and upon adoption of the new Electoral Areas “D” and “E” 

Official Community Plan, was re-designated to Country Residential. To the east of the homesite 

is a 0.4 ha Non-Urban zoned lot. Above and to the east of that parcel, as well as two of the 

neighbouring parcels to the west were rezoned and re-designated from Non-Urban to Country 

Residential in 2008. A subsequent subdivision approval created a 2.0 ha lot immediately to the 

west of the subject property. 

The property has two driveways from Pine Road for access to the single family dwelling, a shop, 

three sheds and a roof structure for RV storage. The property slopes upward behind the 

homesite to a mostly treed area. An easement for access to a water source for the benefit of the 

property to the east is registered on title. The following orthophoto of the subject and 

surrounding properties was taken in 2007: 

The Proposal 

Approval of the rezoning application would facilitate a proposed subdivision to create 2 lots as 

shown on the attached plan to this report. The existing single family dwelling, shop and sheds 

would be contained within a 2.2 ha lot with access to the existing eastern driveway from Pine 

Road. The second western driveway access would serve the proposed 5.57 ha Remainder lot 

which would be vacant of buildings with the exception of the RV roof structure. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 



The minimum lot frontage requirements for the zone has been met for Lot 1 by proposing a 

frontage of 100 m for Lot 1, however the Remainder lot at 63.8 m is less than the 10% of the 

perimeter requirement. A lot frontage waiver approval would be required as a condition of 

subdivision approval. The lots are proposed to be serviced with on-site septic fields and well 

water sources. 

ZONING BYLAW: 

The subject property is currently zoned Non-Urban (N.U). The uses permitted in the N.U zone 

include accessory buildings and structures, ancillary single family dwellings, bed and breakfast 

use, boarding house, community care facilities, home occupations, intensive agricultural use, 

manufactured homes, public parks and playgrounds, resource use, single family dwellings, and 

two family dwellings. The number of dwellings allowed per lot in the N.U. zone may not exceed: 


2. one additional single family dwelling on lots 14.4 ha or larger in size for lands located 

outside the ALR; 

3. one ancillary single family dwelling on lands in and out of the ALR. 

The proposal is to rezone the subject property to the Country Residential (C.R) zone. Uses 

permitted in the C.R zone include ancillary single family dwellings, bed and breakfast use, boarding 

house use, community care facilities, home occupations use, intensive agricultural use, limited 

resource use, manufactured homes, public parks and playgrounds, single and two family dwellings, 

and accessory buildings and structures. The number of dwellings allowed per lot in the C.R zone 

(relevant to this application) may not exceed: 

1. one single family dwelling or one two family dwelling or one manufactured home; 

2. one additional single family dwelling on lots 4 ha or larger for lands located outside the ALR; 

3. one ancillary single family dwelling on lands in and out of the ALR on lots 2 ha or larger. 

The minimum parcel size in the N.U and C.R zones is 7.2 ha and 2.0 ha respectively. The lot 

frontage in each zone must not be less than 10% of the perimeter of each lot. All lots created 

within the N.U and C.R zones must contain a contiguous area of land 2,000 m 2 or larger in size 

to serve as a suitable building site. Building sites must be less than 30% natural slope and must 

be accessible from a public highway by a private access driveway which commences at the 

edge of the finished road surface as close to right angles with a maximum slope of 2% for a 

minimum distance of 10 m and a maximum slope of 15% thereafter. 


The Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan designates the land use of the subject 

property as Country Residential which falls under the OCP ‘Rural Residential Policies’. Rural 

Residential lands are intended to provide an alternate to urban living with lots 1.0 hectare or 

larger. These lots emphasize an attachment to the lands and utilization for rural and agricultural 

uses, but with lesser services and greater distances to community facilities and shopping. Lands 

that may be suitable for rezoning to accommodate rural residential land use (subject to policies 

of this section) are shown on Schedules B, B1 and B2 as Country Residential (C.R.) and Small 

Holdings (S.H.). The following policies are applicable to this application: 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 



• outside the Agricultural Land Reserve; 

• not in an area with excessive slopes; 

• not in an area that has high capacity for other uses such as gravel extraction, mining, or 

forest development; 

• not subject to flooding or in an area with a high water table; and 

• not subject to excessive expenditures for services such as roads, electric power and school 

bussing; 

• contains suitable building sites; 

• contains sewage disposal areas; 

• contains adequate water supplies as specified in the Subdivision Servicing Bylaw; 

• does not detrimentally affect neighbouring properties and the community as a whole; 

• upon receipt of a rezoning application for Rural Residential developments, the Regional 

Board will give consideration to the fire protection issues in the local area; 

• subdivision for Rural Residential housing shall be in a manner that will conform to the 

physical site characteristics and not produce a continuous expanse of housing; 

due to the importance of an adequate water supply in Rural Residential areas, and the 

uncertainty about water supply in some areas, assurances about the water supply as 

specified in the Subdivision Servicing Bylaw shall be provided prior to the zoning of land for 

Rural Residential use. 


The Planning Department recommends that the proposal be given favourable consideration as it 

represents a rural residential land use that is consistent with the Electoral Areas “D” and “E” 

OCP land use designation of the subject property and complies with the previously noted Rural 

Residential Land Policies in that the proposed lots: 

• are outside the ALR and are not adjacent to lands within the ALR; 

• are not entirely in an area with excessive slopes as the front half of the lot has available 

building sites; 

• are not in an area that has high capability for other uses such as gravel extraction, mining, 

or forest development; 

• are not in an area subject to flooding or in an area with a high water table; 

• would not be subject to excessive expenditures for services such as roads, electric power 

and school bussing; 

• can be provided with suitable building sites; 

• would likely have the potential to be serviced with sewage disposal areas based on a 

minimum lot size of 2.0 ha; 

• would likely have the potential to be produce adequate water supplies as specified in the 

Subdivision Servicing Bylaw and is not in area identified as lacking in groundwater supplies; 

• would not detrimentally affect neighbouring properties and the community as a whole as the 

property is bounded on both sides with Country Residential zoned properties; 

• would conform to the physical site characteristics of the land and be consistent with the rural 

character of the neighboring Country Residential zoned lots on the north side of Pine Road. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 



The proposal has been reviewed against the OCP policy that requires rezoning applications to 

be considered in relation to the fire protection issues in the local area. In this regard, the OCP 

Fire Protection Policy suggests that residents acknowledge and accept that fire protection 

services are not provided in this area and that residents are encouraged to apply Fire Smart 

principles for new and existing development. 

The proposal has been reviewed against the OCP policy that requires assurances about the 

water supply as specified in the Subdivision Servicing Bylaw to be provided prior to the rezoning 

of land for Rural Residential use. In this regard, the applicant has not demonstrated that the 

current or proposed well water sources meet the bylaw, however, it should be noted that the 

property is not in an area that has questionable water supplies. To be consistent with the 

processing of the 2008 OCP/Rezoning application of the neighboring properties, proof of water 

could be deferred to subdivision approval stage. However, should the Board of Directors have 

concerns regarding lack of water supply information, the Planning Department recommends that 

proof of water supply in accordance with the Subdivision Bylaw be conditional of scheduling a 

Public Hearing on the proposed bylaw amendment. 

SUMMARY: 

This report relates to an application to rezone the property located at 49 Pine Road. The 

Planning Department recommends that Rezoning Bylaw No. 2591, 2013 be given First and 

Second Readings as the proposal is generally consistent with the policies contained within the 

Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan. 

REFERRAL COMMENTS: 


1. Electoral Area “E” Director 

2. Electoral Area “E” Advisory Planning Commission 


4. Ministry of Forests 



A Building Permit was issued for finalized SFD and a substantial workshop building. 

There are no active records of Bylaw Enforcement actions to our knowledge. 


No objections or concerns regarding the rezoning of the above noted property from Non- 

Urban to Country Residential. Please forward final documents for endorsement after 

third reading. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 


13-01 04-E-RZ (John & Lorna Guild) Page 6 

Submitted by: 

Caren Walker, Planning Tethnologist 


Endorsed by: 





June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 

File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

ELECTORAL AREA "E" 

REZONING APPLICATION 


13-0104-E-RZ 

John and Lorna Guild 

49 Pine Road 

A 

. . 

1 

Frilt.a 

P4~0n~ 

42 

3 

4 

1 

P.27448 

PLAN 36338 

/ 

62 

KEM NE1/4 

DIAh.IAt~., 

:r: 

I 

I 0:: 

TJ:qJ _ I~ 


CROWN 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 

p 

). 

IP 0!5' IP 20" 

170.100 1!5!5.400 164.600 

-,0 

: l~· 

L 

co 

() 

\0 

N 

ri; 

• • 

lr) 

~ 

Ill 

: 

~ 

a, 

~ 

i ./·· .Lf 

p_VV'--c....·~r 

c_\D+ 

.... , ....... •") ... 

"' 1.'" • tt: • ·~ 

.... 'J •• '·' • 

2 Ill • 3 4 

~ ~ 

io 

lr) 

Area "' 7.671 ha. ~ Area • 7, 772 ha. 

Area B. 090 ha. ?? 

~ p..: 

PLI~~ 

3:5iL\J__ 

~ 

0· 

ex) 

~ 

I


June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 


BYLAW No. 2591 

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

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

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

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

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

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

within those zones; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has created zones, named each zone, established boundaries for 

these zones and regulated uses within those zones by Bylaw No. 1888, being the “Regional 

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

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

Government Act, the Board must, by bylaw, define procedures under which an owner of land 

may apply for an amendment to a Zoning Bylaw and must consider every application for an 

amendment to the bylaw; 

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

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

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

Rural Land Use Bylaw, or to issue a Permit: 

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

NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Regional District of North Okanagan, in open 

meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 

A. CITATION 

This Bylaw may be cited as the “Rezoning Bylaw No. 2591”. 

B. AMENDMENTS 

1. That the property legally described as Lot 3, Sec 24, Twp 57, ODYD, Plan 33142 and 

located at 49 Pine Road, Electoral Area “E be rezoned from Non-Urban Zone [N.U] to 

Country Residential Zone [C.R]. 

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

accordingly. 

Read a First and Second Time this day of , 2013 

Advertised on this day of , 2013 

this day of , 2013 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.2 

Page 2 

Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of 

Section 890 of the Local Government Act 


Read a Third Time this day of , 2013 

Approved by Minister of Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

(Transportation Act s. 52(3)) 


ADOPTED this day of , 2013 

Chair 

Corporate Officer 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 






APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 20(3) OF THE 

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT 


FILE NO.: 

APPLICANT: 


13-0101-F-ALR 

Alan and Kim Krause 

The Fractional SW 1/4 of Sec 29, Twp 19, R8, W6M, KDYD, 

Including All Timber Thereon 

P.I.D.# 013-812-211 



SERVICING: 

SOIL CLASSIFICATION: 

ZONING: 


PROPOSED USE: 

7261 Highway 97A 

63.95 ha (158.03 acres) 

Well water and on-site septic sewage disposal 

Class 2, 3, 4, 5 and Organics 

Non-Urban (N.U) 

Agricultural 

Second residence for a family member / farm help 


That the application of Alan and Kim Krause under Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land 

Commission Act to place a second residence for family farm help on the property legally 

described as The Fractional SW 1/4 of Sec 29, Twp 19, R8, W6M, KDYD, Including All Timber 

Thereon and located at 7261 Highway 97A, Electoral Area “F” be supported and the Building 

Inspector be authorized to issue a Building Permit for the proposed residence. 

BACKGROUND: 

This report relates to an application for a non-farm use (second dwelling) in the Agricultural 

Land Reserve (ALR) under Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Act for the 

property located at 7261 Highway 97A. The owners of the property are proposing to place a 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 


(Alan & Kim Krause) Page 2 

second residence on the property that would be used by their daughter and her family. The 

daughter and her husband are employees of the farm. 

The Zoning Bylaw does not permit secondary single family dwellings on ALR lands that are 

zoned Non Urban (N.U) unless the owner has first submitted an application to the ALC. The 

Zoning Bylaw gives the Board three options in considering such applications: 

1. Refuse to authorize the applicant to apply to the ALC; 

2. Authorize the applicant to apply to the ALC for their adjudication; or 

3. Authorize the Building Inspector to issue the Building Permit. 

Site Context 

The subject property is located north of Grindrod and east of Highway 97A. The property does 

not have road frontage but is accessed from Highway 97A via an adjacent parcel owned by the 

applicants. A driveway which connects to Highway 97A runs south to the subject property, then 

east along the north property boundary to provide access to the dairy barns and existing 

residence. Several dairy barns are located in the north east quarter of the subject property. 

The dairy operation currently has 200 cows. An existing residence is located in the south east 

quarter of the subject property. The majority of the property is used for corn and alfalfa fields 

with the exception of the steep and treed areas along the eastern property boundary. The 

applicants also own the properties located at 7205, 7257 and 7225 Highway 97A which are 

vacant and used for additional corn and alfalfa fields. These properties are a total of 37.78 ha 

(93.33 acres). The owners rent an additional 40.87 ha (104 acres) located at 110 Poirier Road 

during the summer months to pasture their dairy cows. 

The following orthophoto of the subject and surrounding properties was taken in 2007. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 



The Proposal 

The owners of the property are proposing to place a second residence on the subject property 

that would be used by their daughter and son-in-law who are also employees of the farm. The 

owners are proposing to construct a dwelling which is two stories (plus basement) and is 

approximately 241.5 m 2 . The dwelling would be serviced by a well and septic field and would be 

located near the east property boundary which is currently treed and not used for agriculture. 

The new residence would utilize the existing driveway. 

Agricultural Capability of Subject Property and Supporting Properties 

The Canada Land Inventory agricultural capability classification system groups land into seven 

classes according to the land’s potential and limitations for agricultural use depending on soil 

and climate characteristics. Class 1 land is capable of producing the very widest range of crops 

whereas Class 7 land has no capability for soil bound agriculture. As the class numbers 

increase from Class 1 to 7, the range of crops decreases. Class O refers to organic soils rather 

than mineral soils. The organic soil class definitions are equivalent in terms of their relative 

capabilities and limitations for agricultural use to those defined for mineral soil. Associated with 

each class is a subclass that identifies limitations or special management practices needed to 

improve the soil. The classification usually gives land two ratings: unimproved and improved. 

Unimproved ratings describe the land in its native condition. Improved ratings indicate the 

land’s potential once management practices have been implemented, such as irrigation or 

drainage. 

The Canada Land Inventory rates the northwest corner of the subject property as 30% Class 2 

and 70% Class 3 with an improved rating of the same. The subclasses associated with the 

improved and unimproved rating are excess water and cumulative effect of multiple soil types. 

The south east quarter of the subject property is rated as Class 5 with an improved rating of 

70% Class 5 and 40% Class 4. The subclasses associated with the improved and unimproved 

rating are topography, stoniness and soil moisture limitations. The remainder of the subject 

property is rated as 60% Class 4 Organics and 40% Organics (class undetermined) with an 

improved rating of the same. 

The Canada Land Inventory rates the supporting properties located at 7205, 7257 and 7225 

Highway 97A as Class 1 with the exception of the southern quarter of 7257 Highway 97A which 

is rated as 30% Class 2 and 70% Class 3 with an improved rating of the same. The subclasses 

associated with the improved and unimproved rating are excess water and cumulative effect of 

multiple soil types. 

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT AND REGULATIONS: 

Section 18(a)(ii) of the ALC Act allows one residence per parcel of ALR land, and permits more 

than one residence where the additional residences are necessary for farm use. Section 3(1)(b) 

of the ALC Regulations allows one manufactured home, up to 9 m in width (otherwise known as 

a ‘double wide’), for use by a member of the owner’s immediate family. 

Based on the above, the Board can authorize the issuance of a Building Permit for a 

manufactured home without forwarding the application to the ALC as the home would be used 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 



by a member of the owner’s immediate family. The Board could also authorize the issuance of 

a Building Permit for a permanent dwelling provided that in their opinion the dwelling is 

necessary for farm help. 


The Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan designates the land use of the subject property 

as Agricultural. The following Agricultural Land Use Policy is relevant for this application: 

Notwithstanding the land use policies cited in this Plan or the Regional District of North 

Okanagan zoning bylaw in force from time to time or any other policy or bylaw that has been 

adopted to guide decision-making, the Regional Board may, after due consideration, not 

authorize an application to the Commission if the proposed subdivision or use would have 

negative impact on agricultural land or the farming community. 

All uses and subdivision of agricultural land, except those exempted under Part 2 and Part 5 

respectively of The Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, 

B.C. Reg. 171/2002, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Land 

Commission Act, regulations thereto, and the orders of the Commission. 

Development Permit Area - Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions (Floodplain) 

The OCP designates a portion of the subject property as a Development Permit Area for the 

Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions (Floodplain). As the proposed residence 

is not located within the floodplain area, a Development Permit application is not required. 

ZONING BYLAW: 

The subject property is zoned Non Urban (N.U). Uses permitted in the N.U zone include 

accessory farm sales, intensive agricultural uses, resource uses, bed and breakfast uses, 

boarding house uses, fruit and produce pickers’ cabins and work force housing units, home 

occupations uses, packing houses, wineries and cideries, single and two family dwellings, 

ancillary dwellings and manufactured homes. The number of dwellings allowed per lot in the 

N.U zone may not exceed: 


2. for lands that are located within the ALR, additional single family dwellings shall not be 

permitted unless the owner has first submitted an application to the ALC; and 

3. one ancillary single family dwelling or one manufactured home on land in and out of the 

ALR, subject to the dwelling or manufactured home not exceeding a gross floor area of 75 

m 2 (807.3 ft 2 ) exclusive of attached open carports and open porches, shall not include a 

basement, shall not include habitable space in an attic, and shall not be permitted on lots 

smaller than 2 ha (4.942 acres). 


The owners of the subject property are proposing to place a second residence the property 

which would be used by their daughter and her family. The daughter and her husband are 

employees of the farm. The Non-Urban (N.U) zone allows a second residence to be placed on 

the subject property without making application to the ALC if the gross floor area of the second 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 



residence does not exceed 75 m 2 (807.3 ft 2 ). The applicant would like to have a dwelling that is 

larger than 75 m 2 and must therefore submit an application to the ALC. In considering such an 

application, the Board can refuse to authorize the applicant to apply to the ALC; authorize the 

applicant to apply to the ALC for their adjudication; or authorize the Building Inspector to issue 

the Building Permit. 

It is recommended that the Board authorize the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for 

the proposed second residence as the proposal complies with the policies of the Electoral Area 

“F” OCP. The proposed dwelling would be located on a portion of the property that is not 

currently used for farming purposes and has a lower agricultural rating than the remainder of the 

subject and supporting properties. 

In this regard, the OCP states that lands designated as Agricultural are intended to be used for 

agricultural purposes and associated uses as permitted by the ALC and the Regional District 

and that all uses of ALR land shall be in accordance with the ALR Act, Regulations, Orders and 

Policies. It is suggested that the proposal also complies with Section 18(a)(ii) of the ALC Act 

which permits more than one residence per parcel where the additional residences are 

necessary for farm use and that the level of farming activity on the property warrants the need 

for farm help. 

The proposed location of the home is within a treed area which is not currently used as part of 

the farm operation and has a lower soil capability than the remainder of the subject property. 

The supporting properties are currently in cultivation and have soil capability ratings which are 

considered prime agricultural soils. The chosen location would therefore minimize the impact 

on agricultural use of the subject and surrounding properties. 

SUMMARY: 

This report relates to an application for a non-farm use (second dwelling for family farm help) in 

the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) under Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission 

(ALC) Act for the property located at 7261 Highway 97A. It is recommended that the Board 

authorize the Building Inspector to issue a Building Permit for the proposed second residence 

as the proposal complies with the policies of the Electoral Area “F” OCP. 

REFERRALS 


1. Electoral Area “F” Director 

2. Electoral Area “F” Advisory Planning Commission 


4. Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee 

The Committee passed the following recommendation at their Regular Meeting of April 

18, 2013: “…Whereas the promotion of family farming is a part of the Regional District of 

North Okanagan policy and this application for a second residence on the property 

located at 7261 Highway 97A, Electoral Area “F” preserves viable farmland; the 

Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee recommends to the Board of Directors that the 

building permit be issued as requested by the owner.” 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 


(Alan & Kim Krause) 

Page 6 


6. Ministry of Agriculture 


The Ministry advises they have no objections to the proposal. 


The Building Inspector advised he has no comments or concerns with respect to this 

application. 

Submitted by: 


Endorsed by: 

~k 

~ Trafford Ha , 





June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 

File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

ELECTORAL AREA "F" 

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION APPLICATION 


13-0101-F-ALR 

Alan and Kim Krause 

7261 Highway 97A 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 

Regional District of North Okanagan Mapping Site 

Legend 

--- 

kN 

-- 

S CAD liles 

""""'"- 

--- 

- .,....,._ 

- ......... 

- GVPriaRN 

- we 

- -.... .._.. 

--- ft:*WUII 

--- 

- Tallrlt::l 

- TY.P_!!Ui~LlM 

- ......, 

--- ·- 

- .,..... Bert 

_,.,..,.,. - 

- :CIII:: 

l 5 ·~· 

/117Tt-fff 

fJHJ fMf7T 

-- 

- E&em~~~~~fNI 


1: 10.621 

.,.,.,...,,....;;. """' ..,.,.'*~~ .. ,_,tNYarr.,-nc:tt. F'-=--------l 

~.~or~ .... 

lHIS liN' IS NOnO aE usa> , OR W.\I!CO\~ 

Nota$ 

I 

0


June 6, 2013 - Item E.3 


Extract from the Minutes of a Meeting of the 


Held on 

Thursday, April 18, 2013 

NEW BUSINESS 


KRAUSE, Alan & Kim [File No. 13-0101-F-ALR] 

 

Application for a second residence at 7261 Highway 97A 

Discussion regarding the three options of the Board regarding second residence 

applications: 

Authorize the application to be sent to the Agricultural Land Commission 

Not authorize the application to be sent to the Agricultural Land Commission 

Authorize building inspector to issue a building permit for the proposed second 

residence 

Comments: 

Proposed house location is a very steep location and not on viable farm land 

Supports continuation of family business 

Concern regarding construction value of the proposed house 

 

Brilliant idea, exactly what we are looking for, not on viable farm land, or taking 

away from farm land 

Moved and seconded by Mike Randell and Ian Eggen 

Whereas the promotion of family farming is a part of the Regional District of North 

Okanagan policy and this application for a second residence on the property located at 

7261 Highway 97A, Electoral Area “F” preserves viable farmland; the Regional 

Agricultural Advisory Committee recommends to the Board of Directors that the building 

permit be issued as requested by the owner. 

CARRIED 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 




REPORT 

File No.: 07-0985-F-OR 

TO: 

Board of Directors 

FROM: Planning Department 


Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 

SUBJECT: 

2332 and Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333 [Rabe] 


That following consideration of comments received at a Public Hearing, Electoral Area “F” Official 

Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2332, 2008 which proposes to change the land use 

designation of the properties legally described as: 

Lot 13, Sec 22, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP53741; 

The NE ¼ of Sec 22, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD as shown on Plan of said Twp dated at Ottawa 

the 25 day of October, 1913 said to contain 160 acres more or less; 

 

 

The W ½ of the SE ¼ of Sec 27, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD; 

That part of the SE ¼ of Sec 22 Shown on Plan B4968, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Except 

Plan KAP53741, 

and located at Hadow Road, Electoral Area “F” from Comprehensive Resort Development to Non- 

Urban and Country Residential be considered for Third Reading; and further, 

That following consideration of comments received at a Public Hearing, Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333, 

2008 which proposes to rezone the properties legally described as: 

Lot 13, Sec 22, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP53741; 

The NE ¼ of Sec 22, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD as shown on Plan of said Twp dated at Ottawa 

the 25 day of October, 1913 said to contain 160 acres more or less; 

The W ½ of the SE ¼ of Sec 27, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD; 

That part of the SE ¼ of Sec 22 Shown on Plan B4968, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Except 

Plan KAP53741, 

and located at Hadow Road, Electoral Area “F” from Trails at Enderby Comprehensive Development 

Zone (CD.1) to Country Residential Zone (C.R.) and Non-Urban Zone (N.U) be considered for Third 

Reading; and further, 

That Final Adoption of Bylaws No. 2332 and 2333 not be considered until a covenant has been 

registered on the title of the subject properties stating that they may not be subdivided until a 

professional hydrologist has verified that all wells proposed to service all new lots are proven to meet 

the quantity and quality standards of the Regional District Subdivision Servicing Bylaw and that the 

extraction of water from the wells will not deplete the water supply of neighbouring wells. 


OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2332 and Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333 [Rabe] 

Report to Board of Directors – April 8, 2013 Page 2 

BACKGROUND: 

At the Regular Meeting of February 17, 2010, the Board of Directors gave First Reading to Electoral 

Area “F” OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2332, 2008. At the Regular Meeting of April 6, 2011 the Board 

of Directors gave Second Reading to Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2332, 2008 and 

First and Second Readings to Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333, 2008 and referred the Bylaws to a Public 

Hearing. The application proposes to rezone 8.9 ha of the subject properties to Country Residential 

(C.R) and rezone the remaining 117.6 ha to Non-Urban (N.U) to permit a multi lot subdivision. 

A Public Hearing for Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2332, 2008 and Rezoning Bylaw 

No. 2333, 2008 was held on May 18, 2011. After the Public Hearing, the Board of Directors resolved 

the bylaws not be considered for Third Reading until the applicant supplies a report from a 

professional groundwater hydrologist that demonstrates there is adequate groundwater to supply the 

eventual build out at the requested density and not have a detrimental impact on the groundwater 

supplying neighboring wells in the area. 

The applicant submitted a groundwater hydrology report from Western Water Associates Ltd. dated 

May 14, 2012 which was considered by the Board on August 15, 2012. Upon considering the new 

information the Board resolved to forward the Bylaws to a new Public Hearing and resolved that Final 

Adoption of Bylaws No. 2332 and 2333 not be considered until a restrictive covenant has been 

registered on the title of the subject properties. The restrictive covenant is to state that the properties 

may not be subdivided until a professional hydrologist has verified that all wells proposed to service all 

new lots are proven to meet the quantity and quality standards of the Regional District Subdivision 

Servicing Bylaw and that the extraction of water from the wells will not deplete the water supply of 

neighbouring wells. 

The applicant has paid the required fee required for a new Public Hearing and has submitted a 

Development Notification Certificate which confirms that on April 3, 2013, a Development Notice was 

posted on the subject property in accordance with the Regional District of North Okanagan 

Development Application Procedures and Administrative Fees Bylaw No. 2315, 2008. The Public 

Hearing for the application and associated Bylaw has been advertised in the local newspapers and 

the adjacent land owners have been notified by letter of the Public Hearing, all in accordance with the 

Regional District Development Application Procedures and Administrative Fees Bylaw and the 

provisions of the Local Government Act. 

Upon receipt of Ministerial approval for Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333 and registration of the required 

covenant, the Bylaws can be considered for Final Adoption. 

SUMMARY: 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

As there are no further conditions that are required to be met prior to Third Reading of Official 

Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2332, 2008 and Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333, 2008, it is 

recommended that upon consideration of comments received at a Public Hearing, the Bylaws be 

considered for Third Reading. Upon receipt of Ministerial approval for Rezoning Bylaw 2333 and 

registration of the required covenant, the Bylaws can be considered for Final Adoption. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2332 and Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333 [Rabe] 

Report to Board of Directors- April 8, 2013 

Page 3 

Submitted by: 


Endorsed by: 





June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

ELECTORAL AREA 'F' 

OCP/REZONING APPLICATION 


07-0985-F-OR 

Janice & Timothy Helle and Tony Tillart c/o Michael Rabe 

Hadow Road 

WtJOISr7oH. 1.i 

I N•ZlllJ.> 

TP 19 R 9 W6M 

TP. 19 R 9 I 

3 

223 

r 21:11141. 

CJ 6'1lt11J1~ 

\ 

N< - 

C1R7t1t'U 

-~ 

rfl.n 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 


BYLAW NO. 2332 

A bylaw to amend Electoral Area "F" Official Community Plan Designation Bylaw 

No. 1934, 2004 and amendments thereto 

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

R.S.B.C., 1996, Chapter 323, as amended, and Regulations passed pursuant thereto, the Board 

of the Regional District of North Okanagan may, by Bylaw, adopt one or more official community 

plans; 

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

Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2004” and amendments thereto to provide a statement of 

objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management, within the 

area covered by the plan; 



may apply for an amendment to an Official Community Plan and must consider every 

application for an amendment to the plan; 





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

Community Plan Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2004”. 

NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan, in open meeting 

assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 

GENERAL 

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

Bylaw No. 2332, 2008”. 

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

“Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan Designation Bylaw No. 1934, 2003 and 

amendments thereto” is amended: 

a. By changing the designation of those properties legally described as: 

 

 

 

 

Lot 13, Sec 22, Twp 19, Rge 9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP53741; 

The NE ¼ of Sec 22, Twp 19, Rge 9, W6M, KDYD as shown on Plan of said Twp 

dated at Ottawa the 25 day of October, 1913 said to contain 160 acres more or 

less; 

The W ½ of the SE ¼ of Sec 27, Twp 19, Rge 9, W6M, KDYD; 

That part of the SE ¼ of Sec 22 Shown on Plan B4968, Twp 19, Rge 9, W6M, 

KDYD, Except Plan KAP53741, 

located at Hadow Road, Electoral Area “F” from Comprehensive Resort Development to Non- 

Urban and Country Residential, as shown on Schedule ‘A’ attached to and forming part of this 

Bylaw. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Bylaw No. 2332, 2008 Page 2 

Read a FIRST time this 17th day of February , 2010 

Bylaw 2332 considered in conjunction with the Regional District Financial Plan and Waste 

Management Plan this 17th day of February , 2010. 

Read a SECOND time this 6th day of April , 2011 

Advertised on 

the 11th day of May , 2011, and 

the 13th day of May , 2011 

Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of Section 890 of the Local Government Act on 


Advertised on 



Second Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of Section 890 of the Local Government 

Act on 


Read a THIRD time this day of , 2013 

Received the approval of the Minister of Community and Rural Development pursuant to 

Section 882 of the Local Government Act this 

day of , 2013 

Approval No. 

Minister of Community and Rural 

Development 

Reconsidered, Finally Passed and ADOPTED this day of , 2013 

CHAIR 

CORPORATE OFFICER 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

A 

PLAN2 

PLAN 81561 

C.T. 201781-F 

W. 1/4 

F 

3 

KAP4519 1 

SCHEDULE "A" to accompany the Regional District ofNorth Okanagan "Electoral area "F" Official Community Plan Amendment 

Bylaw No. 2332, 2008" ( Rabe) 

'\\\.\:l 

Area redesignated from Comprehensive Resort Development to Country Residential shown..... ~~~~\, 

Area redesignated from Comprehensive Resort Development to Non Urban shown..... ~ 

Scale 1:250 

I hereby certify this to be a true and correct copy of SCHEDULE "A" attached to and forming part of the Regional District of 

North Okanagan "Electoral Area "F" Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2332, 2008" ( Rabe) 

Dated at Coldstream, BC this day of 2011. 

Co orate Officer 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 


BYLAW NO. 2333 

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

District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 to change a zone 

designation (Tillaart c/o Rabe) 

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

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

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

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

within those zones; 

AND WHEREAS the Board has created zones, named each zone, established boundaries for 

these zones and regulated uses within those zones by Bylaw No. 1888, being the “Regional 

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



may apply for an amendment to a Zoning Bylaw and must consider every application for an 

amendment to the bylaw; 





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

NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan, in open meeting 

assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 

GENERAL 

1. This Bylaw may be cited as “Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333, 2008”. 

2. That that properties legally described as: 

Lot 13, Sec 22, Twp 19, Rge 9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP53741; 

The NE ¼ of Sec 22, Twp 19, Rge 9, W6M, KDYD as shown on Plan of said Twp 

dated at Ottawa the 25 day of October, 1913 said to contain 160 acres more or less; 

The W ½ of the SE ¼ of Sec 27, Twp 19, Rge 9, W6M, KDYD; 

That part of the SE ¼ of Sec 22 Shown on Plan B4968, Twp 19, Rge 9, W6M, 

KDYD, Except Plan KAP53741. 

located at Hadow Road, Electoral Area “F” from Trails at Enderby Comprehensive 

Development Zone (CD.1) to Country Residential Zone (C.R.) and Non-Urban Zone (N.U), 

as shown on Schedule ‘A’ attached to and forming part of this Bylaw 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Bylaw No. 2333, 2008 Page 2 

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

accordingly. 

Read a FIRST and SECOND time this 6th day of April , 2011 

Advertised on 



Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of Section 890 of the Local Government Act on 


Advertised on 


the 10th day of May, 2013 

Second Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of Section 890 of the Local Government 

Act on 


Read a THIRD time this day of , 2013 

APPROVED by Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure 


(Transportation Act, Sec. 52(3)) 

ADOPTED this day of , 2013 

CHAIR 




June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

A. 

PLAN 2 

PLAN 61561 

C.T. 201781-F 

W. 1/4 

F 

KAP451111 

SCHEDULE "A" to accompany the Regional District of North Okanagan "Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333, 2008" ( Rabe) 

Area rezoned from Comprehensive Development Zone (CD.l) to Country Residential (C.R.) shown..... 

Area rezoned from Comprehensive Resort Development (CD.l) to Non Urban (N.U.) shown..... ~ 

~~~J 

I hereby certify this to be a true and correct copy of SCHEDULE "A" attached to and forming part of the Regional District of 

North Okanagan "Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333, 2008" ( Rabe) 

Dated at Coldstream, BC this ____ day of _________ ___J 2011. 

Scale 1:250 

Cotporate Officer 


western water 

ASSOCIATES L TD 

Consultants in Hydrogeology and Water Resources Management 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 

FILE: 12-025-01 

Michael Rabe 

>4f GIU"Jfll DIS nliCI 0F 

N8R TH OKANAGAN 

Dear Mr. Rabe, 

Re: 

Groundwater Evaluation Report to Support Rezoning - Bylaw No. 2332, 2008 and 

Rezoning Bylaw No. 2333, 2008 for the properties lega lly described as: Lot 13, Sec 22, 

Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP53741; The NE 1/4 of Sec 22, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD as shown on Plan of 

said Township dated at Ottawa the 25 day of October, 1913 said to contain 160 acres more or less; The W y, of 

the SE Y. of Sec 27, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD; AND That part of the SE Y. f Sec 22 Show n on Plan 84968, Twp 

19 R9, W6M, KDYD, Except Plan KAP53741 located on Hadow Road, Electoral Area "F" 

Western Water Associates Ltd. (WWAL) is pleased to provide this hydrogeological assessment of a groundwater 

well to support the pending application for rezoning the above mentioned property in Electoral Area "F" of the 

Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO). The legal description of the project site is mentioned above. 

For the current study we evaluate the long term sustainable yield and water quality of a "Subject Well" called 

Well 2, located on the above mentioned property as a means of evaluating the capacity of the aquifer that 

would be used by wells in a potential future subdivision. Herein the above referenced property shall be called 

the "Subject Property". 

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND ST UDY OBJECTIVE 

Mr. Rabe is seeking a change to the RDNO Official Community Plan land use destination from Comprehensive 

Resort Development to Non-Urban and Country Residential for the site listed above. We understand the land 

was originally zoned as Non-Urban and Country Residential prior to 1998 and this hydrogeological report will aid 

in re-instating the original zoning. At this time there is no official plan for subdivision of the property; however, 

our report assumes a future plan to subdivide 15 X 10 acre parcels of land. Our aquifer evaluation was designed 

around this assumed 15 lot design. However, based on the current understanding of the hydrogeology at the 

site, if subdivision approval is sought wells will need to be drilled to confirm the availability of water on 

individual lots. 

The tests and analyses are intended to demonstrate that the aquifer, as indicated by the performance of the 

Subject Well, can provide an adequate amount of water to supply 15 lots with water and the water be potable, 

in keeping with the requirements of RDNO's Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 726. For private domestic water 

sources, the basic requirements of this Bylaw are summarized below from Section 402 of the Bylaw: 

1 All wells must be capable of delivering water at a rate of not less than 1 imperial gallon per minute 

(6,550 litres/day) year-round; and not cause interference with nearby wells and surface water, while 

giving consideration to wells in the area pumping simultaneously; 

I #32- I 0042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V I P6 l P: 1.250. 766.1030 I www.westernwater.ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 

Rabe- Aquifer Assessment for Re-Zoning 2 12-025-01 

2 All quantity and quality testing must be carried out under the superv1s1on of a professional 

hydrogeologist who shall prepare a groundwater report satisfying the requirements of the Bylaw; 

3 The testing of dug wells (which does not apply in this case) must be carried out in the dry months of the 

year (or under frozen ground conditions); and 

4 A water quality sample must be collected and evaluated for potability. 

PREVIOUS AQUIFER TESTING AND WATER SUPPLY REPORTS 

For the current study WWAL reviewed available reports which detail study of the Grandview Bench Area and 

summarizes the conclusions of each reports below. The following reports and resources were reviewed for the 

current study: 

1. B.C. Ministry of Environment Water Resources Atlas and Environment Canada historic climate data; 

2. Aquifer Yield Evaluation- 48 Hour Pump Test, Proposed Gold Course on Hadow Road, Owner: Jutta 

Hockemeyer by Kala Groundwater Consultants Ltd in 1997. 

3. Assessment of Groundwater Availability- Proposed Golf Course Hadow Road Enderby, British Columbia, 

report number 982-4056 submitted to Mrs. Jutta Kockemeyer by Golder Associates May 6, 1998, herein 

referred to as the "Golder report"; 

4. Regional District of North Okanagan- Grandview Bench Water Supply Study, report prepared for RDNO 

by Stantec Consulting Ltd. March 2007, which contains as Appendix A Water Well Baseline Condition 

Survey and Groundwater Resource Assessment Grandview Bench Strategic Water Plan Enderby, British 

Columbia, report number 8840331 prepared for Stantec Consulting March 20, 2007 by EBA, herein 

referred to as the "EBA report"; and 

5. Water Supply Well Testing at 430 Edgar Road, Salmon Arm B.C., report number 9423060 prepared for 

Mr. John Thielman by Golder Associates June 1994 ("Golder 1994"). 

The 1997 Kala Groundwater Consulting Ltd . (Kala) report pertains to the 6" observation well monitored in our 

current study called Well 1. A summary of the pumping test conducted by Kala in 1997 on the 6" observation 

well at the study site is as follows: 

• Well 1 was test pumped by Moore's Well and Pump Service Ltd., wherein it was pumped at a 

rate of 80 Imperial gallons per minute (lgpm) to 85 lgpm for 48 hours. The static water level was 

flowing artesian prior to the test and a total of 52.6 m (172.5 ft) of drawdown was measured at 

the end of the test. The specific capacity of the well was estimated at 0.46 lgpm/ft of drawdown 

and Kala estimated that the "theoretical safe, long-term yield" of the well was approximately 83 

lgpm. 

• Kala concluded that the high flow available from a bedrock well such as Well 1 was due to 

faulting or fracturing in the bedrock and that the fault or fracture system was reasonably 

extensive. However, based on the results of that investigation Kala was not prepared to provide 

an opinion on the possible drawdown interference effects on neighbouring wells due to 

I #32- I 0042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V I P6 I P: 1.250. 766. 1030 I www.westernwater.ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


pumping Weill. No monitoring of water levels in nearby private wells was conducted during this 

test. 

• A sample of the water obtained from Well 1 during the 48-hour aquifer test was submitted for 

chemical analyses. Based on the analyses, Kala concluded that the quality of the water from Well 

1 was poor (high total dissolved solids, sulfate and iron} and would not be suitable for potable 

water without some treatment. However, the water was considered potentially suitable for 

irrigation use. 

In 1998, Golder performed test pumping on the current Subject Well (Well 2} in order to assess the short term 

and long term sustainable yield of the well. The following conclusions were made in the Golder report: 

• Long term (6 months per year} pumping rate for Well 2 (or Well 1 and Well 2 combined} is 5.2 

L/s (70 lgpm}; 

• Short term (7 days, two times per summer} recommended peak pumping rate for Well 2 (or Well 

1 and Well 2 combined} is 9.4 L/s (125 lgpm}; and 

• If wells are used at the recommended short term and long term pumping rates, adverse effects 

to neighbouring wells are unlikely. 

In 2007 EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA} performed a survey of well owners in the Grandview Bench Area 

to assess the baseline conditions of water wells and groundwater resources. The EBA report summarized their 

assessment of the groundwater resources in the Grandview Bench area as follows: 

• Based on information provided by RDNO, 155 properties were identified for this study. Fiftyfour 

property owners returned questionnaires to EBA or confirmed the presence of wells by 

phone. Owners of 101 properties have not replied to EBA's enquiries at the time of writing. 

The reported age of the wells in the area ranges from pre-1950 to 2004 and most wells 

produce less than five gpm from shallow dug wells; 

• EBA identified no underutilized wells in the Subject Property area, although higher-yield 

wells which are not divulged by the owners may be present, or wells with higher production 

reported in the MOE well database may also be present; 

• Based on questionnaire and interview responses, all available water conservation measures 

are being utilized by most Grandview Bench residents; 

• Most owners who responded to the questionnaire reported poor water quality and 

quantity with the main complaints being hard water, low well yields and seasonally dry 

wells; 

• Nine water wells on six separate lots were selected for inspection based on reported yield 

and/or location. Potential sources of groundwater contamination near the wells were 

observed at several locations. Two of the visited sites included spring water sources; 

• Springs and seeps were noted in the Larch Hills cross-country ski area north of the Subject 

Property. Such springs appear to originate from bedrock contacts or faults within the Larch 

Hills area; 

I #32- 10042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V IP6 I P:I.2S0.766. 1030 I www.westernwater.ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


• Artesian conditions may be present in the northeast part of the Subject Property although 

this finding could not be confirmed; 

• Several higher-yield wells are reported in the southeast Subject Property in the Shuswap 

River Valley bottomland; 

• The water source for Violet Creek, located north of the Subject Property, is interpreted to 

originate from groundwater discharge in the Mara Meadows area; 

• Published reports by Golder and Kala indicate two highly productive wells are present 

southwest of Grandview Bench along Hadow Road although these wells were not available 

for inspection as part of this study (these reports were referred to above and relate to the 

current Subject Well - Well 2 and observation well - Well 1); 

• Based on published reports, questionnaire results and MoE driller's logs, a highly 

productive water bearing fault/fracture system may exist on the west side of the study 

boundary; 

• Insufficient information is available to quantify the groundwater recharge and discharge 

areas and volumes for the Subject Property; and 

• Insufficient information is available at present to evaluate the water production potential 

related to the eastern fault area, as no highly productive wells are presently known to have 

been completed along the fault trace. 

NEIGHBOURING WELLS 

We understand the Grandview Bench Area, where the Subject Well is completed, is regarded as groundwater 

limited area. When evaluating the neighbouring wells within an approximate 2 km radius of the Subject Well we 

found 78 well records on the B.C. Water Resources Atlas. The driller estimated yields for these wells are 

summarized in Table 1 below and details regarding the wells are proved in Table 2 attached. It is evident that 

the majority of the wells in the vicinity of the Subject Property yield below 6.3 L/sec (10 US gpm) The Subject 

Well (Well 2) and the observation well, located 14ft from the Subject Well, were both assigned driller estimated 

yields of over 100 USgpm. This high capacity is not the norm for the Grandview Bench Area and we understand 

that a geological fault runs directly through the Subject Property and very close to the Subject Well. 

Table I: Summary of Driller Estimated Yield of Wells 

Within Approximately 2 km of the Subject Well 

Driller Estimated Yield Value 

Total 

(Gal per Minute) 

Count 

0 12 

0.1 to 4 24 

5 to 10 25 

11 to 40 12 

50 to 225 5 

Total 78 

From the BCMoE Water Resources Atlas, 2012. 

I #32- I 0042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V I P6 I P: 1.250. 766.1030 I www.westernwater.ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


Development surrounding the site is generally rural to rural residential. A subdivision consisting of 

approximately 12 lots was completed to the south of the site during the late 1990's. From evaluation of the 

Wells database of the 78 wells in the area there have only been 7 additional wells registered on the Wells 

database since 1998. All homes in the area reportedly obtain water supply from private wells. 

In the current study four neighbouring wells were monitored during test pumping to evaluate the potential for 

well interference. We chose these wells based on locations where well-interference was observed during the 

Golder 1998 study. We infer that all monitored wells are completed in the same bedrock aquifer, B.C. Bedrock 

Aquifer No. 110 Ill B. The following Table 3 is a summary of the monitored neighboring wells: 

Table 3: Summary of Neighbouring Well Details 

Well Owner Name Address Telephone Well Depth Yield Static Water 

Name 1 # m (ft) (IGPM) Level m (ft) 

(April 27 /12) 

W2 Chris Faltin 159 Hadow Rd. 832-1804 134 (440) 2 2.04 (6.68) 

W4 Dennis Hovy 143 Hadow Rd. 832-9630 55 (180) 10 11.7 (38.4) 

W5 Dick Atchison 43 Naylor Rd. 832-8043 52(171 5 8.93 (29.3) 

WPN 29473 Michel Rabe Subject Property 308-6024 44 (144) 15 9.85 (32.3) 

Note 1: See Figure 2 for locations 

WPN 29473 was not in the provincial Wells database at the time of reporting, but was drilled by Dan 

McGiaddery of Dan Gare Drilling, based out of Armstrong, B.C. who provided a well log to WWAL. 

SITE PHYSIOGRAPHY, HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING AND WELL DESCRIPTIONS 

The site consists of a @ acre property located along the north side of Hadow Road, approximately 9 km 

northwest of Enderby, B.C. (Figure 1 and 2). The site is currently undeveloped woodland with rolling to 

moderate relief. Elevations of the site generally fall between 500 metres above sea level (masl) to 600 masl. The 

site is located on the side of the uplands which rise up to the east (Sugarloaf Mountain, elevation 787 masl) and 

to the north (The Larch Hills, elevation 1067 masl). Considering the artesian conditions reported in the on-site 

wells (see following sections), the area is generally recognized as a discharge zone, where recharged water from 

the uplands is discharging to the surface. 

Climate data from Environment Canada indicate an average annual precipitation from a combination of rain and 

snowfall of approximately 531 mm and average annual temperature of 7 degrees Celsius, at the Salmon Arm 

Airport (climate ID 1166R45) based on Canadian Climate Normals (1971 to 2000). The Salmon Arm Airport 

Climate station is located at 527 masl elevation. 

A search of B.C. Ministry of Natural Resources and Operations (MoE) aquifer and water well database indicates 

the entire Subject Property is located above mapped B.C. Bedrock Aquifer No. 110 IIIB (Figure 1 and 2). Bedrock 

Aquifer 110 IIIB occupies an upland area of the Salmon River Valley watershed. The aquifer is classified by MoE 

as having a low demand and low productivity and vulnerability to contamination. 

I #32- I 0042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V I P6 I P: 1.250. 766. 1030 I www.westernwater .ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


Our conceptual model of groundwater flow is as follows: we expect groundwater in the bedrock aquifer to flow 

as a subdued replica of topography, which slopes to the southeast across the site before sloping eastward to the 

Shuswap River. Saltwell Creek cuts across the Subject Property from generally northwest to southeast. Saltwell 

Creek is understood to flow year round. 

Bedrock in the area of the site is granite or granodiorite according to Geological Survey of Canada Map 1059A. 

Bedrock to the east is mapped as sedimentary to meta-sedimentary rock including limestone, sericite schist and 

graphite schist. The geologic mapping indicates that a fault transects the property from northwest to southeast, 

as shown on Figure 1. 

Subject Well Description 

A 150 mm diameter test well was drilled at the site in 1997, this well (Well 1, WTN 76563) was drilled by 

Cascade Drilling Ltd. at the location shown on Figure 2. At the Weill location, 3.7 m (12ft.) of overburden was 

encountered which was underlain by bedrock. The well was completed in the bedrock at a total depth of 109.7 

m (360ft.). Water bearing fractures were reported between depths of 106.7 and 109.7 m. The static water level 

in the well at the time of drilling was above the drill casing and flowing at 0.38 L/s (6 USgpm). The well was airlifted 

by the driller and rated at 10.2 L/s (162 USgpm). 

It is understood that a second test well (Well 2, WTN 76702), was drilled at the direction of Mrs. Hockemeyer, 

the mother of Mr. Rabe, in order to yield additional quantities of water from the area of Well 1, where high 

yields were available. Well 2 was larger in diameter and consisted of a 200 mm diameter well drilled 

approximately 4.3 m (14ft) southwest of Well 1. This well was also drilled by Cascade Drilling Ltd. in 1998 and 

encountered similar overburden/bedrock geology as was present at Well 1. Well 2 was also completed in the 

bedrock, at a depth of 109.7 m (360ft.). The main water bearing fracture in Well 2 was reported at a depth of 

97.Sm (320 ft.). The static water level in the well at the time of drilling was above the drill casing, although the 

flowing rate was not recorded. The well was air-lifted and hence rated by the driller at 12.5 L/s (198 USgpm). 

Considering the high yields available from Weill and Well 2, and given that they are completed in bedrock, it is 

considered likely that these wells intersect fracturing associated with the fault in this area (Figure 1). 

PUMPING T EST MET HODS 

To assess the long term sustainable yield of the Subject Well WWAL undertook the test pumping program 

described below. Max Schibli of Monashee Aquifer Testing (qualified pump installer I.D. # WPI 05102905) of 

Lumby, B.C. was retained to complete the pumping test program. 

Test pumping was conducted on Well 2 (WTN 76702) with Well 1(WTN 76563), located 4.3 m (14.1 ft) used as 

the observation well. A 72 hour constant rate test was performed between May 1 and May 4, 2012. The well 

was equipped with a temporary test pump powered by a diesel fuel generator. The test pump was installed at a 

depth of 54.86 m (180ft). 

Both pumping and observation wells had dedicated sounding tubes installed and water level measurements 

were collected with an electric well sounder to the nearest 0.1 ft. 




June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


Flow was controlled with a gate valve on the discharge head and measured using an in-line flow meter. 

Discharge water was routed approximately 100 m from each well to a low lying area to the east of the Subject 

Well and allowed to infiltrate into the forest floor. 

During the test, cascading water was noted within an estimate 3.7 m (12ft) of the top of the well casing. This we 

interpreted to be the result of there likely being no surface seal installed around the well casing. This seal was 

not required when the well was originally drilled, but current groundwater protection regulations require seals. 

See Recommendations below for further discussion. 

PUMPING TEST RESULTS 

To interpret the test pumping results, we processed raw pumping test data into a series of graphs and analyzed 

the data (see Figures A1 through A4 within Appendix A attached). The analysis included well and aquifer 

hydraulics in order to estimate aquifer properties and to assess whether the aquifer's productivity is sufficient 

for the intended use. Using provincial guidelines outlined in the document "Evaluating long-term well capacity 

for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)" developed by the Water Management Branch, B.C. 

Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks (1999). 

The available drawdown in the well is defined here as the difference between the dominate water bearing 

fracture at 96 m (320 ft), (from the well log) and the static water level, or approximately 1.01 m (3.3 ft). 

Drawdown at the end of the test was 27.32 m {89.6 ft) or about 30% of the total available drawdown. Based on 

the test flow rate of 190 L/min (SO USgpm), approximately 273,600 litres of water were withdrawn from the well 

during the test, ~hich is 2.8 more than the Bylaw minimum of 6,550 litres X 15 = 98,250 litres for a 24 hour 

period for 15 lots. Further, the well was able is estimated to produce at a sustainable rate of 303 L/min (80 

USgpm). 

Following completion of the pumping test, the water level in the well recovered as expected for a bedrock 

aquifer, after a week of recovery the well was virtually 100% fully recovered. This recovery following pumping is 

a favourable as it appear the aquifer recharging at a sufficient rate to allow for recovery at our tested pumping 

rate 189 L/min (50 USgpm). Overall, based on these test conditions and results, the well is capable of meeting 

the Bylaw requirement of 6,550 litres per day for at a minimum for 15 single homes. 

The current assessment of the Bedrock Aquifer llOIIIB transmissivity was assessed using the Cooper-Jacob 

straight line Recovery assessment and was estimated at 1.64 X 10' 5 m 2 /s. This result is of the same order as the 

latter time period estimate of transmissivity made by Golder in 1998 of 8. X 10' 5 m 2 /s but an order of magnitude 

lower that the transmissivity estimated from the 1998 recovery data. We feel our 1.6 X 10 - 5 m 2 /s estimate is 

representative of Bedrock Aquifer 11011B. 

Potential for Sessional Effects on Water Levels 

The drawdown test was conducted in the spring, when the bedrock aquifer water levels may be beginning to see 

recharge from freshet waters. However, monitoring of the observation wells listed in Table 3 showed no 

significant increase in the thickness of the confined or semi-confined bedrock aquifer (the piezometric surface 

remained in steady state over the test pumping period). These conditions are considered appropriate for 

I #32- I 0042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Ca nada, V4V I P6 I P: 1.250. 766. 1030 I www.westernwate r.ca I 


14 May 2012 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 


estimating well capacity and our assessment accounts for times of the year when water levels are still lower 

and/or when demands on the aquifer are higher. 

Potential for Well Interference 

The water level in the neighbouring wells (see Table 3) were measured seven times between April 27 and May 4, 

2012. When the pumping of these supply wells was taken into condensation the measurements showed no 

downward trend, which would be expected if well interference was occurring. 

Water Balance as Presented in Golder 1998 

Golder conducted a preliminary water balance analysis to assess total withdrawals from the Bedrock Aquifer 

llOIIIB relative to total estimated recharge and that estimate is summarized below. The estimated recharge 

area for the aquifer in the area of the Saltwell Creek watershed (extending north to the Larch Hills) is 

approximately 850 ha. Given that annual precipitation in the area of the site in the order of 500 mm/yr {531 

mm/yr at Salmon Arm) and that the recharge rate to the bedrock aquifer (based on literature values) is 

estimated at 2% of the annual precipitation (or 0.01 m/y), the total recharge volume to the area is estimated at 

85,000 m 3 /yr. 

To estimate potential withdrawals from Bedrock Aquifer 110111B , it is assumed that 100 residences draw 300 

lgpd each for domestic use. The actual number of homes in the area may be less than 100, however, this allows 

for some ongoing development. Based on these assumptions, the withdrawal from the aquifer for domestic use 

is approximately 50,000 m 3 /yr 

Considering this water balance analysis, there would be approximately 35,000 m 3 /yr available for other uses 

including sustaining water levels in the aquifer and enabling groundwater to continue to discharge to the valley 

bottom. Note that this recharge estimate is based on limited information and the above assumptions. It is only 

intended to provide a preliminary estimate of a water balance and provide an indication that large surpluses of 

water are not present in a bedrock aquifer. Only a more detailed regional hydrogeological assessment can 

provide a better estimate of recharge and water balance for the aquifer. 

Well 2 (WTN76702) Lack of Surface Seal 

During recovery of the well after test pumping we observed cascading water, at approximately 5 USgpm, from 

the shallow surficial aquifer associated with Saltwell Creek into Well 2 at the overburden - bedrock interface 

where the surface casing was apparently not drilled into competent bedrock and also, a surface seal outside the 

well casing was not completed. We have recommended to Mr. Rabe that Well 2 be retrofit with an adequate 

surface seal to correct the deficiency in the well construction. If the deficiency cannot be corrected we 

recommend that the well be closed according to the B.C. Groundwater Protection Regulation. Well 2 did not 

show the same deficiency in well construction. Although the 5 US gpm of contribution from the cascading water 

skewed the pumping test results slightly (because the test was intended to test only the bedrock aquifer, not the 

combined deep and shallow aquifers), it is WWAL's opinion that the overall pumping test results are 

representative. 

I #32- I 0042 Main Street, lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V I P6 I P: 1.250. 766.1030 I www.westernwater.ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 

Table 4 provides a summary of the water quality results compared to water quality guidelines. Complete 

laboratory reports are provided as an attachment. For our water quality assessment, we define the term 

potability as water which is pure enough and of sufficient quality to be consumed or used with low risk of 

immediate or long term harm. With respect to evaluation against the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water 

Quality (GCDWQ - Health Canada 2009), potable water meets all health-based Maximum Allowable 

Concentrations. In samples where parameters are found to exceed only Aesthetic Objectives, the water is 

considered to be potable but treatment may be desired to address taste or odour concerns. The bedrock 

groundwater sampled at Well 2 indicated the following water quality exceedances compared to the GCDWQ: 

• Health Based Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MACs) 

Fluoride 1.54 (MAC = 1.5 mg/1), Turbidity 5 NTU (below 1 NTU) 

• Aesthetic Objectives 

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS}, Sulfate, Total Calcium, Total Iron and Total Manganese 

Iron and manganese were measured at concentrations which exceeded their respective aesthetic objectives. 

Iron and manganese are very common aesthetic issues in groundwater supplies, and when present at 

concentrations above their guideline values, may cause staining of laundry and plumbing fixtures and may have 

an unpleasant taste to some consumers. Although there is no AO for hardness, the water from the well is 

considered very hard and most consumers would likely soften water prior to using. In addition, the total 

dissolved solids (TDS) content exceeded the AO of 500 mg/L. TDS indicates the degree of mineralization in the 

water supply; in this case, the concentration may affect the palatability of the water such that some treatment 

prior to consumption may be desirable. 

Fluoride slightly exceeded the MAC of 1.5 mg/L. Commercial home water treatment systems are readilyavailable 

to soften water and reduce all the parameters discussed to below Guideline levels. When properly 

maintained and operated the treatment systems can be expected to reduce concentrations to below Guideline 

levels. For private wells, selection, operation and maintenance of such systems are the homeowner's 

responsibility. Additional water quality testing prior to treatment system installation and after installation is 

typically required, using the initial sampling results as a guide and starting point to system design. 




June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


Table 4: 

Groundwater Quality Summary. 

Well 2 (3-May-12) 

Parameter Units GCDWQ 

pH pH units 7.6 AO= 6.5 - 8.5 

Conductivity us/em 2150 

ORP 

mV 

UV Transmittance %@254nm 90.1 

Turbidity NTU 5.2 Varies 

Temperature 

celsius 

General Parameters and Nutrients 

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 1860 AO


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Based on the results of our assessment we offer the following conclusions: 

C I Our assessment of groundwater availability (i.e. quantity) for the proposed rezoning is favourable. 

Based on the results of a pumping test program we conclude that the bedrock aquifer supplying the 

Subject Well can meet the Bylaw requirement of 6,550 L/day year-round for an estimated 15 homes 

which could be developed on the Subject Property. Our conclusion takes into account the potential for 

well interference with nearby wells, as well as seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels. However, 

based on the current understanding of the hydrogeology at the site, if subdivision approval is sought 

wells will need to be drilled to confirm the availability of water at all potential lots, as individual well 

yields in bedrock aquifers can be expected to vary. 

C2 Evaluation of water quality samples collected indicates the water slightly exceeds the GCDWG MAC of 

fluoride and the groundwater is highly mineralized. 

Based on the above conclusions, the following recommendations are made: 

R I Well 2 be retrofit with an adequate surface seal to correct the deficiency in the well construction. If the 

deficiency cannot be corrected we recommend that the well be closed according to the B.C. 

Groundwater Protection Regulation. 

R2 An in-home water treatment specialist should be contacted if treatment to address the health based 

and aesthetic parameters is desired. Water quality should be re-asse ssed by the home owner following 

installation of the water treatment system to ensure effectiveness. 

Rl Measure the depth to water regularly through the year including in late spring, mid to late summer, and 

twice during the winter. Conserve water and avoid using the well for outside water uses, especially 

during the dry months of the year. 

R4 Chlorinate the well at least once per year, ideally in late spring following snowmelt. Allow the chlorine 

to sit overnight and then run household taps until the chlorine smell in the water dissipates. 

RS If a bedrock well is drilled in future, locate it along the mapped trace of the fault as shown on Figure 2 to 

maximize the potential well yield and available drawdown. 

WELL OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES 

In November 2005 a new regulation was enacted in British Columbia intended to improve the safety and quality 

of groundwater in the Province. The Groundwater Protection Regulation (BC Reg 299/2004} established 

standards to protect groundwater supplies by requiring all water wells in British Columbia be properly 

co nstructed, maintained and, at the end of their service, properly deactivated. More specifically, wells 

constructed after November 1, 2005, must meet minimum construction standards including incorporation of a 

su rface annular seal, a minimum of 30 em casing stickup [above existing or modified ground surface], 

appropriate drainage away from the well, and completion with a secure well cap plus well identification plate. 

The new regulations do not replace the existing requirement to maintain a well at 30 m setback distance from a 

septic field and tank. Once installed, responsibility for the well transfers to the owner to maintain the casing 

I #32- 10042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V IP6 I P:l.250.766.1030 I www.westernwater.ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


stickup, surface drainage away from the well, secure cap and well identification plate. This includes maintaining 

the surface annular seal, if a pitless adapter is installed. 

With regard to water quality and private well water treatment, as noted above, this is the homeowner's 

responsibility as the Ministry of Health does not regulate private water sources. 

Finally, the Groundwater Protection Regulation says that all work on the well must be undertaken by a qualified 

well driller (QWD) or qualified pump installer (QPI}. Registered QPI and QWD have identification cards issued by 

the BC MNRO and a list of such qualified professionals in maintained on line by the MNRO at: 

http://www .env .gov .bc.ca/wat/gws/a ppl ications/pdfs/ 

CLOSURE 

We trust that the professional opinions and advice presented in this document are sufficient for your current 

requirements. Please note that there are restrictions and limitations that apply to the scope of our services and 

conclusions provided herein, as outlined on the attached Standard Report Limitations page. Should you have 

any questions, or if we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact the undersigned. 

WESTERN WATER ASSOCIATES LTD. 

Reviewed by 

Bryer Manwell, M.Sc., P.Eng. 

Hydrogeologist 

Douglas J. Geller, M.Sc., P .Geo. 

Senior Hydrogeologist 

Attachments: 

Table 2, Well Logs, Appendix A: Pump test data and graphs; Laboratory WQ report 




June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

14 May 2012 


REFERENCES 

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks. 1999. Allen, D., A. Badry, B. lngimundson, G. 

Wendling, B. Worobets, and N. Morrison. Evaluating long-term well capacity for a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity. 

British Columbia Ministry of Environment {MoE). 2012. Water Resources Atlas accessed on-line at: 

http://www .env.gov. bc.ca/wsd/ data_searches/wrbc/ 

EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. {EBA). 2007 D Water Well Baseline Condition Survey and Groundwater 

Resource Assessment Grandview Bench Strategic Water Plan Enderby, British Columbia, report number 

8840331 prepared for Stantec Consulting March 20, 2007 

Golder Associates. 1994. Water Supply Well Testing at 430 Edgar Road, Salmon Arm B.C., report number 

9423060 prepared for Mr. John Thielman by Golder Associates June 1994 {"Golder 1994"). 

Golder Associates. 1998 Assessment of Groundwater Availability- Proposed Golf Course Hadow Road Enderby, 

British Columbia, report number 982-4056 submitted to Mrs. Jutta Kockemeyer May 6,1998. 

Health Canada 2012. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality Accessed on-line at: http:/ /www.hcsc.gc. 

ca/ ewh-semt/ pu bs/water-ea u/ sum _guide-res_recom/i nd ex-eng. php 

Kala Groundwater Consultants. 1997. Aquifer Yield Evaluation- 48 Hour Pump Test, Proposed Gold Course on 

Hadow Road, Owner: Jutta Hockemeyer. 

Stantec Consultants Ltd. {Stantec). 2007. District of North Okanagan - Grandview Bench Water Supply Study, 

report prepared for RDNO, March 2007. 

I #32- I 0042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V I P6 I P: 1.250. 766.1030 I www.westernwate r.ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

I ' 

• 

Legend 

e BC MoE Registered Wells 

(from the Water Resources Atlas) 

f_ 

• 

. 

• • 

•• 

\ 

-' 

• 

' 

• • 

Rabe Property Boundary 

• • 

•• • 

• • • 

• • . 

. 

·.... 

~ 

• , 

• 

• 

. . 

• 

•' 

abe Well2 

\pumped) 

and Weill, 

Should be shown on 

the east side of 

Saltwell Creek 

·' 

• 

• 

......-... 

. 

• • • 

•• •• • 

•.. • 

• 

• 

• .. 

• • 

•• . • 

TITlE 

• 

.. .. 

• 

• • 

• 

• ; 

,'L 

'·" 

• 

~ 

. 

• • 

• 

•• 

., 

• 

.• 

• 

.... • 

.• 

... 

• • 

..• 

::.r :. 

. 

••• 

'· 

• 

Om 

. 

. ~ 

. 

• 

. 

. 

. :' 

'" " r 

( . 

.. 

. 

' 

I 

. 

.. .... . 

1 

.- ,. r· 

.t, • 

: ..,. .. 

., ,~ 

• 

.. 

•• 

. 

•• 

,;. 

.. . 

-.. • 

. 

.... , . 

325m 650m 

1 • 

·~! · 

Rabe Property showing BC MoE Registered Wells , near Grinrod, B.C. 

12-025-01 

~ ~ 

west e r , water 

na 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Legend 

• 

Approximate location of wells '' Approximate location of 

monitored during current study ' mapped fault 

TITl.E 

Site Plan Rabe Property , near Enderby, B.C. 

~ ~ 

western water 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Table 2 Summary of BC MoE Wells in the Area 

Depth Artesian Aquifer 

Water Well Yield Value ConstructionD Flow Lithology Bedrock 

Well No. Well Tag Number Depth (ft) Drilled (ft) (Usgpm) ate (Gal.min) Code Diameter Depth (ft) 

1 43057 4 126 225 31-Jul-79 UNC 7.0 

2 Well 2 -76702 360 165 02-Mar-98 8 12 

3 Well1 - 76563 360 135 12-May-97 5 BED 6 12 

4 43058 5 132 62 31-Jul-79 UNC 4.5 130 

5 43050 5 90 50 31-Jul-79 UNC 0.0 82 

6 39285 26 115 40 19-Feb-78 UNC 4.5 

7 63209 40 75 35 03-Sep-87 UNC 7.0 0 

8 63203 25 96 30 09-0ct-96 UNC 6.0 0 

9 63199 72 200 25 10-Apr-95 UNC 6.0 106 

10 85586 30 180 20 31-Mar-04 BED 6 53 

11 23813 155 20 31-Jul-70 UNC 4.5 

12 36198 80 145 20 31-Dec-76 UNC 5.5 

13 62511 40 100 20 03-0ct-91 BED 6.0 92 

14 62506 30 60 20 16-Aug-93 UNC 6.0 

15 11957 276 373 15 15-Jun-97 

16 40460 105 155 15 27-Aug-78 UNC 4.5 

17 59620 80 265 12 25-Mar-91 UNC 6.0 

18 94853 34 360 10 26-Jul-08 BED 78 

19 62508 70 340 10 12-Jul-92 BED 6.0 320 

20 63200 300 10 24-Apr-95 UNC 6.0 106 

21 62509 25 260 10 28-Jun-91 BED 6.0 241 

22 62510 260 10 13-Jun-91 BED 0.0 200 

23 82615 20 200 10 14-Sep-03 6 

24 62507 180 10 28-Apr-92 BED 6.0 170 

25 31583 60 10 3 1-0ct-74 UNC 5.5 

26 85554 20 57 10 13-Aug-97 UNC 6 

27 8289 53 10 31-Dec-49 UNC 4.5 

28 43564 44 160 9 30-Sep-79 UNC 4.5 157 

29 13858 41 522 8 30-Sep-06 58 

30 47869 400 8 04-May-81 BED 6 .0 0 

31 50903 38 80 8 0 1-Sep-82 UNC 7.0 

32 45071 35 380 6 18-May-80 BED 7.0 15 

33 62831 200 6 13-Jun-91 UNC 200 

34 62512 126 156 6 15-Sep-91 UNC 0.0 

35 69926 54 100 6 25-0ct-93 5 

36 85061 172 203 5 17-Sep-92 6 

37 53227 31 109 5 31-Dec-83 UNC 5.0 

38 24467 40 96 5 31 -Dec-70 UNC 0.0 

39 68056 41 79 5 21-0ct-93 6 

40 9279 40 60 5 31-Dec-49 UNC 4.5 

41 8279 10 45 5 31-Dec-49 UNC 4.5 

42 8284 40 5 31-Dec-49 UNC 4.5 

43 13862 49.6 521 4 26-Sep-06 10 

44 21927 103 4 31-0ct-68 UNC 4.5 

45 23359 53 4 10-Mar-70 UNC 4.5 

46 37784 27 4 29-Jul-77 UNC 6.0 

47 30249 130 175 3.5 30-Apr-74 UNC 4.5 158 

48 76562 30 700 3 06-May-97 6 8 

49 69930 32 540 3 15-Mar-92 6 

50 29670 46 120 3 31-Dec-73 UNC 4.5 

51 21926 100 3 31 -0ct-68 UNC 4.5 

52 62469 66 100 3 31-May-86 UNC 6 

53 82862 148 2.8 12-Feb-90 6.00 25 

54 82952 180 2.5 07-Jun-94 6 28 

55 53232 100 440 2.2 31-Dec-83 BED 6.0 2 

56 38184 390 2 14-Sep-77 BED 7.0 50 

57 25327 29 39 2 31-Aug-71 UNC 0.0 

58 63201 12 500 1 04-May-95 BED 6.0 17 

59 90140 140 402 1 05-Dec-06 11 1 

60 37216 360 1 16-May-77 BED 6.0 142 

61 76256 36 103 1 08-Jul-98 6.75 

62 32906 60 1 06-Jul-75 UNC 0.0 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

63 63202 285 500 0.5 26-Apr-95 UNC 6.0 87 

64 61352 70 200 0.5 17-0ct-91 BED 6.0 40 

65 39154 50 103 0.5 15-Jan-78 UNC 6.0 

66 82616 33 200 0.1 08-Aug-01 6 

67 82283 700 0 28-Sep-98 6.00 690 

68 62513 380 0 25-Nov-87 UNC 6.0 

69 37222 320 0 17-May-77 BED 6.0 122 

70 29669 250 0 31 -Dec-73 UNC 0.0 

71 43054 225 0 3 1-Jul-79 UNC 0.0 220 

72 35613 205 0 31-Aug-76 UNC 0.0 

73 35814 127 0 30-Sep-76 UNC 0.0 

74 43055 120 0 31-Jul-79 UNC 0.0 

75 18211 70 0 31 -Aug-63 BED 0.0 14 

76 631 98 33 0 04-Aug-95 UNC 6.0 3 1 

77 2560 10 0 31-Dec-44 UNC 0.0 

78 9280 2 8 0 31 -Dec-49 UNC 0.0 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

"db BRITISH 

~ (OWMBIA 

Report 1 • Detailed Well Record 

Well Tag Number: 76563 

Owner: HOCKEMEYER 

Addr ess: HADOW RD 

Area: ENDERBY 

WELL LOCATION : 

KI\MLOOPS (KDYD) Land Dist ric t 

District Lot: Plan: Lot: 

TO\-tnship: 19 Section : 22 Range: 9 

Indian Reserve: Meridian: Block: 

Quarter: 

Island: 

BCGS Number (NI\D 27): 082L065132 Wel l: 13 

Class of Well: 

Subclass of Well: 

Orienta t i on of Well: 

Status of Well: New 

Well Use: Irrigat ion 

Observation Well Number: 

Observation Well St a t us: 

Construct ion Method: Drilled 

Diameter : 6 inches 

Casing drive shoe : 

Well Depth : 360 feet 

Elevation : feet {AS L} 

F'inaJ Casing Stick Up : inches 

Well Cap Type: 

Be drock Depth: 12 feet 

Lithology Info Flag: Y 

Fi le I n f o Flag: N 

Si eve Info Flag : N 

Screen Info Flag: N 

Construction Date: 1997-05-13 00:00 : 00 . 0 

~ 

!:iller : Cascade Drilling 

11 Identification P l ate Number: 

ate Attached By: 

ere Plate Attached: 

PRODUCTION DATA AT TIME OF DRILLING : 

Well Yield : 135 (Driller's Estimate) Imperial Gal lons per Minute 

Development Method: 

Pump 'l'est Info f'lag : Y 

Artesian Flow : 5 Imperial Gallons per Minute 

Artesian Pressure (ft): 

Static Level: 

IWATER QUAL ITY: 

Character : 

Colour : 

Odour: 

Well Disinfected: N 

EMS ID: 

Wa ter Chemistry Info Flag : N 

Field Chemistry lnf o Flag: 

Sl te lnfo (SEAM): N 

Water Utility: N 

Water Supply System Name: 

Water Supply System Well Name: 

SURF/ICE SEAL: 

lag: N 

~ 

jterial: 

thod: 

pth (ft): 

l.Ckness (in): 

L CLOSURE INFORMATION : 

son Fo r Closure : 

Site Info Details : hod of Closure : 

Other I n f o Flag : sure Sealant Material : 

[other I nfo Deta ils: sure Backfi ll Material : 

If=========================================================== 

[screen from 

to feet 

~ ~ 

asing from 

0 

GENERAL REMARKS: 

HANOVERIAN ESTATES GOLF 

to fee t 

13 

COURSE. WELL !l. 

=a=i=l=s=o~f =C=l=o=s=u=r=e='====================================================== 

Type 

Slot Si ze 

Diame ter 

6. 63 

0 

Material 

null 

Drive Sho 

null 

ITHOLOGY lNFORMA'J'ION: 

Fr om 0 to 12 F't . OVERBURDEN 0 nothing entered 0 nothing ente~ed 0 nothing entered 

From 12 to 360 Ft. BEDROCK 0 nothing entered 0 nothing entered 0 nothing entered 

From t o Ft. WELL WAS RETESTED BY AIRLIFT FOR A TOTAL 6.5 fiRS; COMPLETED MI\R 4/98 @ 135 GPM. 

• Return to Matn 

0 nothing ent ered 0 nothing enl 

• Return to Search Options 

• Return to Search Crllena 

Information Disclaimer 

The Province disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy of information provided. 

Information provided should not be used as a basis for making financial or any other 

commitments. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Well Tag Numbe r : 76702 

Owner: J UTTA HOCKEMEYER 

Address: HADOW RD 

v.~ BRITISH 

~COLUMBIA 

Report 1 - Detailed Well Record 

Construction Date: 1998- 03- 03 00:00 : 00 . 0 

Drill er: Cascade Drilling 

Well I dentificat ion Plate Number: 

Plate Attached By: 

Where Plate Allached: 

. . 

. . 

Area: ENDERBY 

WELL LOCATION: 

KAMLOOPS (KDYD) Land District 

District Lot : Plan: Lot : 

To wnship : 19 Sect ion: 22 Range: 9 

Indian Reserve: Meridian: Block: 

Quarter: 

Island: 

BCGS Number (NAD 27) : 082L065l32 Well: 15 

Class of Well: 

Subcl ass of Well: 

Orientation of Well : 

St atus of Well: New 

Well Use : Irrigation 

Observation Well Number: 

Obser vation Well Status: 

Construclion Method: Drilled 

Diameter: 8 i nches 

Casing drive shoe: 

Well Depth: 360 feet 

Elevation : feet (ASL) 

Final Casing Stick Up : inches 

Well Cap Type: 

Bedrock Depth : 12 feet 

Lithology Info Flag: Y 

File Info Flag: N 

Sieve I nfo Flag: N 

Screen Info Flag: N 

Site I nfo Details : 

Other Info Flag: 

Other Info Details: 

Screen from 

0 

0 

Casing from 

0 

t o feet 

0 

0 

to feet 

16 

GENERAL REMARKS: 

HANOVERI AN ESTATES GOLF COURSE . WELL #2. 

PRODUCTION DATA AT TIME OF DRI LLING: 

Well Yield: 165 (Driller' s Estimat e) Gallons per Minule (U.S./Imperial) 

Development Method: 

Pump Test Info Flag: Y 

Artesian Flow: 

Artesian Pressure ( f t) : 

Static Level: 

WATER QUALITY: 

Char acter: 

Colour: 

Odour: 

Well Disinfected: N 

EMS ID : 

Water Chemistry Info Flag: N 

Field Chemistry Info Flag: 

Site Info (SEAM) : N 

Water Utility: N 

Water Supply System Name: 

Water Supply System Well Name : 

SURFACE SEAL : 

Flag: N 

Material: 

Method: 

Depth (ft) : 

Thickness (in) : 

WELL CLOSURE INFORMATION : 

Re ason For Closure: 

Method of Closure : 

Closure Seal ant Material: 

Closure Backfill Material: 

Details of Closure : 

Type 

Diameler 

8 . 63 

Slot Size 

0 

0 

Material 

null 

Dr ive Shoe 

null 

LITHOLOGY INFORMATION: 

Fr om 0 to 12 Ft . OVERBURDEN 0 nothing entered 0 nothi ng entered 0 nothing entered 

From 12 to 360 Ft. BEDROCK 0 nothing entered 0 nothing entered 0 nothing enter ed 

From to Ft . MAIN WATER BEARING FRACTURE 320 ' . 0 nothing entered 0 nothing entered 0 nothing entered 

• Return to Mam 

• Return to Search Options 

• Return to Search Criteria 

Information Disclaimer 

The Province disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy of information provided. 

Information provided should not be used as a basis for making financial or any other 

commitments. 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Appendix A 

Pumping Test Data and Graphs 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

A 

western water 

.,.•"' IISSOCitiTES LTD 

Consul! on Is 1n Hydrogeology ond Woler Resources Monogemenl 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Trme smce Water level Water level Specific Capacity 

Comments Real Time pump measurement measurement Water level Drawdown Drawdown Pumpmg Rate Pump1ng Rate 

started t (bloc) (It) (bloc) (m) change s (m) (It) (m) (1/s) (USgpm) 

(mrnutcs) 

L/s/m USgpm/ft 

western water 

ASSOCIAIES LTD 

Consultants rn Hydrogeology ond Woler Resources Management 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

A 

western water 

y.._'\. ASSOCIAl f S lTD 

Consullonts in Hydrogeology ond Woler Resources Monogemenl 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Time Since Water level Water level Specific Capacity 

Comments Real Time pump measurement measurement Water level Drawdown Drawdown Pump1ng Rate Pump1ng Rate 

started. t (bloc) (ft) (bloc) (m) change s (m) (ft) (m) (1/s) (USgpm) 

(m1nutes) 

Uslm 

USgpm/ft 

western water 

ASSOCIAI [ S l TD 

Consultants 1n Hydrogeology ond Woter llesourr.cs Management 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

0.00 

static water level = 1.01 m btoc 

5.00 

I 

- 

Qj 

... 

"' 

10.00 

~ 

s 

.s 15.00 

Q. 

Qj 

0 

Note, the observation well is located 14ft 

from the Pumping Well. 

20.00 

25.00 

total pumping well depth = 110m 

30.00 

0 2,000 

4,000 

6,000 8,000 10,000 

12,000 14,000 

16,000 

Elapsed Time [minutes] 

Hadow Road, · 

~ ~Y"s~~t~rn ~a!e~ 

Cornuttonle •n Hvdrogeology and Wa1er ResourCft Monag&mont 

TITLE 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

REVIEWED 

3.15 L/sec (50 USgpm) Constant Rate Test Rabe Well 2 (WTN 76702) May 1 to 4, 2012 

BRM 

DATE 

7 Ma 2012 

JOB NO. 

12-025-01 

RR 

SCALE na DWG. NO. na 

FILE NO. FIGURE NO. A1 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

0.00 

100 Days 

10.00 

20.00 

I 30.00 

c: 

~ 

0 

~ 

~ 40.00 

.... 

111 

0 

50.00 

60.00 

70.00 

80.00 

CPCN Sustainable Yield Calculation 

yield= (0.7)*(available drawdown)*(pumping rate/100 day 

drawdown) 

yield= (0.7)*(96 m -l.Olm)*(3.15 L/sec/(42 m)) 

yield = 5 L/sec (80 US gpm) 

90.00 

1 10 

100 

1,000 10,000 

100,000 1,000,000 

Elapsed Time [minutes] 

Hadow Road 

/::-- ~ ~este , rn, [wa!~~ 

Consunonts tn HydrooeoJogv and Woter Resources Monooemttnl 

TITLEDrawdown Vs Elapsed Time- 72 Hour, 3.15 L/sec (50 USgpm) Constant Rate Test Rabe Well2 -pumping well 

(WTN 76702), May 1 to 4,2012 

DRAWN 

DATE 

JOBND. 

BRM 

7 Ma 2012 11-053-01 

CHECKED 

SCALE 

RR 

na OWG. NO. na 

REVIEWED FILE NO. FIGURE NO. 

A2 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Figure AJ Well 2 Derivative Hydrograph 

10 ~--------------------------------------------------------------~ 

c 

3: 

0 

"C 

3: 

ca 

~ 

c 

Ill- 

.. 

0 

C1) 

> 

ca 

> 

'i: 

C1) 

c 

.. 

rn 

~ 

C) 

0 

..J 

1 

0.1 

radial flow period identified as the time interval 

where the derivative is mostly flat. ---------------------- 

~- ----- ------- 

• 

• • 

l 

I 

I 

I 

-J, 

• 

rising derivative, possi 

negative boundary 

effect 

0.01 

1 

10 

100 

1000 10000 

Log Time (minutes) 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Figure A4 Courper-Jacob Stright-Line Ayalysis of Rcovery Data [t/(t-toff)] 

90.00 ,---- ---- ----.-------------,----------r-----------, 

T = 2.303*Q/4Pi()*l/dels 

= 2.303*SOUSgpm/4*P()*l/(68-32) 

80.00 = 0.26 USgpm/ft 

50.00 +--------~----1------l---------+-----------l 

40.00 +-----------:--~---------lf-----------+----------1 

30.00 +--------+-+----------+--------+----------1 

20.00 +-----------,,__---+------------1---------+--------~ 

10.00 +--~~-------1-----------+---------+----------1 

1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS 

CARC) 

ANALYTICAL SERVICES 

CLIENT 

Western Water Associates Ltd 

#32 - 10042 Main Street 

Lake Country BC 

V4V 1P6 

TEL 

FAX 

1-250-766-1030 

ATTENTION 

Bryer Manwell 

RECEIVED / TEMP 

REPORTED 

coc #(s) 

May-03-12 15:30 / 10.0 oc 

May-07-12 

31798 

WORK ORDER 

PROJECT 

PROJECT INFO 

2050232 

Comprehensive - Bryer Manwell 

Rabe: Aquifer Assessment 12-025-01 

General Comments: 

CARO Analytical Services employs methods which are based on those found in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water 

and Wastewater", 21st Edition, 2005, published by the American Public Health Association (APHA); US EPA protocols found in "Test 

Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW846", 3rd Edition; protocols published by the British Columbia 

Ministry of Environment (BCMOE); and/or CCME Canada-wide Standard Reference methods. 

Methods not described in these publications are 

and/or are done in accordance with recognized 

efforts except where otherwise agreed to by the client. 

conducted according to procedures accepted 

professional standards using accepted testing 

by appropriate regulatory agencies, 

methodologies and quality control 

The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report 

must be reproduced in its entirety. CARO is not responsible for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from error or 

omission in the conduct of testing. Liability is limited to the cost of analysis. Samples will be disposed of 30 days after the test 

report has been issued unless otherwise agreed to in writing. 

• All solids results are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted 

• Units: 

mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram, equivalent to parts per million (ppm) 

mg/L = milligrams per litre, equivalent to parts per million (ppm) 

ug/ L = micrograms per litre, equivalent to parts per billion (ppb) 

ug/ g = micrograms per gram, equivalent to parts per million (ppm) 

ug/ m3 = micrograms per cubic meter of air 

11 

• RDL" 

• 11


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

SAMPLE DATA 

CARC) 


CLIENT 

PROJECT 



WORK ORDER# 

REPORTED 

2050232 

May-07-12 

Analyte 

Result 

Canadian OW 

Guideline 

(Dec 10} 

RDL Units 

Prepared 

Analyzed 

Notes 

General Parameters 

Well 2 (Pumping Well} (2050232-01} Matrix: Water Sampled: May-03-1211:00 

~-------------------------------------------- 

Alkalinity, Total as CaC03 

Chloride 

Colour, True 

Conductivity (EC) 

Cyanide, total 

Fluoride 

Hardness, Total (Total as CaC03) 

Ion Balance 

Nitrogen, Nitrate as N 

Nitrogen, Nitrite as N 

pH 

Solids, Total Dissolved 

Sulfate 

Turbidity 

UV Transmittance @ 254nm 

165 

4.21 

47 

2150 

< 0.010 

1.54 

1270 

0.9 

0.052 

< 0.010 

7.60 

1860 

1240 

5.2 

90.1 

AO ~ 250 

AO ~ 15 

MAC= 0.2 

MAC= 1.5 

MAC= 10 

MAC= 1 

AO = 6.5-8.5 

AO ~ 500 

Varies, See Guidelines 

1 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

5 Color Unit 

2 uS/em 

0.010 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

5.0 mg/L 

mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.01 pH units 

25.0 mg/L 

25.0 mg/L 

0.1 NTU 

0.1 % 

May-03-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-04-12 

N/A 

N/A 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-03-12 

N/A 

May-04-12 

May-03-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-07-12 

May-04-12 

May-03-12 

May-04-12 

N/A 

N/A 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

N/A 

May-04-12 

May-03-12 

May-04-12 

Total Recoverable Metals 

Well 2 (Pumping Well} (2050232-01} Matrix: Water Sampled: May-03-12 11:00 

---------------------------------------------------- 

Aluminum, total 

< 0.05 AO ~ 0.1 

0.05 mg/L 

May-03-12 May-04-12 

Antimony, total 

Arsenic, total 

Barium, total 

Beryllium, total 

Boron, total 

Cadmium, total 

Calcium, total 

Chromium, total 

Cobalt, total 

Copper, total 

Iron, total 

Lead, total 

Magnesium, total 

Manganese, total 

Mercury, total 

Molybdenum, total 

Nickel, total 

Phosphorus, total 

Potassium, total 

Selenium, total 

Silicon, total 

Silver, total 

Sodium, total 

Uranium, total 

Vanadium, total 

Zinc, total 

< 0.001 

< 0.005 

< 0.05 

< 0.001 

< 0.04 

< 0.0001 

440 

< 0.005 

< 0.0005 

< 0.002 

3.8 

< 0.001 

41.5 

0.088 

< 0.0002 

0.002 

< 0.002 

< 0.2 

2.7 

< 0.005 

30 

< 0.0005 

37.7 

0.001 

< 0.01 

< 0.04 

MAC= 0.006 

MAC= 0.01 

MAC= 1 

MAC= 5 

MAC= 0.005 

MAC= 0.05 

AO ~ 1 

AO ~ 0.3 

MAC= 0.01 

AO ~ 0.05 

MAC= 0.001 

MAC= 0.01 

AO ~ 200 

MAC= 0.02 

AO < 5 

0.001 mg/L 

0.005 mg/L 

0.05 mg/L 

0.001 mg/L 

0.04 mg/L 

0.0001 mg/ L 

2 mg/L 

0.005 mg/L 

0.0005 mg/L 

0.002 mg/ L 

0.1 mg/ L 

0.001 mg/L 

0.1 mg/L 

0.002 mg/L 

0.0002 mg/L 

0.001 mg/L 

0.002 mg/L 

0.2 mg/L 

0.2 mg/ L 

0.005 mg/L 

5 mg/L 

0.0005 mg/L 

0.2 mg/L 

0.0002 mg/L 

0.01 mg/L 

0.04 mg/L 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 


CARO Analytical Services 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

SAMPLE DATA 

CAR() 

ANALYTICAL Sl:.RVICES 

CLIENT 

PROJECT 



WORK ORDER# 

REPORTED 

2050232 

May-07-12 

Analyte 

Result 

Canadian DW 

Guideline 

(Dec 10) 

RDL Units 

Prepared 

Analyzed 

Notes 

Microbiological Parameters 

Well 2 (Pumping Well) (2050232-01) Matrix: Water Sampled: May-03-1211:00 

Coliforms, Total 

E. coli 

< 1 

< 1 

MAC< 1 

MAC< 1 

CFU/lOOmL 

1 CFU/100mL 

May-03-12 

May-03-12 

May-04-12 

May-04-12 





June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

ANALYSIS / REPORT INFORMATION 

CAR() 


CLIENT 

PROJECT 



WORK ORDER# 2050232 

REPORTED 

May-07-12 

Analysis Description Method Reference(s) (* = modified from) LAB 

Preparation 

Analysis 

Transmissivity at 254nm 

pH in Water 

Cyanide, Total 

Chloride by IC 

N/A 

N/A 

APHA 4500-CN C 

N/A 

APHA 5910 B 

APHA 4500-H+ B 

APHA 4500-CN E 

APHA 4110 B 

KEL 

KEL 

KEL 

KEL 

Fluoride by IC 

Nitrite-N by IC 

Nitrate-N by IC 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

APHA 4110 B 

APHA 4110 B 

APHA 4110 B 

KEL 

KEL 

KEL 

Sulfate by IC 

Conductivity in Water 

Alkalinity, total 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

APHA 4110 B 

APHA 2510 B 

APHA 2320 B 

KEL 

KEL 

KEL 

Turbidity 

True Colour at 410 nm 

N/A 

N/A 

APHA 2130 B 

APHA 2120 B 

KEL 

KEL 

Total Coliforms (by CCA) 

E. coli (by CCA) 

Total Recoverable Metals 

N/A 

N/A 

APHA 3030E * 

APHA 9222* 

APHA 9222* 

APHA 3125 B 

KEL 

KEL 

RMD 




QUALITY CONTROL DATA 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

CAR() 


CLIENT 

PROJECT 



WORK ORDER# 

REPORTED 

2050232 

May-07-12 

The following section reports quality control (QC) data that is associated with your sample data. Groups of samples are prepared in " batches" and 

analyzed in conjunction with quality control samples that ensure your data Is of the highest quality. Common QC types include: 

• Method Blank (Bik): Laboratory reagent water is carried through sample preparation and analysis steps. Method Blanks indicate that results are 

free from contamination, i.e. not biased high from sources such as the sample container or the laboratory environment 

• Duplicate (Dup): Preparation and analysis of a replicate aliquot of a sample. Duplicates provide a measure of the analytical method's precision, 

i.e. how reproducible a result is. Duplicates are only reported if they are associated with your sample data. 

• Blank Spike (BS): A known amount of standard is carried through sample preparation and analysis steps. Blank Spikes, also known as laboratory 

control samples (LCS), are prepared from a different source of standard than used for the calibration. They ensure that the calibration is acceptable 

(i.e. not biased high or low) and also provide a measure of the analytical method's accuracy (i.e. closeness of the result to a target value). 

• Standard Reference Material (SRM): A material of similar matrix to the samples, externally certified for the parameter(s) listed. Standard 

Reference Materials ensure that the preparation steps in the method are adequate to achieve acceptable recoveries of the parameter(s) tested for. 

Each QC type is analyzed at a 5-10% frequency, i.e. one blank/duplicate/spike for every 10 samples. For all types of QC, the specified recovery (% Rec) 

and relative percent difference (RPD) limits are derived from long-term method performance averages and/or prescribed by the reference method. 

Reporting 

Analyte Result Limit Units 

Spike 

Level 

Source 

Result 

%REC 

% REC 

% RPD 

Limits % RPD Limit Notes 

General Parameters, Batch B2E0083 

Blank (B2E0083-BLK1) 

Prepared: May-03-12, Analyzed: May-03-12 


< 0.010 

0.010 mg/L 




< 0.010 

0.010 mg/L 

LCS (B2E0083-BS1) 

----~--------------- 


LCS(B2E008_3_-B_S_2~) _______________ 



10.2 

9.84 


0.010 mg/L 10.0 102 85-110 


0.010 mg/L 10.0 98 85-110 

Blank (B2E009S-BLK1) 


Turbidity 

< 0.1 

0.1 NTU 



Turbidity 

< 0.1 

0.1 NTU 



Turbidity 

< 0.1 

0.1 NTU 

LCS (B2E0095-BS1) 

Turbidity 

LCS (B2E0095-BS2) 

Turbidity 

LCS (B2E0095-BS3) 

Turbidity 


40.3 

39.8 

38.2 


0.1 NTU 40.0 101 85-115 


0.1 NTU 40.0 100 85-115 

Prepared : May-03-12, Analyzed: May-03-12 

0.1 NTU 40.0 96 85-11 5 





< 1 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 


CARC) 


CLIENT 

PROJECT 



WORK ORDER# 

REPORTED 

2050232 

May-07-12 

Analyte 

Result 

Reporting 

Limit Units 

Spike 

Level 

Source 

Result 

% REC 

% REC 

Limits 

% RPD 

% RPD 

Limit 

Notes 

General Parameters, Batch B2E0122, Continued 

Blank {B2E0122·BLK4) 




< 1 

< 2 

1 mg/L 

2 uS/ em 

Blank {B2E0122-BLK5) 


Alkalinity, Total as cacm 


< 1 

< 2 

1 mg/ L 

2 uS/ em 

LCS {B2E0122-BS1) 


Alkalinity, Total as caC03 

102 

1 mg/ L 

100 102 96-108 

LCS {B2E0122-BS2) 


Alkalinity, Total as caC03 

101 

1 mg/L 

100 101 96·108 

LCS {B2E0122-BS3) 



101 

1 mg/ L 

100 101 96· 108 

LCS {B2E0122-BS4) 



101 

1 mg/ L 

100 101 96· 108 

LCS {B2E0122-BS5) 



104 

1 mg/L 

100 104 96· 108 

LCS (B2E0122-BS_6_:__ ) _ _ ___ 

Prepared: May-03-12, Analyzed: May-03·12 

Conductivity ( EC) 

1400 

2 uS/em 

1410 99 93· 104 

LCS {B2E0122·BS7) 



1400 

2 uS/ em 

1410 100 93·104 

LCS {B2E0122·BS8) 



1410 

2 uS/em 

1410 100 93· 104 

LCS (B2E0122- BS9) 


Conductivity ( EC) 

1390 

2 uS/em 

1410 99 93·104 

LCS{B2E0122-BSA} 

_____ P_re-'p_a_re_d_: _May-03-12, Analyzed: May-04-12 


1420 2 uS/ em 

1410 101 93· 104 

Duplicate (B2E0122-DUP5) 

Source: 2050232-01 




pH 

166 1 mg/L 

2140 2 uS/ em 

7.67 0.01 pH units 

165 

2150 

7.60 

< 1 

< 1 

< 1 

10 

Reference (B2E0122-SRM1) 


pH 

7.00 0.01 pH units 

7.00 100 98·102 

Reference (B2E0122·SRM2) 

Prepared: May-03·12, Analyzed: May-03-12 

pH 

7.01 0.01 pH units 

7.00 100 98·102 

Reference {B2E0122·SRM3) 

Prepared: May-03-12, Analyzed: May-03_-1_2 ___ _ 

____ _ 

pH 

Reference {B2E0122-SRM4) 

pH 

Reference {B2E0122·SRM5) 

pH 


Blank {B2E0141·BLK1) 

7.01 0.01 pH units 

7.03 0.01 pH units 

7.01 0.01 pH units 

7.00 100 98· 102 


7.00 100 98·102 


- - 

7.00 100 98-102 

Prepared: May-04-12, Analyzed: May-04-12 ___ ______ ___ _ 


< 0.1 0.1 % 





June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 


CARC) 

ANALYliCAL SERVICFS 

CLIENT 

PROJECT 



WORK ORDER# 

REPORTED 

2050232 

May-07-12 

Analyte 

Result 

Reporting 

Limit Units 

Spike 

Level 

Source 

Result 

%REC 

% REC 

Limits 

% RPD 

% RPD Limit Notes 


Reference (B2E0141-SRM1) 



74.9 

0.1 % 

75.5 99 0-200 




Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 

< 0.10 

< 0.10 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.10 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/L 

Blank (B2E0157-BLK2) --------- -- 

Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 


< 0.10 

< 0. 10 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.10 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/L 



Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 

< 0.10 

< 0.10 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.10 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/L 


----~---------- 

Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 

< 0.10 

< 0.10 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.10 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/L 


Blank {B2E0157-BLK5) 


Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 

< 0.10 

< 0.10 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.10 mg/ L 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/L 

LCS (B2E0157-BS1) 


Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 

3.86 

4.04 

4.36 

3.93 

4.3 

0.10 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/L 

4.00 96 85·115 

4.00 101 85-115 

4.00 109 85-115 

4.00 98 85-115 

4.00 107 85-115 

LCS (B2E0157-BS2) 

Prepared: May-04- 12, Analyzed: May-04-12 

Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 

< 0.10 

< 0.10 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.10 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/L 

4.00 85-115 

4.00 85·115 

4.00 85-115 

4.00 85-115 

4.00 85-115 

LCS (B2E0157-BS3) 


Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 

< 0.10 

< 0.10 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.10 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/L 

4.00 85-115 

4.00 85-115 

4.00 85-115 

4.00 85-115 

4.00 85-115 

LCS (B2E0157-BS4) 

Chloride 

Fluoride 

< 0.10 

< 0.10 

0.10 mg/L 

0.10 mg/L 



----- 

4.00 85-115 

4.00 85-115 




June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 


CAR() 


CLIENT 

PROJECT 



WORK ORDER# 

REPORTED 

2050232 

May-07-12 

Analyte 

Result 

Reporting 

Limit Units 

Spike 

Level 

Source 

Result 

% REC 

% REC 

Limits 

% RPD 

% RPD 

Limit 

Notes 


LCS (B2E0157·BS4), Continued 




Sulfate 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.010 mg/l 

0.010 mg/L 

1.0 mg/l 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

85·115 

85·115 

85·115 

LCS (B2E0157-BS5) 


Chloride 

Fluoride 



Sulfate 

< 0.10 

< 0.10 

< 0.010 

< 0.010 

< 1.0 

0.10 mg/l 

0.10 mg/L 

0.010 mg/l 

0.010 mg/l 

1.0 mg/l 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

4.00 

85-115 

85-115 

85-115 

85-115 

85-115 




Colour, True 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 


CAR() 

ANALYTICAL SEINICES 

CLIENT 

PROJECT 



W ORK ORDER # 2050232 

REPORTED 

May-07-12 

Reporting 

Spike Source % REC %RPD 

Level Result % REC Limits %RPD Limit Notes 

Analyte 

Result 

Limit Units 

Total Recoverable Metals, Batch B2E0113, Continued 

Blank (B2E0113-BLK1), Continued 

Prepared: May-03-12, Ana lyzed: May-04-12 

Sodium, total 



Zinc, total 

< 0.2 

< 0.0002 

< 0.01 

< 0.04 

0.2 mg/L 

0.0002 mg/L 

0.01 mg/ L 

0.04 mg/L 

Blank (B2E0113·BLK2) 


:::.:l 

Aluminum, total 

Antimony, total 

Arsenic, total 

Barium, total 


Boron, total 




Cobalt, total 

Copper, total 

Iron, total 

Lead, total 





Nickel, total 




Silicon, total 

Silver, total 

Sodium, total 



Zinc 1 

total 

< 0.05 

< 0.001 

< 0.005 

< 0.05 

< 0.001 

< 0.04 

< 0.0001 


June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 


CAR() 


CLIENT 

PROJECT 



WORK ORDER# 

REPORTED 

2050232 

May-07-12 

Analyte 

Result 

Reporting 

Limit Units 

Spike 

Level 

Source 

Result 

%REC 

%REC 

Limits 

%RPD 

% RPD Limit Notes 

Total Recoverable Metals, Batch B2E0113, Continued 


Reference (B2E0113-SRM2), Co_n_t_in_u_e_d~~~~~~~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 

Barium, total 


Boron, total 




Cobalt, total 

Copper, total 

Iron, total 

Lead, total 





Nickel, total 




Sodium, total 



Zinc, total 

0.74 

0.046 

3.39 

0.0478 

10 

0.252 

0.0411 

0.543 

0.5 

0.185 

3.5 

0.110 

0.0042 

0.191 

0.257 

0.2 

5.8 

0.110 

7.6 

0.02 

0.37 

2.55 

0.05 mg/L 

0.001 mg/L 

0.04 mg/L 

0.0001 mg/L 

2 mg/L 

0.005 mg/L 

0.0005 mg/L 

0.002 mg/L 

0.1 mg/L 

0.001 mg/L 

0.1 mg/L 

0.002 mg/L 

0.0002 mg/L 

0.001 mg/L 

0.002 mg/L 

0.2 mg/L 

0.2 mg/L 

0.005 mg/L 

0.2 mg/L 

0.0002 mg/L 

0.01 mg/L 

0.04 mg/L 

0.777 

0.0488 

3.40 

0.0490 

10.2 

0.242 

0.0366 

0.487 

0.469 

0.193 

3.31 

0.109 

0.00456 

0.197 

0.242 

0.233 

5.93 

0.115 

7.64 

0.0192 

0.376 

2.42 

95 72-104 

94 76-131 

100 75-121 

98 89-111 

96 86-121 

104 89-114 

112 91-113 

111 91-115 

112 77-124 

96 92-113 

106 78-120 

101 90-114 

93 50-150 

97 90-111 

106 90-111 

104 85-115 

97 84-113 

95 85-115 

100 82-123 

90 85-120 

99 86-111 

105 85-111 





June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Western Water Associates Ltd. 

Standard Report Limitations 

I . This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in the work scope that 

has been mutually agreed to with the Client. 

2. The scope and the period of service provided by Western Water Associates Ltd. are subject to 

restrictions and limitations outlined in subsequent numbered limitations. 

3. A complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the Site or 

within the Subject Property referenced, has not been undertaken. Therefore, if a service is not 

expressly indicated, it has not been provided and if a matter is not addressed, no determination 

has been made by Western Water Associates Ltd. in regards to it. 

4. Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry that 

Western Water Associates Ltd. was retained to undertake with respect to the assignment. 

Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special 

conditions pertaining to the Site, or Subject Property, which have not been revealed by the 

investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. 

Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. 

5. In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment 

provided in this Document. Western Water Associates Ltd.s opinions are based upon 

information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that 

the Services provided allowed Western Water Associates Ltd. to form no more than an opinion 

of the actual conditions of the Site, or Subject Property, at the time the site was visited and 

cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the Site, or 

Subject Property, nor the surroundings, or any laws or regulations. 

6. Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published 

sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either expressed or implied, 

that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document. 

7. Where data supplied by the Client or other external sources, including previous site 

investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless 

otherwise stated. 

8. No responsibility is accepted by Western Water Associates Ltd. for incomplete or inaccurate 

data supplied by others. 

9. The Client acknowledges that Western Water Associates Ltd. may have retained subconsultants 

affiliated to provide Services. Western Water Associates Ltd. will be fully 

responsible to the Client for the Services and work done by all of its sub-consultants and 

subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will only assert claims against and seek to recover 

losses, damages or other liabilities from Western W ater Associates Ltd . . 

I 0. This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional 

advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to 

any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any 

reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. 

Western Water Associates Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any 

third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document. 




June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

I ·I 

I I 

I #32- I 0042 Main Street, Lake Country, BC, Canada, V4V I P6 I P: 1.250. 766. 1030 I www.westernwater.ca I 



June 6, 2013 - Item E.5 

Jennifer deGroot 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Bryer Manwell [bryer@westernwater.ca] 

Monday, June 25, 2012 2:16PM 

Jennifer deGroot 

Rabe Hydrogeology 

Jenifer, 

Further to our conversation last week I am providing this e-mail to clarify that from the test pumping performed at the 

Rabe property between May 1 and May 4, 2012 the following observations were made: 

• Based on the test flow rate of 190 L/min (SO USgpm), approximately 273,600 litres of water per day were 

withdrawn from the well during the test, which is 2.8 times the Bylaw minimum of 6,550 litres X 15 = 98,250 

litres for 15 lots. 

• Further, based on the results of the test, we estimated the theoretical sustainable well yield of 303 L/min (80 

USgpm). 

These observations suggest the tested aquifer has sufficient capacity to supply at least 42 lots, which could be built on 

the Rabe property provided that individual dril!ed wells are able to intercept the same aquifer as the tested well. 

However, based on the current understanding of the hydrogeology at the site, if subdivision approval is sought water 

wells will need to be drilled and tested to confirm the availability of water at all potential lots, as individual well yields in 

bedrock aquifers can be expected to vary. 

Please let me know if further clarification is required. 

Kind regards, 

Bryer Manwell, M .Sc., P. Eng. 

Hydrogeologist 

western water 

AS50CIA .. F S lTD 

Consultants in Hydrogeology and Wa1er Resources Management 

#32- 10042 Main Street, Lake Country, B.C., V4V 1P6 

E: bryer@westernwater.ca, P: 01.250.766.1030, M: 01.250.878.2030, W: westernwater.ca 

Page 139 1 of 191


June 6, 2013 - Item F.1 


MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION ELECTORAL 

AREA ‘F’ of the REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held at the Enderby Fire Hall 

on May 13, 2013. 

Members: 

Other: 

Guests: 

Keith Gray 

Bob Honeyman 

Dick McKinney 

Tilman Ernest Nahm 

Robert Whitley 

Jackie Pearase, Electoral Area “F” Director 

Monica Nahm, Recording Secretary 

Alan Krause 

CALL MEETING TO ORDER 

The Chairperson, Keith Gray called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 

A. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 

Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “F” – Regular Meeting of April 15, 2013. 

Moved by: Robert Whitley 

Seconded by: Bob Honeyman 

That the minutes of April 15, 2013 regular meeting of the Advisory Planning Commission of 

Electoral Area “F” be adopted as circulated. 

CARRIED 

NEW BUSINESS 


KRAUSE, A & K 

{File No. 13-0101-F-ALR} 

Discussion: 

● Robert Whitley noted that the home should follow the proper set backs from the stream on 

the property. 

Moved by: Bob Honeyman Seconded by: Robert Whitley 

That the application of Alan and Kim Krause under Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land 

Commission Act to place a second residence for family farm help on the property legally 

described as The Fractional SW ¼ of Sec 29, Twp 19, R8, W6M, KDYD, Including All Timber 

Thereon and located at 7261 Highway 97 A, Electoral Area “F” be supported and the Building 

Inspector be authorized to issue a Building Permit for the proposed residence. 

CARRIED 



APC “F” Minutes – Regular - 2 - May 13, 2013 

HATFIELD, A & RICHARDS, K 

{File No. 13-0068-F-ALR} 

Discussion: 

● Tilman noted that Mr. Richards desired to put the non ALR portion of land into ALR and this 

would then only allow 2 homes sites. The original has the potential for 3 home sites. 

● Robert cannot support the splitting of one property into two properties. 

Moved by: Tilman Nahm Seconded by: Dick McKinney 

That the application of Ann Hatfield and Keith Richards under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural 

Land Commission Act which proposes to subdivide the property legally described as That Part 

NW 1/4, Sec 27, Lying to the West of the Right Bank of the Shuswap River as shown on Plan 

B17102, TWP 18, R7, W6M, KDYD, Except Plan 34054 and located at 1866 Enderby Mabel 

Lake Road, Electoral Area “F” be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land 

Commission subject to inclusion of the portion of the property which is not located within the 

Agricultural Land Reserve. 

CARRIED 

Opposed: Robert Whitley 

ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 


June 6, 2013 - Item F.1 

Certified Correct: 

Chair 

Recording Secretary 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES: 


CITY OF ARMSTRONG 

DISTRICT OF GOLDSTREAM 

CITY OF ENDERBY 

VILLAGE OF LUMBY 

TOWNSHIP OF SPALLUMCHEEN 

CITY OF VERNON 

"B" - SWAN LAKE 

"C" - B.X. DISTRICT 

"D" - LUMBY (RURAL) 

"E" - CHERRYVILLE 

"F" - ENDERBY (RURAL) 

OFFICE OF: 


FILE No.: 0530 

March 21, 2013 

Township of Spallumcheen 

4144 Spallumcheen Way 

Spallumcheen, BC 

VOE 186 

Dear Mayor and Council: 

Re: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795, 2012 - South Sub Area - 


At their regular meeting held March 7, 2013, the Electoral Area Advisory Committee reviewed 

the referral package related to the above-noted bylaw. Discussion took place at that time 

regarding use of roads within Electoral Areas "8" and "C" to access the proposed development, 

which is contrary to the Township of Spallumcheen Official Community Plan. 

Accordingly, we respectfully request that further readings of Township of Spallumcheen Official 

Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795, 2012 be withheld until the Committee has had an 

opportunity to review results of a Traffic Impact Study. · 

We are open to having representatives from the Township of Spallumcheen and/or Willowhaven 

Development present information regarding this matter as a delegation to the Electoral Area 

Advisory Committee. Please contact Leah Mellott, General Manager, Electoral Area 

Administration should you wish to schedule a delegation. 

Yours truly, 

!:thair 


cc: 

RDNO Planning Department 



Goldstream, BC V1 B 2K9 


Phone: 250-550-3700 

Fax: 250-550-3701 


E-mail: info@rdno.ca


June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES· 


CllY OF ARMSTRONG VILLAGE OF LUMBY "B' - SWAN LAKE 

DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM TOWNSHIP OF SPALLUMCHEEN ' C' - B.X DISTRICT 

CllY OF ENDERBY CITY OF VERNON "D" - LUMBY (RURAL) 

"E" -CHERRYVILlE 

' F' - ENDERBY (RURAL) 

OFFICE OF: 

Planning Department 

OUR FILE No.: 

11-0082-SPL-OCP 

January 28, 2013 

[X ] Spallumcheen Municipal Office- via email 

[X ] Spallumcheen Public Works Manager- via email 

[X ] Spallumcheen Approving Officer- via email 

[X] Spallumcheen Building Inspector- via email 

[X ] Spallumcheen Chief Financial Officer- via email 

[X ] Larkin Water District 

[X ] Greater Vernon Water - via email 

[X] Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure 

[X] Interior Health Authority 

[X ] Parks and Recreation Department 

[X ] Regional Fire Protection Officer - via emaH 

[X ] Fire Chief, ArmstrongiSpallumcheen Fire Department- via emaH 

[X] Fire Inspector, ArmstrongiSpallumcheen Fire Department- via email 

[X ] BX/Swan Lake Fire Department 

[X ] Ministry of Environment I Ministry of Natural Resource Operations - via email 

[X ] Ministry of Forest and Range 

[X ] Archaeology Branch 

[X ] School District No. 83 

[X ] School District No. 22 

[X ] Ministry of Agriculture and Lands 

[X) Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum- via email 

[X ) Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator - via email 

[X] First Nations - OKIB and Splatsin 

[X ] RDNO -Administrator- via email 

[X ] RDNO - Engineering Services Manager - via email 

[X ] Electoral Area Advisory Committee- General Mgr, EA Admin. - via email 

[X ] Advisory Planning Commission -Area "C" - via email 

Dear Sir I Madam: 

RE: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795, 2012 - South Sub Area 


In keeping with Sections 879, 881 and 882 of the Local Government Act we enclose a copy of 

the above-noted Bylaw for your review and comment. The Planning Department reports dated 

October 18, 2012 and November 13, 2012 are enclosed for information. 

In addition, the applicant has submitted the following reports: 



Cold stream, BC V1 B 2K9 


Phone: 250-550-3700 

Fax: 250-550-3701 




June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 

1. Spallumcheen South-East Sector South Sub-Area Concept Plan - MMM Group Ltd, April 

2012 

2. Preliminary Review for Potential of Sewage Dispersal - Deans Tech Consulting, 

December 9, 2009 

3. Groundwater Supply and Stormwater Management Feasibility Assessment - Summit 

Environmental Consultants Inc., March 12, 2010 

4. Traffic Impact Studies - CTQ Consultants Ltd, November 17, 2011, October 30, 2012, 

and November 16, 2012 

5. Archaeological Overview Assessment- Diana E. French, Ph.D., Heritage Advisor, May 

3, 2010 

6. South Sub Area Environmental Assessment- Makonis Consulting, October 30, 2010 

7. Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment- Calibre Geotechnical, November 24, 2010 

8. Wildfire Hazard Assessment- Carruthers Forest Solutions Ltd., April 11 , 2010 

9. Visual Impact Analysis - Dave Pusey on behalf of the South Sub Area Owners' Group, 

undated 

10. Road Network Concept Plan - D.C. Ponto and Assoc. Ltd. Consulting Engineers, July 

13,2011 

If you require any or all of the above noted reports please contact the undersigned to obtain a 

copy of the PDF file. Alternatively, the above noted reports and a detailed report from the 

Planning Department may be viewed on-line at www.spallumcheentwp.bc.ca (Mayor & Council 

- Agendas - Committee Meetings - 2012 - October 22, 2012 - Complete Agenda). Note: the 

Traffic Impact Studies dated October 30, 2012 and November 16, 2012 are not posted on-line 

but are available upon request. 

We respectfully request that you review this Bylaw at your earliest convenience and advise this 

office of any concerns that your agency may have. 

Please be advised if we do not receive a response from your office within 21 days of the date of 

this letter, we will assume that you have no objections or comments concerning this Bylaw. 

Please direct your comments to the undersigned at lynda.fraser@rdno.ca and any questions 

you may have to Marnie Skobalski, Planner, at (250) 550-3737 or marnie.skobalski@rdno.ca. 

Thank you, 

---Lynda Fraser 

Clerk, Planning Department 

/If 

Enclosures 



Cold stream, BC V1 B 2K9 


Phone: 250-550-3700 

Fax: 250-550-3701 




June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 

THE TOWNSHIP OF SPALLUMCHEEN 

BYLAW No. 1795 

A bylaw to amend the "Township of Spallumcheen Official Community Plan 

Bylaw No. 1794, 2011" and amendments thereto. 

The Council of the Township of Spallumcheen, in open meeting assembled, enacts as 

follows: 

TITLE 

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "Township of Spallumcheen Official Community 

Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795, 2012". 

AMENDMENTS 

1. Schedule B of the Township of Spallumcheen Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 

1794, 2011 is hereby amended by changing the future land use designation of the 

properties described as: · 

i. Lot A, Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan 35469 

11. Lot B, Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan 35469 

iii. The NW% of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D. 

iv. TheSE% of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D. 

v. The N Y2 of the SW% of Sec. 31, Twp. 5, O.D.Y.D. Except That Part Thereof 

Shown Outlined Red On Plan B1458 and Plan EPP10473 

vi. Lot 1, Sec. 31 , Twp. 5, O.D.Y.D., Plan EPP10473 

vii. The S Y2 of the SW %, Sec. 31, Twp. 5, O.D.Y.D. 

viii. District Lot 4168, O.D.Y.D. 

ix. Lot 1, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan KAP79444 

x. Lot A, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan KAP79445 

x1. Lot 1, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan 10785 

xii. Lot 2, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan 10785 Except Plans H17039 and 

KAP67931 

xiii. Lot A, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan KAP78698 

xiv. Lot 1, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan KAP60972 

xv. TheW Y2 of District Lot 3509, O.D.Y.D. 

xvi. The Northerly%, District Lot 3844, O.D.Y.D. , Except the Easterly 45 

Chains 

xvii. TheN Y2 of the NW% of Section 31 , Township 5, O.D.Y.D. 

xviii. The NE% of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D. 

xix. TheN Y2 of the S Y2 of the SW% of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D 

xx. TheN Y2 of the SW% of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D. 

xxi. That Part of the West Y2 of Sec. 31 Shown on Plan B1458, Twp. 5, O.D.Y.D. 

Township of Spallumcheen Page 145 of Official 191 Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795


June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 

from Large Holding and Commercial to a combination of Large. Holding, Small 

Holding, Commercial and Open Space, as shown on the attached Map 

(Schedule A). 

2. The Legend in Schedule B of the Township of Spallumcheen Official Community 

Plan Bylaw No. 1794, 2011 is hereby amended as follows: 

Add: 

Open Space 

3. Section 8.1.4 a) of the Township of Spallumcheen Official Community Plan Bylaw 

No. 1794, 2011 is hereby amended by adding the following sub-sections: 

iv. 

Establish Development Permit Areas and guidelines to promote reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation, and water conservation 

prior to rezoning of land within the Southeast Sector Comprehensive 

Planning Areas. 

v. Future development proposals within the Comprehensive Planning Area of 

the Southeast Sector which propose a land use density greater than that 

which is shown on Schedule B be approved through an Official Community 

Plan amendment application which involves the submission of the required 

studies and plans as outlined in Section 8.3 and addresses the policies 

outlined in Section 8.4 of the Official Community Plan and includes payment 

of the $20,000 OCP/Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area OCP 

amendment application fee as required under Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 

1674, 2007 as amended. 

4. Section 8.1.4 e) of the Township of Spallumcheen Official Community Plan Bylaw 

No. 1794, 2011 is hereby amended by adding the following sub-section: 

vii. 

Within the Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area, lands 

determined (through the Sub-Area planning process) to be Very High Value 

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA - Level 1 ), creeks, wildlife movement 

corridors, and slopes in excess of 30% grade are designated Open Space 

on Schedule B. Lands designated Open Space may be public or privately 

owned and shall remain free of development except as authorized through 

an approved Development Permit. Without amendment to the Official 

Community Plan, the Open Space areas designated on Schedule B may be 

modified in accordance with an approved Hillside Development Permit 

provided the modification is in accordance with the recommendations of a 

qualified environmental professional. 

5. Section 8.1.4 n) of the Township of Spallumcheen Official Community Plan Bylaw 

No. 1794, 2011 is hereby amended by adding the following sub-section: 

viii. 

Whereas Rural development is considered appropriate within the South 

Sub-Area at least for the duration of this Official Community Plan, it is 

acknowledged that future development in keeping with Smart Growth 

principles would be consistent with the longer term vision for the Southeast 

Sector Comprehensive Planning Area. 

2 Township of SpaUumcheen Page 146 of Official 191 Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795


June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 

6. Section 15.2 of the Township of Spallumcheen Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 

1794, 2011 is hereby amended as follows: 

Following policy no. 15.2.1 g), insert: 

h) Open Space. 

Read a FIRST time this 3rd day of December, 2012. 

Read a SECOND time this _ _ day of ____, 20_. 

Advertised on the __ day of ___, 20_ and the_ day of ___, 20_, and a 

Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of Section 890 of the Local Government 

Act on the __ day of ___, 20_. 

Read a THIRD time this __ day of _ 

_ , 20_. 

ADOPTED this __ day of __ , 20_. 

Certified Correct 


MAYOR 

3 Township of Spallumcheen Page 147 of 191 Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795


June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 

Schedule 'A' 

Attached to and forming part of Township of Spallumcheen 

OCP AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1795,2012 

Dated this __ day of , 20 

Administrator 

LEGEND 

Large Holdings 

- Small Holdings 

Open Space 

- Commercial 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 




MEMORANDUM 

Please be advised that the Appendices are available upon request for the following report dated 

October 18, 2012. 

You can contact Marnie Skobalski of the Planning Department at (250)550-3737 or at 

marnie.skobalski@rdno.ca to obtain a PDF copy. Alternatively, the Report and Appendices may 

be viewed on-line at www.spallumcheentwp.bc.ca (Mayor & Council-Agendas-Committee 

Meetings-2012-0ctober 22, 2012-Complete Agenda). 

Lynda Fraser 

Clerk, Planning Department 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 

File No.: 11-0082-SPL-OCP 

October 18, 2012 

APPLICANT: 

Willowhaven Investments- Dave Pusey 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • N 112 of S 112 of SW 114 Section 36, Township 8 

• N 112 of SW% Section 36, Township 8 

• Lot A, Plan 35469, Section 36, Township 8 

• Lot B, Plan 35469, Section 36, Township 8 

• NW% Section 36, Township 8 

• NE % Section 36, Township 8 

• SE % Section 36, Township 8 

• Plan B 1458, Section 31 , Township 5 

• Rem N 112 of SW % Section 31, Township 5, Exc Plan 

81458 

• Lot 1, Plan EPP1 0473, Section 31 , Township 5 

• N 112 of N 112 of W 112 Section 31 , Township 5 

• S 112 of SW % Section 31, Township 5 

• District Lot 4168 

• W 112 of District Lot 3509 

• N 112 of District Lot 3844, Exc E 45 Chains 

• Lot 1, Plan KAP79444, Section 35, Township 8 

• Lot A, Plan KAP79445, Section 35, Township 8 

• Lot 1, Plan 10785, Section 35, Township 8 




PID#s: 

LOCATION: 


SERVICING: 

013-455-869 I 001-796-895 I 001-615-726 I 001 -615-777 I 

008-251-304 I 013-455-885 I 013-456-024 I 011-222-263 I 

013-571-541 I 028-640-527 I 011 -222-301 I 005-087-104 1 

002-253-658 1007-783-621 I 011-419-351 I 026-468-697 I 

026-468-701 I 009-534-997 I 009-535-004 I 026-379-996 1 

024-015-318 

South Sub Area -Southeast Sector 

489 ha (1208 acres) 

On site septic disposal, wells, Greater Vernon Water (SW 

corner of plan area) 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 

Official Community Plan and Zoning Amendment Application 

11·0082-SPL-OCP (Willowhaven Investments) Page 2 


PRESENT O.C.P. 

DESIGNATION: 

PROPOSED O.C.P. 

DESIGNATION: 

PROPOSED USE: 

Large Holding (L.H), Highway and Tourist Commercial (C.2) 

Large Holding and Commercial 

Large Holding, Small Holding, Commercial 

Rural Residential, Commercial 


THAT Council grant initial consideration to the proposed Southeast Sector South Sub 

Area Concept Plan and authorize preparation of an Official Community Plan 

Amendment Bylaw which would propose to change the future land use designation of 

the properties described as: 



• NW 1.4 Section 36, Township 8 

• SE 1.4 Section 36, Township 8 

• Rem N V2 of SW 1.4 Section 31 , Township 5, Exc Plan B 1458 

• Lot 1, Plan EPP1 0473, Section 31, Township 5 

• S V2 of SW 1.4 Section 31 , Township 5 


from Large Holding to Small Holding and: 







from Large Holding to Commercial as shown on the attached land use plans: Concept 

L-2 and Concept L-3 (see Appendix D); 

AND THAT the OCP amendment bylaw be prepared to include OCP policy directives to: 

1. require that future development proposals within the Comprehensive Planning Area 

of the Southeast Sector South Sub-area which propose a land use density greater 

than that which is proposed under the subject application be approved through an 

OCP Am endment Application which involves the submission of the required studies 

and plans as outlined in Section 8.3 and addresses the policies outlined in Section 

8.4 of the OCP and includes the $20,000 OCP/Southeast Sector Comprehensive 

Planning Area application fee; 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11-0082-SPL-OCP (Willowhaven Investments) 

Page3 

2. require that subdivision applications which propose to subdivide the subject 

properties under the Small Holding (S.H) zone include and comply with a conceptual 

subdivision plan which demonstrates how the proposed Small Holding designated 

lands could be redeveloped to lots that would comply with the residential zones of 

the Township's Zoning Bylaw; 

3. require that rezoning applications which propose to subdivide the subject properties 

under the Small Holding (S.H) zone comply with the Transportation Policies outlined 

in Section 8.4.i of the OCP; 

4. establish Development Permit Areas and guidelines to promote reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation, and water conservation prior to 

rezoning of land within the Southeast Sector Comprehensive Development Area; 

AND THAT following First Reading, the OCP amendment bylaw be referred to the 

agencies and organizations listed in the Referral Comments section of the staff report 

dated October 18, 2012 in accordance with Sections 879 and 881 of the Local 

Government Act; 

AND THAT prior to Second Reading of the OCP amendment bylaw, the following 

information be submitted to the Township of Spallumcheen: 

1. a revised groundwater supply study which, upon consideration of the proposed land 

use map, recommends whether or not test well drilling and/or an aquifer testing 

program should be done prior to designating Small Holding lands in the Keddleston 

Road area; 

2. a revised traffic impact study which addresses the requirements outlined in Section 

8.3.d of the OCP which states that such a study will identify the amount of traffic 

generated by the development and the appropriate improvements required to 

support the anticipated level of traffic. The study must identify necessary 

improvements to all roads that are proposed to provide access to the proposed 

development, including those which have not been constructed; 

3. a revised archaeological assessment which, upon consideration of the 

archaeological assessment submitted with the OCP Amendment Application for the 

North-Sub Area of the Southeast Sector, recommends whether further assessments 

are required prior to rezoning or subdivision of the subject properties; 

4. a revised environmental assessment which advises whether or not developing the 

subject properties under the Small Holding designation would negatively impact the 

areas identified as ESA 1 (high value); 

5. comments from the Armstrong - Spallumcheen Fire Department, Armstrong - 

Spallumcheen Parks and Recreation Commission, and School District No. 83; 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11 ·0082-SPL·OCP (Willowhaven Investments) Page 4 

6. a conceptual subdivision plan which demonstrates how the proposed Small Holding 

designated lands could be redeveloped to lots that would comply with the residential 

zones of the Township's Zoning Bylaw. 

BACKGROUND: 

This is an application to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP) designation of the 

South Sub-Area of the Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area from Large 

Holdings to a combination of Large Holdings, Small Holdings, and Commercial. 

In accordance with the OCP, prior to development the land owners in a Sub-Area must 

prepare at their own expense, a comprehensive plan that addresses land use, access, 

servicing, and other matters for the entire Sub-Area as well as linkages and relation to 

other Sub-Areas. This application constitutes the proponent's proposed comprehensive 

plan for the South Sub-Area of the Southeast Sector. 

Site Context 

A large part of the valley bottom area of Spallumcheen is agricultural and within the 

Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). To support the retention of agricultural land for 

agricultural purposes, the Official Community Plan recognizes that much of the 

community's new growth must be directed to hillside areas. To plan for growth in an 

appropriate manner the OCP designates the Southeast Sector Comprehensive 

Planning Area. A series of guiding principles are defined in the OCP and development 

planned within the Southeast Sector is intended to meet these principles. The 

Southeast Sector plan area is entirely outside the ALR, and it encompasses lands which 

are, for the most part, east of Highway 97 A and which extend from the south boundary 

of the Township to Head Road. The Comprehensive Planning Area is further divided 

into the North, Central, and South Sub-Areas. 

The South Sub-Area, subject of this application, is approximately 489 ha and comprised 

of 21 parcels which are developed with a few rural residential homes. With the 

exception of a group of six properties at the southwest corner of the Plan area, 

properties in the South Sub-Area are relatively large, up to 1 14 Section (64.75 ha). 

The South Sub-Area has approximately 411 m frontage on Greenhaw Road. The south 

boundary of the South Sub-Area corresponds to the Spallumcheen I Regional District 

(RDNO) boundary. Keddleston Road, Deerwood Road, Mclennan Road, and 

Glenhayes Road extend northward within the Regional District and terminate at the 

Spallumcheen I RDNO boundary. Ridgeview Road branches north from Baker Hogg 

Road (within RDNO) and extends approximately 200 m into the Township of 

Spallumcheen at the southwest corner of the South Sub-Area. In June 2011 a segment 

of Mclennan Road and a segment of Keddleston Road were dedicated as part of the 

subdivision of part of theN V2 of the SW % of Sec. 31, Tp. 5 within the South Sub-Area. 

An easement extends north from the end of the dedicated portion of Keddleston Road 

and provides access to the parcel at the NE corner of the South Sub-Area. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11-0082-SPL-OCP (Willowhaven Investments} 

PageS 

Another easement provides access from Greenhaw Road over lands west of the South 

Sub-Area to the benefit of lands north of the South Sub-Area and to three land-locked 

properties within the west half of the South Sub-Area. Some parcels within the South 

Sub-Area which are undeveloped have neither road frontage nor access via easement. 

The South Sub-Area is primarily designated in the OCP and zoned Large Holding with a 

small area designated Commercial within the SW corner of the plan area where it fronts 

on Greenhaw Road. One small lot in this area is also zoned Highway and Tourist 

Commercial (C.2). A portion of the lands to the west of the South Sub-Area are 

designated Industrial and are zoned Large Holding ("Pleasant Valley Estates"). Another 

parcel to the west (the "Just Rocks" site) is designated Commercial in the OCP and 

zoned Highway and Tourist Commercial (C.2) and Service Commercial (C.4). Lands to 

the north, within the Central Sub-Area of the SE Sector, and to the east are 

undeveloped and are designated and zoned Large Holding. 

The six relatively small parcels in the SW corner of the Concept Plan area are within the 

service area of the Greater Vernon Water system. The balance of the South Sub-Area 

is not within a Water District. 

The South Sub Area is traversed by Greenhaw Creek, a small tributary to Greenhaw 

Creek passes through the NE corner of the Plan area, a separate un-named tributary to 

Greenhaw Creek crosses through the NW corner of the Plan area and connects to 

Green how Creek west of Highway 97 A, and Malysh Brook passes east to west near the 

south side of the Plan area. The applicant's Environmental Assessment indicates no 

fish records were found for these streams. Site topography consists of gentle to steeply 

sloping tills, benches, and areas of exposed rock and gullies. The site slopes upward 

from west to east ranging from 450 m above sea level to 1 000 m elevation. 

The Subject Properties map is presented on the following page. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Page 6 

File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 


OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN APPLICATION 


11 -0082-SPL-OCP 

Willowhaven Investments c/o D. Pusey 

South Sub Area- SE Sector 

/ 

I 

Subject Property - South Sub Area - SE Sector 

~-- 

/ 

I 

I 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11-0082-SPL-OCP {Willowhaven Investments) 

Page7 

The following BC Government ortho (aerial) photo of the South Sub-Area was taken in 

2007: 

The Proposal 

As described by the applicant, the goal of the South Sub-Area Concept Plan is; 

. . . to provide for rural and semi-rural residential uses that are more in keeping with 

existing land use patterns in the immediately surrounding and adjacent areas. 

The applicant has proposed a combination of 212 ha to remain designated Large 

Holding, 159 ha to be redesignated to Small Holding, and 6.5 ha proposed for 

Commercial development at the southwest corner along Greenhaw Road. Under this 

concept, the South Sub-Area could transform from 21 parcels to a "theoretical" 

maximum of 165 parcels. The total number of new lots would however be less than 165 

parcels as developable area would be reduced by road and park dedication, and for 

reasons of personal preference and/or topographical constraints many lots would likely 

be larger than the minimum lot area permitted by Small Holding zoning (1 ha). 

Under the Large Holding zoning, secondary single family dwellings (or manufactured 

homes) and secondary suites are permitted while under the Small Holding zone, 

secondary suites are permitted. These provisions of the Zoning Bylaw expand the range 

of housing options possible and would potentially result in a total number of dwelling 

units which is greater than the total number of lots. Should the South Sub-Area build out 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



PageS 

as proposed, population within the plan area could ultimately be 360 - 420 people 1 

(assuming a total of approximately 150 - 175 dwelling units 2 ). 

The applicant has proposed that a Residential Single Family (R.1) cluster development 

could be part of a later stage in the evolution of the South Sub-Area following the initial 

stage of development to Small Holdings I Large Holdings. The Concept Plan suggests 

that R.1 zoning could be achieved on lots of at least 1.0 ha in order to permit 

development utilizing a rural level of service (i.e. septic systems and wells) while 

facilitating future subdivision to higher densities once community sewer and water 

infrastructure is available. 

The Concept Plan states that the majority of the Large Holding designated lands would 

be more appropriate for higher density uses at some point in the future when community 

water and sewer are available and viable. The Concept Plan notes that this application 

for OCP amendment seeks to designate lands for rural residential development in the 

short term, while preserving the option to seek higher density development on the Large 

Holdings portions in the future. 

Primary access to development in the South Sub-Area is proposed to be from 

Greenhaw Road through intervening lands to the west; either the "Pleasant Valley 

Estates" proposed industrial parcel or the "Just Rocks" parcel or both. Secondary 

access is proposed through lands outside the Township's southern boundary, off the 

northern ends of Ridgeview, Glenhayes, Mclennan, and Keddleston Roads. 

It is proposed that the Small Holding I Large Holding development concept proposed for 

the South Sub-Area would be serviced by individual private groundwater wells. The 

area proposed to be designated Commercial at the southwest corner is within the 

Greater Vernon Water service area. The Concept Plan indicates higher density or 

cluster development could be considered should adequate infrastructure become 

economically viable in the future. 

It is proposed that on-site septic systems would service new development within the 

South Sub Area. The applicant's Registered Onsite Wastewater Practitioner (ROWP) 

has suggested that, based on preliminary information and a site visit, the properties 

should be able to accommodate development of 1.0 ha (minimum) lots using on-site 

systems. If higher density cluster development of adequate scale could be developed, 

a community sewer system may be viable. 

The applicant's hydrogeologist team from Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. 

concluded that on-site stormwater management for low density ( 1- 2 ha lots) appears 

feasible in most of the South Sub-Area and that higher density development also 

appears feasible although additional investigation and analysis would be required for 

development planning purposes. 

1 

According to 2006 Census data, within the Norlh Okanagan Regional District there are an average of 2.4 persons 

rer occupied private dwelling. 

Thi s is the interim proposed development build-out indicated in the South Sub-Area Concept Plan. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Page9 

In accordance with OCP policy, the applicant has submitted several reports which are 

listed below and included as Appendices with this report: 

a) Spallumcheen South-East Sector South Sub-Area Concept Plan, MMM Group 

Limited, April 2012 (Appendix D) including Land Use Concept Maps L-2 and L-3. 

Note: Maps L-2 and L-3 differ only with respect to the proposed road route from 

the west side of the Plan area to Greenhaw Road. 

b) Preliminary Review for Potential of Sewage Dispersal for the Proposed 

Development of the South East Sector, Spallumcheen, BC, DeansTech 

Consulting Ltd., December 9, 2009 (Appendix E); 

c) Groundwater Supply and Stormwater Management Feasibility Assessment 

Township of Spallumcheen, South Sub-Area in Southeast Sector, Summit 

Environmental Consultants Inc., March 12, 2010 (Appendix F); 

d) PV Estates, Spallumcheen BC Transportation Review, CTQ Consultants Ltd., 

November 17, 2011 (Appendix G); 

e) Archaeological Overview Assessment of Spallumcheen South-East Sector Sub 

Area, Diana E. French, Ph.D. , Heritage Advisor, May 3, 2010 (Appendix H); 

f) Spallumcheen South East Sector Plan- South Sub Area Environmental 

Assessment, Makonis Consulting Ltd. , October 30, 2010 (Appendix I); 

g) Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment South East Sector, South Sub Area, 

Spallumcheen BC, Calibre Geotechnical, November 24, 201 0 (Appendix J); 

h) Wildfire Hazard Assessment for the South Sub Area, Carruthers Forest Solutions 

Ltd., April 11 , 2010 (Appendix K); 

i) Visual Impact Analysis for the South Sub Area of the South East Sector, 

Spallumcheen BC, David Pusey on behalf of the South Sub Area Owners' Group, 

undated, (Appendix L) 

j) Spallumcheen South Sub Area- Road Network Concept Plan, D.C. Ponto and 

Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineers, July 13, 2011 (Appendix M). 

ZONING BYLAW: 

Whereas this application is for OCP amendment only and does not include rezoning, 

Section 8.1.3.1)ii of the OCP specifies that each sub-area concept plan is to show the 

arrangement of land uses and proposed zoning. In the event the proposed South Sub 

Area land use concept is adopted into the Official Community Plan, any future zoning . 

within this sub-area would need to correspond to the OCP land use map in effect at the 

time. 

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN POLICIES: 

Attached as Appendix A to this report are policies of the OCP which are pertinent to 

this application including, in its entirety, Section 8.0 Southeast Sector Comprehensive 

Planning Area. Section 8.0 of the OCP identifies areas where development could occur 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11-0082-SPL-OCP (Willowhaven Investments) Page 10 

and sets out the principles, process, additional studies, and the policies that must be 

followed prior to redesignation of the land for specific uses. Potential development is 

further guided by identification of Core Development areas, Limited Development areas, 

Open Space areas, and the Large Holdings area. These designations extend through 

all three Sub-Areas: North, Central, and South. 

An application to redesignate land in the Southeast Sector by amending the OCP 

requires completion of a Sub-Area Concept Plan including the following supporting 

studies and reports (as required in the OCP): 

a) Sewer servicing analysis 

b) Water servicing analysis 

c) Stormwater management analysis 

d) Traffic impact study 

e) Aquifer I groundwater study 

f) Archaeological assessment 

g) Sensitive ecosystem inventory 

h) Geotechnical analysis 

i) Wildfire hazard assessment 

j) Visual impact analysis 

k) Financial Cost Recovery Analysis 

If the proposed OCP amendment bylaw is granted First Reading, the Concept Plan will 

be subject to a Financial Cost Recovery Analysis (FCRA) to be initiated by the 

Township of Spallumcheen. A portion of the proponent's application fee is allocated to 

cover the cost of the FCRA. The intent of the FCRA is to evaluate the impact the 

proposed development would potentially have on the finances of the Township, 

particularly with respect to the capital and operational costs of infrastructure and other 

facilities required to service the development. While the capital cost of required 

infrastructure is typically paid by the developer, in larger, more complex developments 

such as this, there may be capital costs assumed by the Township if the infrastructure 

would be of benefit to property owners beyond the plan area. In addition, maintenance 

· and operational costs would become the Township's responsibility for any infrastructure 

and lands which are turned over to the Township after the development is approved, 

such as parks, trails and other public lands and facilities, road and drainage system 

maintenance, and potentially the operation of wastewater collection and treatment 

systems and water supply, treatment, and distribution systems. The FCRA will 

recommend feasible approaches to cost recovery for municipal services including the 

potential to establish Local Service areas, apply Latecomer Fees, the impacts on 

general taxation, requirements for additional fees, and other municipal cost recovery 

considerations. 

Whereas Section 8.0 of the OCP includes policies specific to the Southeast Sector 

Comprehensive Planning Area, it should be noted that relevant policies within other 

sections of the OCP will also apply. (See Appendix A) . 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



The Official Community Plan includes the following Development Permit designations 

which may be applicable to development in the South Sub-Area: 

• Commercial - Form and Character; 

• Water Body Protection - Protection of the Natural Environment, its Ecosytems, 

and Biological Diversity; 

• Wildfire Hazard- Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions; 

• Hillside - Protection of the Natural Environment, its Ecosytems, and Biological 

Diversity; Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions; Form and 

Character of Intensive Residential Development; and Form and Character of 

Commercial, Industrial, or Multi-Family Residential. 

Section 15.0 Environmental Features of the OCP includes a provision which states that 

it is Council's policy to create a Development Permit Area to promote energy 

conservation, water conservation, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in 

new industrial, commercial, and major residential developments. 

REFERRAL COMMENTS: 


• Spallumcheen Municipal Office, Public Works Manager, Approving Officer, and 

Building Inspector 

• Spallumcheen Agricultural Advisory Committee 

• Larkin Water District 

• Greater Vernon Water 

• Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure 

• Interior Health Authority 

• Armstrong- Spallumcheen Parks and Recreation Commission 

• Regional Fire Protection Officer 

• Armstrong/Spallumcheen Fire Department 

• Ministry of Environment I Ministry of Natural' Resource Operations 

• Ministry of Forest and Range 

• Archaeology Branch 

• School District No. 83 

• Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources 

• Ministry of Agriculture and Lands 

• Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator 

• First Nations: OKIB and Splatsin 

Responses received as a result of the referral process are included in Appendix B 

Referral Comments, attached to this report. It is recommended that following First 

Reading, Council consider referring the OCP amendment bylaw, in accordance with the 

Local Government Act, to the above noted agencies for comment. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Page 12 

Section 879, 881 and 882 of the Local Government Act 

Section 879 of the Local Government Act (LGA) states that during the amendment of an 

OCP, the proposing local government must provide one or more opportunities it 

considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities it 

considers will be affected. Specifically, local governments must consider whether 

consultation is required with the board of the regional district in which the area covered 

by the plan is located, the board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area 

covered by the plan, the council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered 

by the plan, first nations, school districts and Provincial and Federal governments and 

their agencies. 

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

amend an OCP for an area that includes any part of a school district, the local 

government must consult with the school district board at the time of preparing or 

amending the OCP. 

In keeping with Sections 879 and 881 of the LGA, the OCP amendment application was 

referred to the above noted agencies and organizations. It is recommended that the 

OCP amendment bylaw also be referred to these agencies for comments following First 

Reading. These referrals may be considered appropriate consultation for the purpose of 

Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act. 

Section 882(3) of the Local Government Act requires that, after First Reading, the 

Township consider an Official Community Plan amendment in conjunction with its 

Financial Plan and any applicable waste management plan. This step should be 

undertaken after the Financial Cost Recovery Analysis has been completed. 

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING: 

The Township of Spallumcheen Community Plan & Zoning Amendment Procedures 

Bylaw No. 1158 requires that all applicants for OCP Amendment(s) involving a Sub 

Area of the Southeast Sector must conduct a Public Information Meeting in accordance 

with a Township approved Public Information Meeting Guide prior to First Reading of an 

OCP Amendment bylaw. 

The Township's Policy #3030.007 Independent Public Information Meeting - Official 

Community Plan Amendment in the Southeast Sector Sub-Areas, defines the 

requirements and procedures for Public Information Meetings (PIM). 

The applicant held a Public Information Meeting on July 30, 2012 at 7 PM at the Anchor 

Inn in Armstrong. The PIM included a presentation at 7:30 PM. As required by the PIM 

policy, the applicant has submitted copies of their notification letters and ads, 

presentation materials, attendance record and public feedback. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11-0082-SPL-OCP {Willowhaven Investments) Page 13 

Twenty three (23) people, not including the applicant, are listed on the PIM sign-in 

sheet. The applicant's meeting notes indicate that following the presentation one 

attendee asked if the development would include stratas to which the applicant 

responded that it was unknown at that time however it would be up to individual 

applications whereas the current plan addresses the complete area. 

The applicant has submitted nineteen (19) written submissions from residents living 

both within and beyond the South Sub Area. All nineteen submissions either supported 

or expressed no objection to the proposed Concept Plan. Many writers cited the rural 

scale of development, the appeal to families, natural setting, views, hiking trails and the 

separation from, yet proximity to, Armstrong and Vernon as positive qualities of the 

proposed development. The potential to further subdivide in the future if water and 

sewer services are available was noted as an important consideration by some writers. 

Writers generally supported creation of small acreages in the area without creating a 

"city on the hill" or "ruining the look of the hillside". 

Materials from the applicant's Public Information Meeting and the written submissions 

are attached to this report as Appendix C. 

In addition to the above, a letter dated August 7, 2012 was submitted to the Township of 

Spallumcheen office from Brian Wills representing a group of landowners in the 

Keddleston Road and Deerwood Road area. Mr. Wills reiterates concerns expressed 

by area residents in a letter to Mayor and Council dated December 3, 2007. The 

residents are opposed to a connection from Keddleston Road into the South Sub-Area 

due to the potential for additional noise and traffic, pedestrian safety concerns, conflicts 

with equestrian traffic and wildlife, and concerns about the intersection of Keddleston 

Road at Silver Star Road. The August 2012 letter was received by Council at the 

September 4, 2012 Regular Meeting of Council at which time Council resolved that the 

matter be more fully discussed when the (South Sub Area OCP amendment) application 

is brought forward for consideration at a Committee of the Whole (Land Use) meeting. 


The Planning Analysis outlines the manner in which the proposed South Sub-Area 

Concept Plan addresses the minimum requirements for such plans as specified in 

Section 8.1 .3 of the OCP. In addition, each sub-section below includes a brief 

description of how the Concept Plan meets the Guiding Principles for the 

Comprehensive Planning Area and the broader policies of the Official Community Plan. 

a) Existing and Proposed Water Services 

Existing residences in the South-Sub Area obtain water from individual private wells. 

Individual wells are proposed to provide domestic water to proposed Small Holding and 

any new Large Holding development within the South-Sub Area. The applicant notes 

that if land assembly is achieved, the possibility of community infrastructure may be 

viable for cluster development. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11-0082-SPL-OCP (Wi llowhaven Investments) Page 14 

The proposed Commercial area within the southwest corner of the Plan area is situated 

within the Greater Vernon Water service area. 

Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. were engaged by the South Sub Area applicant 

group to assess on-site groundwater supply options. According to Summit, for rural 

acreages with favourable groundwater potential, private on-site domestic wells are 

considered appropriate however in hillside areas there may be challenges to locate a 

domestic well and sewage disposal system on a 1 ha lot. Summit suggests that 

sufficient pre-layout investigation should be conducted to address the challenges and 

may include incorporation of larger lots in locations which are difficult to service. The 

report notes that there are eight (8) wells reported within the South Sub Area, all of 

which have relatively high driller reported yields with no known dry or low-yielding wells. 

Summit reports that it is likely a bedrock aquifer underlies the entire South Sub-Area 

and it is known that groundwater supply from bedrock wells in the Keddleston area 

range from very good to very poor in terms of both quantity and quality. Given the 

inherently variable and unpredictable nature of bedrock groundwater systems, Summit 

suggests further test drilling and pumping tests would be needed to verify groundwater 

supply across the South Sub-Area. Summit notes that in general a community water 

system is preferred for higher density or cluster development, and may also be needed 

in areas with poor groundwater supply potential on 1 to 2 ha lots. In conclusion, Summit 

reports that groundwater wells for lots 1 ha or greater in size appears to be feasible and 

that supply potential appears to be better at lower elevations. 

Consideration of OCP Policies 

It is an OCP policy that a community water system is required to service the 

development. The OCP states that individual wells for individual properties would not be 

considered except for parcels larger than one hectare when supported by a 

groundwater study. 

The application for the South Sub-Area proposes rural residential development (Large 

Holding and Small Holding) over most of the sub-area. The minimum parcel size under 

the Small Holding designation is 1 ha. In this regard, water service utilizing on-site wells 

would be in accordance with the OCP subject to confirmation of well water yield and 

quality prior to subdivision. 

It is a policy of the OCP that the Sub-Area Concept Plan identify a servicing strategy 

that considers and facilitates the provision of services to adjacent Sub-Areas. With 

respect to water services, the South Sub-Area Concept Plan has not identified a 

servicing strategy that may facilitate extension of water service to the Central Sub-Area. 

Recognizing the wide range of production capacity of wells in the Keddleston area, it is 

recommended that prior to Second Reading of the OCP amendment bylaw, a revised 

groundwater supply report be provided which, upon consideration of the proposed 

Concept Plan, recommends whether or not test well drilling and/or an aquifer testing 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



program should be done prior to redesignating lands for Small Holding in the 

Keddleston Road area. 

b) Existing and Proposed Sewer Services 

There is no community sanitary sewer system within or near the South Sub-Area. Onsite 

septic disposal is proposed to service the Small Holding I Large Holding 

development concept. 

Should a cluster form of residential development be pursued, it is proposed that a STEG 

and STEP effluent collection system could be utilized. STEG and STEP refers to 

"Septic Tank Effluent Gravity or Pump" where each dwelling unit or group of units 

disposes of sewage to a septic tank which then releases filtered effluent to a piped 

system where it flows by gravity or is pumped to a treatment plant. The treatment 

facility would consist of aerated secondary treatment and filtration "pods" from which 

effluent would be collected and pumped to a dispersal field. The system could be 

owned and operated either by the Township or by a private utility. 

As indicated in the report by Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. the largest threat 

to aquifer protection would be on-site wastewater dispersal. In this regard, at the 

subdivision stage, further detailed investigation would be required to successfully locate 

both water supply wells and individual on-site septic systems on each proposed Small 

Holding lot. Any community sewage treatment and effluent disposal facility would also 

require additional investigation to confirm suitability of soils for effluent dispersal. 

Given that the South Sub-Area is not within the capture zones of the six wells used by 

the Larkin and Eagle Rock Water Districts, Summit concludes that residential 

development in the South Sub-Area is expected to have minimal to no effect on the 

Eagle Rock Aquifer sourced by the Larkin and Eagle Rock Water Districts. 


OCP policy states that a community sewer system is preferred however on-site disposal 

would be considered for lots larger than 1 ha with supporting geotechnical analysis. In 

this regard the proposed development is in accordance with OCP policy respecting onsite 

disposal subject to more detailed investigations at the subdivision planning stage. 

c) Proposed Stormwater Management 

Summit's report notes that, from a stormwater management standpoint, the proposed 

development of lots of at least 1 ha appears feasible over much of the Concept Plan 

area as this type of development does not dramatically increase the impervious area. 

Access roads and sloping driveways would have the greatest potential to collect 

stormwater and roadside ditches would form the basis of the minor stormwater system. 

The Summit report explains that major stormwater flows will likely require discharge to 

Greenhaw Creek and Malysh Brook with the possible addition of detention ponds for 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



storage. The report hlso mentions that the Greenhaw corridor will likely be influenced by 

development in the Central Sub-Area. Summit suggests that additional investigation 

and analysis be required for any development, particularly medium to higher density 

development. Stormwater planning for the Greenhaw Creek catchment area, including 

lands within the Central Sub-Area, should be undertaken and the capacity of 

downstream infrastructure and drainage systems should be evaluated by an Engineer. 


It is a policy of the OCP that stormwater management plans should identify sustainable 

approaches that follow best management practices. In Hillside Development Permit 

areas such as the South Sub-Area, a site assessment will be required to address 

specific Development Permit objectives and guidelines. 

Information provided with this OCP amendment application does not address the 

potential for the Greenhaw Creek and Malysh Brook corridors to handle storm drainage 

at full (urban scale) build-out the South Sub-Area, nor the potential storm drainage 

influence from the Central Sub-Area. 

d) Existing and Proposed Road Network 

At the present time, within the South Sub-Area there are only small segments of 

dedicated public road right of way. Primary road access to the South Sub-Area is 

proposed to be from Greenhaw Road (within the Township of Spallumcheen). 

A road network plan prepared by D.C. Ponto and Associates Ltd. Consulting Engineers, 

traverses the South Sub-Area and proposes to link to Greenhaw Road as well as the 

four roads within Electoral Area "C" which abuts the south boundary. The Engineer 

advises that the road network plan was completed in accordance with the Ministry of 

Transportation and Infrastructure design specifications and guidelines for road and 

highway design. No grades are indicated on the Road Network Concept Plan included 

in Appendix M. 

The Engineer has confirmed that the four roads linking RDNO Electoral Area "C" to the 

South Sub-Area (Ridgeview, Glenhayes, Mclennan, Keddleston) currently have 

dedicated public rights of way to the South Sub-Area boundary, are actively used by 

residents in the area, and would be able to provide emergency access to the South 

Sub-Area. 

Concept Plan maps L-2 and L-3 included with this OCP amendment application (in 

Appendix D) differ only with respect to the route of the proposed road linkage from the 

west side of the Plan area to Green how Road. The applicant has explained that the two 

options are presented because it is unknown at this time whether access to Greenhaw 

Road would be achieved through Lot A, Plan 35556 ("Just Rocks") or Lot 1, Plan 

KAP54885 ("P.V. Estates"). 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Four future road connection points to the Central Sub-Area are indicated on Concept 

Plans L-2 and L-3 however potential alignment of the Collector Road network through 

Large Holdings designated areas of the South Sub-Area have not been presented. 

The road network shown on maps L-2 and L-3 differs in some respects from the 

Engineer's plan (Appendix M). 


The proposed road layout satisfies OCP transportation policies as follows: 

• Primary access to the South Sub-Area development is proposed to be from roads 

within the Township (Greenhaw Road). However, in the event that lands in the 

South Sub-Area are proposed for development in advance of securing a public road 

connection to Greenhaw Road, it is not clear as to how access would be provided 

from roads within the Township. 

• Emergency access is proposed to be available via secondary road access points 

along the south boundary of the Concept Plan area where the Township boundary 

abuts the Regional District boundary. 

• Road access into the development area is proposed to originate from Greenhaw 

Road near the intersection of Highway 97 A and Greenhaw Road. 

• The site is proposed to have access to a road (Greenhaw Road) constructed to 

support the anticipated traffic generated by the development. 

• Pedestrian and bicycle use is proposed to be accommodated within the South Sub 

Area road network and through the provision of trails proposed to be developed 

within the open space network. 

• The proposed commercial node at the southwest corner of the Plan area could serve 

as a potential location for a transit hub. 

The OCP requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) in conjunction with OCP amendment 

applications for a Sub-Area of the SE Sector. The TIS is to identify the amount of traffic 

generated by the development and appropriate improvements required to support the 

anticipated level of traffic. 

The applicant's Transportation Engineer, CTQ Consultants Ltd. explains in their 

Transportation Review (Appendix G) that the road proposed to connect from Greenhaw 

Road through adjacent parcels to the South Sub-Area would be considered a Collector 

roadway. As such, a Collector Road would have capacity for up to 8,000 vehicles per 

day for residential areas and up to 12,000 vehicles per day for industrial areas. The 

proposed "PV Estates" industrial park is anticipated to generate up to 3,200 vehicle trips 

per day, and, at 10 vehicle trips per home site, the road within the South Sub-Area 

could therefore support up to 800 homes (8,000 vehicle trips). 

The Transportation Review does not address the traffic impact of the proposed 

development on proposed or existing roads including those which lead into Electoral 

Area "C" (Keddleston, Deerwood, Mclennan, Glenhayes, and Ridgeview). Contrary to 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



OCP policl, the applicant's Transportation Engineer also did not identify improvements 

at the Greenhaw Road/Highway 97 A intersection nor at the intersection of Greenhaw 

Road and Pleasant Valley Road near Highway 97 A which may be needed to 

accommodate the proposed development. 

The Engineer suggests that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure would 

initiate a full review at the appropriate time. Past experience of Planning staff with other 

development applications along the Highway 97 A corridor suggests that, prior to 

commenting on a proposed rezoning application, the Ministry will require that the 

applicant undertake a Traffic Impact Study in accordance with Terms of Reference 

acceptable to the Ministry. 

e) Existing Aquifer and Groundwater Conditions 

As noted previously, Summit Environmental Consultants Inc. were engaged by the 

applicant group to assess groundwater conditions within the South Sub-Area. Summit 

reports that a mapped bedrock aquifer is present within the southern half of the South 

Sub-Area, and it is likely this aquifer extends north to include the entire Plan area. This 

aquifer (no. 351 IIC) is described as having a low productivity, low demand and low 

vulnerability to contamination. Portions of bedrock aquifer no. 271 C and D also lie 

beneath the South Sub-Area. 

Larkin Waterworks District expressed concern that sewage from the proposed 

development may impact the watershed that supplies their well #5. 

Summit reports that two alluvial aquifers are mapped downslope of the South Sub-Area 

and are classified as having a low vulnerability to contamination because they are 

separated from the surface by low permeability layers. Summit concludes that 

residential development (in the South Sub-Area) is unlikely to impact underlying and 

down-gradient aquifers. 

Summit reports that the South Sub-Area is not within the capture zone of any of the 

supply wells utilized by the Larkin and Eagle Rock Water Districts and the report 

concludes that residential development in the South Sub-Area is expected to have 

minimal to no effect on the groundwater source for these systems. 


It is a policy of the OCP to expand the Aquifer Protection - Natural Environment DP 

Area to encompass all areas above unconfined aquifers. The Summit report does not 

identify any unconfined aquifers underlying the South Sub-Area. 

Other policies of the OCP speak to exploring long term options for understanding and 

protecting both the quality and quantity of water in aquifers and to consider the effects 

of development and groundwater extraction on the aquifers. 

3 

OCP Bylaw No. 1794, 2011, Schedule A, policy 8.1.4.i)v., p.25 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Section 8.0 of the OCP (Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area) requires that 

an aquifer I groundwater study identify aquifers in the area, the potential impacts of 

development on the aquifers, methods to avoid negative impacts on the aquifers, and 

feasibility of using groundwater to supply potential development. 

The Summit report describes bedrock aquifer no. 351 , which underlies the South Sub 

Area, as having a low vulnerability to contamination. Summit notes that if a community 

wastewater treatment system is proposed, it would require an Environmental Impact 

Study prior to construction to ensure that underlying aquifers and downgradient 

receptors are protected. Summit also suggests there would be a low potential for 

impacts to the underlying bedrock aquifer from individual on-site wastewater systems, 

designed by Qualified Professionals (ROWPs) and constructed in accordance with 

established regulations. 

It is the Planning Department's recommendation that future development proposals 

which propose to create lots smaller than 1 ha, be required to submit an OCP 

amendment application, including the studies described in Section 8.0 of the OCP, 

which may, or may not, reveal that an expansion of the Aquifer Protection DP area is 

necessary (among other matters). 

As compared to Rural development, smaller lots would potentially result in more 

impervious surfaces, more complex stormwater management systems, and a 

community sewage treatment and disposal facility which, collectively, may pose a 

greater degree of risk of contamination to aquifers. 

f) Existing and Potential Archaeological Values 

The applicant's Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) reports that within the 

South Sub-Area, the following localities are considered to have the highest potential for 

archaeological sites: terrain contiguous to Greenhaw Creek and its tributaries, the high 

bluff in the northeast of the Plan area, and the flatter benches resulting from glacial lake 

recession. 

These findings are supplemented by the findings of the AOA prepared for the North 

Sub-Area OCP amendment application by Golder Associates which addressed the 

whole of the Southeast Sector (North, Central, and South Sub-Areas). The Golder 

report identified two bench areas within the South Sub-Area as having high potential for 

archaeological sites. Whereas the Golder report recommends an Archaeological 

Impact Assessment be conducted prior to development in areas assessed as having 

high archaeological potential, the applicant's AOA concludes that there are no further 

archaeological concerns and no sub-surface testing would be required. 


It is a policy of the OCP that archaeological values should be recognized and any 

archaeological sites be preserved or excavated in accordance with direction provided in 

an archaeological report. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



To address the above noted discrepancies, and archaeological policies of the OCP, it is 

recommended that, prior to Second Reading of the OCP amending bylaw, the 

applicant's archaeological consultant provide comment with respect to the differing 

recommendations of the two archaeological reports. 

g) Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory 

Makonis Consulting Ltd. prepared an Environmental Assessment for the South Sub 

Area and outlines strategies to guide development in a manner that would be 

acceptable environmentally. The assessment recognizes that development as 

presented in the South Sub-Area Concept Plan will requ ire that roads and services 

cross ESA 1 areas and the report recommends that any works or plans within 30 m of 

any ESA 1 feature should be reviewed by a Registered Professional Biologist 

(R.P.Bio.). This is consistent with the provincial Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) as it 

applies to stream corridors. 

The assessment differentiates the Concept Plan 

environmental sensitivity: 

area into four degrees of 

• ESA 1: containing significant ecosystem and/or wildlife characteristics. 

Development, including public parks, should not occur in these areas. If 

development should occur, mitigation should promote no net loss to habitat and 

typically use a 3:1 replacement ratio. ESA 1 areas should have a 30 m buffer which 

may be reduced to 10 m only if it can be demonstrated there would be no impact on 

the ecosystem or wildlife value associated with the ESA 1 designation. ESA 1 areas 

should be connected if possible. 

• ESA 2: moderate significance, contributes towards overall diversity and contiguous 

nature of natural features. Should be used for habitat connection, mitigation or 

compensation. Parks and trails would be allowed but should be kept to minimum 

footprint. Development would be allowed in ESA 2 areas. 

• ESA 3: lower significance, represents disturbed habitats or fragmented features. 

Contributes to diversity of the landscape although function is limited. Development 

should be focused in ESA 3 areas. 

• ESA 4: little to no value to overall diversity, vegetation, soils, terrain, and wildlife 

characteristics. ESA 4 areas are often extensively and intensively disturbed, either 

historically or currently. These areas are not suitable for restoration and 

enhancement to offset development in other areas. Development would be 

encouraged to focus on these areas. 

The environmental assessment provides recommendations to address environmentally 

sensitive areas, wildlife, and aquatic mitigation. Areas identified as ESA 1 are included 

on the Concept Plan's proposed land use map. The Makonis assessment states that 

the proposed development concept would not impact ESA 1 areas with the exception of 

several future roads proposed to cross highly sensitive areas. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11 -0082-SPL-OCP (Willowhaven Investments) Page 21 

The assessment emphasizes that ESA features or ecosystems may retain little or no 

functional value if they are fragmented or become pockets of isolated habitat refuge. 

The focus should be on connecting ESA 1 habitats and/or large areas of conservation 

value both within and outside the South Sub-Area. The width of primary and secondary 

corridors linking ESAs may range from 20 m to greater than 50 m depending on the 

significance of the areas being linked and the type of animals being considered. Tertiary 

corridors include tree-lined streets and vegetated back yards and can provide some 

connectivity at a very localized level. 

The Makonis assessment describes that deep gullies and the substantial hill with rock 

outcrops and remnant grasslands at the NW edge of the Plan area as the most 

significant wildlife areas. Recognizing that lands to the east are likely to remain 

undeveloped over the long term, the assessment notes that it will be important to retain 

connectivity corridors between habitat areas with the South Sub-Area and the lands to 

the east. 


The Planning Department concurs with the assessment's recommendation that a 

Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) I R.P.Bio. be retained to assist the 

developer and/or contractors at the planning and implementation level and to ensure the 

recommendations of the Makonis report are adhered to at the Development Permit 

stage if site development proceeds in the future. Development within 30 m of any 

stream will be subject to RAR. 

Development within the South Sub-Area would be an ideal opportunity to implement 

strategies for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the conservation of energy 

and water through site, building, and neighbourhood design. It is a policy of the OCP 4 

to create a Development Permit Area for such a purpose. Progressive, innovative 

development in the South Sub Area should set a positive example and a high standard 

of energy and water efficiency that other, future development may seek to emulate and 

improve upon. 

Hillside Development Permit guidelines in OCP Section 20.7 provide a mechanism to 

help implement the recommendations of the Makonis report which, in part, aim to 

maintain and improve natural habitat and to accentuate natural areas. 

It is recommended that ESA 1 areas be designated as Open Space on the OCP future 

land use map (OCP Schedule B) and policies and guidelines to facilitate protection of 

ESA 1 areas and wildlife corridors (that may be either privately or publicly owned) be 

incorporated into the OCP as part of the text amendments associated with this 

application. 

4 

See OCP Section 8. 1.4.f.iii (p. 24) and OCP Section 15.1 (p. 43) 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Page 22 

h) Existing Geotechnical Characteristics and Potential Hazards 

Calibre Geotechnical prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment for the South 

Sub-Area Concept Plan. Associated with this report is Terrain Stability Mapping 

prepared by Polar Geoscience Ltd. The South Sub-Area is described as a hillslope 

area of undulating and hummocky bedrock-controlled terrain. Bedrock is covered by 

patches of till (sand, silt, and gravel) and very thin discontinuous weathered bedrock. 

Silt and sand may be found in depressions and as thin veneers in the lower to mid 

elevations. Sediments of sand, silt, and clay may be found below 500 m which is the 

maximum elevation that Glacial Lake Penticton reached near the end of most recent 

glaciation. 

It is the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer that there should be no negative 

geotechnical impact on the site from on-site sewage disposal as per the DeansTech 

assessment. Further, the Engineer believes the site is well suited for the proposed 

residential development presented in the South Sub Area Concept Plan. It is noted that 

site conditions are suitable for road building, installation of services and building 

foundations and that blasting will most likely be required for the various construction 

activities. It is the opinion of the Engineer that based on the site assessment, no 

obvious geotechnical hazards would impact the proposed development with the 

exception of steep slopes and potential rockfall hazard areas which were identified 

along portions of the Greenhaw Creek corridor and in the northwest corner of the Plan 

area. The Engineer advises that such areas may be unsuitable for development or 

would require remedial work the details of which should be determined on a case by 

case basis. 


The OCP includes a comprehensive series of guidelines for hillside development which 

would be required to be addre$sed at the Development Permit stage. The technical 

reports provided with this OCP amendment application address many of the hillside 

development requ irements of the OCP and acknowledge that further analysis at the 

subdivision planning stage (through the DP process) would be appropriate. 

i) Wildfire Hazard Information 

Carruthers Forest Solutions Ltd. (P.L. Carruthers, MF, RPF) prepared the Wildfire 

Hazard Assessment for the South Sub-Area. The risk of fire was assessed using the 

FireSmart Manual and the assessment process described therein. The report 

determined that forested areas of the Plan area have an extreme risk of wildfire 

occurance, the open range and clear cut areas have a moderate risk, and areas of 

cultivated land have a low risk. Recommendations are provided at a macro (Plan area) 

scale and at the micro (residential lot) scale and are intended to allow development to 

proceed with the wildfire risk reduced to a manageable level. 

The assessment suggests that much of the mitigation can occur at the subdivision stage 

with further mitigative actions applied at the individual lot scale. On private land, 

ongoing maintenance of wildfire hazard mitigation (i.e. vegetation management and 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11 ·0082·SPL· OCP (Willowhaven Investments) Page 23 

debris clean-up) would be the responsibility of the homeowner. The assessment report 

notes that fire hydrants are not likely to be provided for this rural development and 

therefore access to lands in the Plan area will be critical for emergency responders 

delivering water to a fire in the area. 


The Township's Wildfire Hazard Development Permit system is consistent with the 

recommendations of the Wildfire Hazard Assessment report, albeit the Carruthers report 

addresses the subject in greater detail. It is suggested that measures to reduce the risk 

of wildfire be implemented at the subdivision stage at which time a Wildfire Hazard DP 

may be required. 

j) Visual Impact Considerations 

A Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix L) prepared by the applicant on behalf of the 

South Sub-Area Owners' Group has been submitted which was prepared using photos 

looking towards the site taken from the following off-site vantage points: 

• Old Kamloops Road near intersection with Highway 97 

• Highway 97 south of O'Keefe Ranch (top of hill) 

• Highway 97 near intersection with Old Kamloops Road 

• Highway 97 north of Swan Lake (2) 

• Highway 97 at Highland Road 

• Highway 97 approaching Swan Lake Interchange 

• Highway 97A at Swan Lake Interchange (3) 

• Highway 97A near north end of Greenhaw Road (4) 

The photos demonstrate that, as the observer proceeds eastward, and approaches 

closer to the site, much of the South Sub-Area is obscured by upward sloping land 

along the east side of Highway 97 A. The South Sub-Area appears to be most readily 

visible from the westerly side of the valley in the vicinity of Highway 97 and Stepping 

Stone Estates. From the westerly slopes, the effect of distance would help to diminish 

the visual impact of development in the South Sub-Area, however areas of tree I 

vegetation removal, as well as road cuts and fills would still have the potential to be 

quite visually apparent. 


The Official Community Plan requires that each Sub-Area Concept Plan include a 

Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) to show graphically what the development would look like 

from off-site from a wide range of perspectives. The VIA imagery is to be in threedimensions 

and provide a photo-realistic view of how the development would look after 

all buildings, roads, and services have been constructed. 

While development, especially hillside development, cannot be 100% obscured from 

view, visual screening can be enhanced by tree and vegetation retention where 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



possible, by breaking up areas of development with natural environment corridors and 

park space, by employing design and construction strategies to minimize road cuts and 

fills, and by using subdued, earth-toned exterior cladding materials for buildings. 

Visual Quality is a component of the Hillside Development Permit Area designation and 

guidelines are provided to protect and preserve the natural character of the hillside as 

well as to consider opportunities to provide scenic views from hillside sites. 

Provided appropriate strategies are implemented at the Development Permit and 

subdivision stages to minimize visibility from off-site, it is anticipated that the 

appearance of development in the South Sub-Area would not be overly obtrusive, 

especially once construction is complete and vegetation begins to regenerate. 

k} Proposed Land Use Concept, Form and Character of the Development 

The Proposed Land Use Concept is described previously in this report under the subheading: 

The Proposal. In brief, the land use concept proposes a rural, low density 

form of development consisting of a combination of Large Holding and Small Holding 

designated lands serviced by on-site septic disposal systems and individual water 

supply wells. The westernmost six lots abutting Greenhow Road are proposed to be 

designated Commercial, are within the Greater Vernon Water service area, and would 

utilize on-site sewage systems. 

Minimum lot areas are 30.5 ha in the Large Holding OCP designation and zone, and 1 .0 

ha in the Small Holding designation and zone. Given the current size of the parcels 

proposed to be retained as Large Holdings (LH), there appears to be only one LH parcel 

which may be able to be subdivided into two lots therefore the only significant 

residential development potential would be the proposed Small Holding (SH) parcels. In 

this regard, the 159 ha proposed for Small Holding properties could, theoretically, be 

developed into 159 one hectare lots. The actual number of newly created lots would be 

somewhat less however, recognizing that some SH lots may be larger than 1 ha and the 

overall developable area would be reduced by road dedication, steep slopes, ESAs and 

other natural features, and potential park dedication. 

Under the Large Holding zone, secondary single family dwellings (or manufactured 

homes) and secondary suites are permitted while under the Small Holding zone, 

secondary suites are permitted. The applicant has estimated that, as proposed, the 

number of new residential units within the South Sub-Area could be approximately 150 

-175. 

In addition to Small Holding zoned parcels, the applicant has proposed that Residential 

Single Family (R.1) zoned parcels also be permitted within the areas of the South Sub 

Area proposed for the Small Holding OCP designation. The applicant's objective would 

be to facilitate rezoning and subdivision (without the need to amend the OCP) to create 

fully serviced cluster developments once community sewer and water infrastructure is 

available. It is proposed that as long as the R.1 zoned parcels are serviced by on-site 

septic disposal and individual wells, the lot area would be at least 1 ha. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Page 25 


As expressed in the OCP, the general vision for development in the Southeast Sector is 

a combination of mixed-use, compact I clustered development within the Core 

Development Areas and lower density, rural residential development, parks and open 

space in the Limited Development Area. Core development is intended to be fully 

serviced with community water and community sewer while on-site septic disposal and 

private wells would be considered for parcels larger than 1 ha. 

Whereas it is to be expected that the more detailed environmental study undertaken for 

each Sub-Area plan may result in a development concept that does not entirely 

correspond to the Core Development, Limited Development, and Open Space 

designations shown on Map 1 of the OCP, it does not appear that the land use concept 

presented for the South Sub-Area is significantly influenced by topography and 

environmental analysis. There is considerable difference between the proposed 

Concept Plan and OCP Map 1 . 

As a rural residential concept utilizing on-site services, the proposed South Sub-Area 

plan does not fully reflect the OCP vision for the Southeast Sector. Whereas, it is 

proposed that the rural form of development could transition over the longer term to 

include one or more clusters of Residential Single Family (R.1 ) 5 lots serviced with a 

community water and sewer system, the Concept Plan does not illustrate how the more 

immediate rural development could take place without compromising the potential for 

further, fully serviced more compact development to occur later. A plan of the longer 

term, more intensive cluster residential concept, could guide development in such a way 

that the shorter term arrangement of rural lots, roads, driveways, building sites, and 

servicing corridors anticipates how further, higher density development could take place 

later. In addition, a longer term concept contemplating fully serviced development could 

assist both the developer/landowners and the Township to consider whether it is even 

feasible to provide infrastructure and services to the area for higher density 

development. 

The Concept Plan addresses the lack of a longer term plan by suggesting that the 

majority of the Large Holding designated lands are more appropriate to higher density 

land uses at some point in the future when urban services are available to the Plan 

area. In this regard, large parcels would be retained intact and their further 

development potential would not be compromised by 'interim' development. 

The applicant's proposal to allow R.1 zoning within lands designated in the OCP as 

Small Holdings would be problematic in that Section 7.0 Rural Land of the OCP does 

not currently include R.1 within the scope of what is considered a Rural designation. 

Amending the Rural Land section of the OCP to accommodate the applicant's proposal 

would blur the line between rural and 'urban' development by potentially having fully 

serviced 560 m 2 lots within a Rural designated area. It is suggested that it would be 

5 

Where served by a community water system and a community sewer system, a Residential Single FamiJy (R.l) lot 

shall have an area not less than 560 square metres. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11-0082-SPL-OCP {Willowhaven Investments) Page 26 

more appropriate that lands intended for urban scale development (such as R.1) be redesignated 

to the Residential OCP designation. 

The conclusions and recommendations of the technical analyses undertaken in 

conjunction with this application are not necessarily applicable to development which 

would be of higher density than what is currently proposed. 

Although the South Sub-Area concept may not fu lfill the "complete community" vision of 

the Southeast Sector as presented in the OCP, it is to be acknowledged that the Large 

Holding I Small Holding rural concept is not without community support as is evident 

from the written submissions provided by the applicant and as expressed at public 

consultation sessions and through the community survey conducted during the most 

recent review of the Township's Official Community Plan. 

I) Parks, Trails and Open Space 

The South Sub-Area Concept Plan maps (figures L-2 and L-3) illustrate areas of natural 

open space and wildlife corridors consistent with the Environmental Assessment. The 

Plan suggests these areas and their buffer zones provide opportunity for trails to be 

developed with inter-connections made along the road system. The Concept Plan 

indicates that trails could either be dedicated or protected by statutory rights of way to 

be applied at the time of subdivision. 


The South Sub-Area Concept Plan does not show any areas proposed for public parks 

which is contrary to the OCP which states that Council's policies are to "plan for and 

identify a park, trail, and open space network ... " and to "ensure that development 

supports the Township's policy of acquiring land for active and passive parks, 

pedestrian and multipurpose trails, and other public amenity space". 6 The applicant has 

advised that the ESA 1 areas and wildlife corridors shown on Concept Plan maps L -2 

and L-3 are not intended to be designated for park or open space purposes at this time 

and as such, these areas would be encompassed within either the Large Holding or 

Small Holding designations. 

As noted previously, it is recommended that ESA 1 areas be designated as Open 

Space on the OCP future land use map (OCP Schedule B). Open Space areas may be 

protected portions of private land and need not necessarily be public park land. 

The OCP upholds a parkland standard of 4 ha. per 1000 population as outlined in the 

Parks and Recreation Master Plan of the Armstrong - Spallumcheen Parks and 

Recreation Commission. With the rural development concept proposed to 

accommodate a population of approximately 420 the South Sub-Area should be 

developed with at least 1.7 ha of public parkland. Should the South Sub-Area transition 

6 

See OCP Section 8.1.4 policies e) i and e)ii (p. 23) 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



to a more highly populated neighbourhood, the need for park land would increase 

accordingly. 

The Concept Plan maps (L-2 and L-3) indicate there would be 26 ha of 50 m wide 

wildlife corridors. These corridors are not proposed to be dedicated as public park land 

however they may be protected on private property by Land Title Act Section 219 

covenants which may limit development activity and land use within the corridor. 

If public trails are intended to share the wildlife corridor routes, the Environmental 

Assessment recommends that the wildlife corridors should be wider. 

In accordance with Section 941 (1) of the Local Government Act an owner of land being 

subdivided must, at the owner's option, provide without compensation, park land of an 

amount and in a location acceptable to the local government, or pay to the local 

government an amount that equals the market value of the land that may be required for 

park 7 . The amount of land that may be required or used for establishing the amount 

that may be paid must not exceed 5% of the land being proposed for subdivision. If the 

OCP of the local government contains policies and designations respecting the location 

and type of future parks, the local government may determine whether the owner must 

provide land or "cash in lieu". 

The Spallumcheen OCP does not include such policies and designations regarding 

parks and trails in the Southeast Sector therefore it would be the land owner's option as 

to whether to provide the land or cash in lieu. In this regard, it is possible that through 

the subdivision process, only cash in lieu could be provided, thereby leaving the 

neighbourhood without park land. 

The potential to establish a community park in the area, that may include both active 

and passive recreation areas, should be explored before the opportunity is lost. In this 

regard, it is recommended that the OCP amendment bylaw include policy direction 

regarding anticipated needs for Parks and Open Space associated with the long term 

development of the South Sub-Area. 

m) Other OCP Policies 

Whereas Section 8.0 of the OCP (Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area) 

contains policy statements specific to this application, policies from other sections of the 

OCP also apply to development in this area. A summary of other relevant OCP policies 

is provided below and the policies themselves are cited in Appendix A. 

7 

Section 94 1(1) does not apply to: a subdivision by which the smallesllol being created is larger than 2 ha.; a 

consolidation of existing parcels; or a subdivision by which fewer than 3 additional lots would be created unless the 

parcel proposed to be subdivided was itself created by subdivision within the past 5 years. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Page 28 

7.0 Rural Land 

This section of the OCP reiterates several of the development application criteria 

specified in Section 8.0 of the OCP. Other aspects of the. development such as 

mitigation or avoidance of visual impacts and geotechnical constraints, and establishing 

suitable building sites, driveways, and roadways would be required to be addressed on 

a site specific basis through the rezoning, Development Permit, and subdivision 

process. Residential Single Family (R.1) is not supported under the Rural Land 

designation. 

9.0 Residential Land 

It is proposed that a fully serviced cluster form of single family residential development 

could take place in the South Sub-Area once water and sewer infrastructure is 

available. Such development would be consistent with the applicable residential 

policies in the OCP which state that new residential development is encouraged to be 

constructed on serviced parcels in the Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area. 

13.0 Community Uses Parks and Trails 

The South Sub-Area Concept Plan does not show any areas proposed for public park 

which is contrary to Parks and Recreation policies of the OCP. 

The Concept Plan is, however, largely consistent with the Trails policies of the OCP as 

it is proposed that wildlife corridors, ESA 1 areas, and their buffer zones provide 

opportunity for trails to be developed with inter-connections made along the road 

system. The Concept Plan indicates that trails could either be dedicated or protected by 

statutory rights of way to be applied at the time of subdivision. 

14.0 Aquifer Protection 

The proposed Concept Plan is in accordance with aquifer protection policies of the 

OCP. The applicant's hydrogeological report raises no concerns however the report 

notes that additional site investigations should be undertaken prior to the design of 

wastewater systems (both individual and community). 

Aquifer protection is an important issue in the community of Spallumcheen. As noted 

previously, it is recommended that future development applications which propose to 

create lots smaller than 1 ha, be required to submit, as part of the OCP amendment 

application, the studies described in Section 8.0 of the OCP, which may, or may not, 

reveal that an expansion of the Aquifer Protection DP area would be necessary. 

15.0 Environmental Features 

The proposed Concept Plan includes an Environmental Assessment by Makonis 

Consulting Ltd. which addresses many of the environmental priorities identified in this 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



section of the OCP. The Riparian Area Regulation will apply to any streams in the 

development area and the Environmental and Hillside DP Area designations will provide 

a means to implement protective measures as development proceeds. 

It will be important that the developer take the appropriate steps to avoid impacting 

highly sensitive areas and, where impacts may be unavoidable, to undertake mitigation 

and/or compensation as may be specified by a Qualified Environmental Professional to 

minimize harm. It is recommended that key features such as ESA 1 areas be identified 

as Open Space on OCP map Schedule B to help ensure future development complies 

with the intent of the OCP and the recommendations of the Makonis report may be 

implemented. 

18.0 Utility Services 

As in the Aquifer Protection section, Water policies within the Utility Services section of 

the OCP emphasize the importance of understanding the impacts of development on 

groundwater regimes in order to avoid negative impacts on the aquifers and to protect 

the water supply of existing users. 

It is a policy of Council to consider undertaking an update to the Liquid Waste 

Management Plan to expand the scope of the plan to include the Southeast Sector. 

This section of the OCP provides direction both for developers and the Township with 

respect to the planning and servicing of development. Requirements for water, waste 

water, and storm water management would be implemented as stages of the 

development proceed through the process of rezoning, Development Permit and 

subdivision. 

19.0 Hillside Guidelines 

The policies of this section are largely addressed in Section 8.0 of the OCP which 

specifically addresses the Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area and 

provides additional detail. The applicant has expressed a commitment to undertake 

development in a manner appropriate to the hillside environment and as more detailed 

development planning proceeds, future applications will be evaluated for compliance 

with all applicable OCP policies and guidelines, as well as zoning and servicing 

requirements. 

20.0 Development Permit Areas 

Development Permit designations apply to the proposed South Sub-Area development 

and the applicable categories are outlined in Appendix B of this report. Development 

Permit applications will be required as components of the South Sub-Area development 

are advanced for Council's approval. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Any commercial development would be subject to the commercial form and character 

DP guidelines currently specified in the OCP. 

The Hillside DP Area is designated for: 

• protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity; 

• protection of development from hazardous conditions; 

• establishment of objectives for the form and character of intensive residential 

development; and 

• establishment of objectives for the form and character of commercial, industrial, 

or multi-family residential development. 

The South Sub-Area is also subject to Wildfire Hazard and Waterbody Protection - 

Natural Environment Development Permit designations. 

Development Permit areas for promotion of energy conservation, promotion of water 

conservation, and promoting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, are not presently 

included in the OCP therefore if it is Council's desire to define such areas 8 , the OCP 

would require amendment in order to designate the areas and specify the guidelines. 

SUMMARY: 

This is an application for Official Community Plan Amendment which was submitted in 

March 2011. In a letter to the applicant dated June 17, 2011 the Planning Department 

provided comments and questions to the applicant arising from staff's review of the 

application submission. Over the next several months the applicant attended to the 

questions and other matters raised by the Planning Department and in April 2012 

updated information was submitted to the Planning Department. A Public Information 

Meeting was held on July 30, 2012. Information provided by the applicant indicates that 

the requirements of the Township's Public Information Meeting policy (Policy 

#3030.007) have been met. 

The Planning Department recommends this OCP Amendment Bylaw be granted initial 

consideration and that the OCP amending bylaw be prepared on the basis that the 

proposal is intended to be transitional towards further, future development and that, to 

ensure the proposed concept is transitional, provisions would be put in place (as 

recommended) to ensure that the contemplated scale of development could ultimately 

be achieved in accordance with the Southeast Sector policies of the OCP. 

Should Council wish to limit the development of the South Sub-Area to that which has 

been proposed in this application, Council could omit that part of the recommendation 

relating to the need for policy direction in the OCP that would ensure future 

development proposals comply with the requirements outlined in the Southeast Sector 

Comprehensive Planning section of the OCP. In this regard, an OCP policy statement 

would be required to confirm that, within the South Sub-Area of the Southeast Sector, 

8 

Local Government Act, Sections 919.l(l)(e), (h), (i), and U) 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



the Township does not wish to see further development beyond that which has been 

proposed under this application. 

Prepared by: 

Marnie Skobalski, MCIP 

Planner 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 

File No.: 11-0082-SPL-OCP 

November 13,2012 

APPLICANT: 


PID #s: 

(21 properties) 

LOCATION: 


SERVICING: 

Willowhaven Investments - Dave Pusey 

i. Lot A, Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan 35469 

ii. Lot B, Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan 35469 

iii. The NW % of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D. 

iv. TheSE % of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D. 

v. The N Y2 of the SW % of Sec. 31 , Twp. 5, O.D.Y.D. 

Except That Part Thereof Shown Outlined Red On 

Plan 81458 and Plan EPP10473 

vi. Lot 1, Sec. 31 , Twp. 5, O.D.Y.D., Plan EPP1 0473 

vii. The S 1f2 of the SW %, Sec. 31, Twp. 5, O.D.Y.D. 

viii. District Lot 4168, O.D.Y.D. 

ix. Lot 1, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan KAP79444 

x. Lot A, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan KAP79445 

xi. Lot 1, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, 0. D. Y.D., Plan 10785 

xii. Lot 2, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan 10785 Except 

Plans H17039 and KAP67931 

xiii. Lot A, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan KAP78698 

xiv. Lot 1, Sec. 35, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D., Plan KAP60972 

xv. TheW % of District Lot 3509, O.D.Y.D. 

xvi. The Northerly %, District Lot 3844, O.D.Y.D., Except 

the Easterly 45 Chains 

xvii. The N Y2 of the NW % of Section 31, Township 5, 

O.D.Y.D. 

xviii. The NE % of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D. 

xix. The N Y2 of the S % of the SW 114 of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, 

O.D.Y.D 

xx. 

xxi. 

The N V2 of the SW % of Sec. 36, Twp. 8, O.D.Y.D. 

That Part of the West Y2 of Sec. 31 Shown on Plan 

81458, Twp. 5, O.D.Y.D. 

01 3-455-869 I 001 -796-895 I 001 -61 5-726 I 001-615-777 I 

008-251 -304 I 013-455-885 I 013-456-024 I 011-222-263 I 

013-571-541 I 028-640-527 I 011 -222-301 I 005-087-1 04 I 

002-253-658 I 007-783-621 I 011 -419-351 I 026-468-697 I 

026-468-701 I 009-534-997 I 009-535-004 I 026-379-996 I 

024-015-318 

South Sub Area - Southeast Sector 

489 ha (1208 acres) 

On site septic disposal, wells, Greater Vernon Water (SW 

corner of plan area) 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


PRESENT O.C.P. 

DESIGNATION: 

PROPOSED O.C.P. 

DESIGNATION: 

PROPOSED USE: 

Large Holding (L.H), Highway and Tourist Commercial (C.2) 

Large Holding and Commercial 

Large Holding, Small Holding, Commercial, Open Space 

Rural Residential, Commercial 


THAT Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795, 2012 which proposes to 

change the future land use designation of the properties within the South Sub-Area of 

the Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area from Large Holding and 

Commercial to a combination of Large Holding, Small Holding, Commercial and Open 

Space as shown on the attached map (Schedule A); and to amend other components of 

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1794, 2011 as outlined in the attached OCP 

Amendment Bylaw No. 1795, 2012; be considered for First Reading; 

AND THAT the referral process outlined in the Planning Department report dated 

November 13, 2012 be considered appropriate consultation for the purpose of Sections 

879 and 881 of the Local Government Act, 

AND THAT prior to Second Reading of OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 1795, 2012, the 

following information be submitted to the Township of Spallumcheen: 

• A report prepared by a Transportation Engineer, at the applicant's expense, 

which identifies what if any improvements would be needed to existing roads and 

classification of proposed roads connecting to the South Sub-Area to support the 

anticipated level of traffic generated by the proposed development; and 

• Financial Cost Recovery Analysis for the South Sub-Area of the SE Sector 

Comprehensive Planning Area. 

BACKGROUND: 

This Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment application proposes to change the 

future land use designations of the South Sub-Area of the Southeast Sector 

Comprehensive Planning Area from Large Holdings and Commercial to a combination 

of Large Holdings, Small Holdings, Commercial, and Open Space. As required by OCP 

policy, a Concept Plan for the South Sub-Area has been prepared by the applicant 

which addresses land use, access, servicing and other matters. 

The South Sub-Area is approximately 489 ha and comprised of 21 parcels which are 

currently developed with a few rural residential homes. The westerly boundary of the 

South Sub-Area has approximately 411 m frontage on Greenhaw Road. The south 

boundary of the South Sub-Area corresponds to the Spallumcheen I Regional District 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



(RDNO) boundary. Keddleston Road, Deerwood Road, Mclennan Road, and 

Glenhayes Road extend northward from within the Regional District and terminate at the 

Spallumcheen I RDNO boundary. Ridgeview Road branches north from Baker Hogg 

Road (within RDNO) and extends approximately 200 m into the Township of 

Spallumcheen at the southwest corner of the South Sub-Area. In June 2011 a segment 

of Mclennan Road and a segment of Keddleston Road were dedicated as part of a 

subdivision within the South Sub-Area. 

The six relatively small parcels in the SW corner of the South Sub-Area are within the 

service area of the Greater Vernon Water system. The balance of the South Sub-Area 

is not within a Water District. 

If OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 1795 is granted First Reading, the South Sub-Area 

Concept Plan will be subject to a Financial Cost Recovery Analysis (FCRA) to be 

initiated by the Township of Spallumcheen. A portion of the proponent's application fee 

is allocated to cover the cost of the FCRA. The intent of the FCRA is to evaluate the 

impact the proposed development would potentially have on the finances of the 

Township, particularly with respect to the capital and operational costs of infrastructure 

and other facilities required to service the development. 

A comprehensive report regarding this application, including all of the applicant's 

technical studies, was presented by the Planning Department to the Township of 

Spallumcheen Committee of the Whole (CotW) at their meeting of October 22, 2012. 

Given the volume of material addressed in that report, the content is not repeated here 

therefore if additional information is desired, the reader is advised to review the 

Planning Department report dated October 18, 2012 contained in the October 22nd 

CotW agenda package. 

At the Regular Meeting of November 5, 2012 Council ratified the Minutes of the October 

22, 2012 meeting of the Committee of the Whole and passed the following resolution: 

THAT Spallumcheen Council grant initial consideration to the proposed Southeast 

Sector South Sub-Area Concept Plan and authorize preparation of an Official 

Community Plan Amendment Bylaw which would propose to change the future land 

use designation of the properties described as: 



• NW ~ Section 36, Township 8 

• SE ~ Section 36, Township 8 

• Rem N "'h ot SW ~ Section 31, Township 5, Exc Plan 81458 

• Lot 1, Plan EPP10473, Section 31, Township 5 

• S 1h of SW ~ Section 31 , Township 5 


from Large Holding to Small Holding and: 




June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11 -0082-SPL-OCP (Willowhaven Investments) 

Page 4 






from Large Holding to Commercial as shown on the submitted land use plans: 

Concept L-2 and Concept L-3 (Appendix D); 

AND THAT the Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw be prepared to include 

Official Community Plan policy directives to: 

1. require that future development proposals within the Comprehensive Planning 

Area of the Southeast Sector South Sub-Area which propose a land use 

density greater than that which is proposed under the subject application be 

approved through an OCP Amendment Application which involves the 

submission of the required studies and plans as outlined in Section 8.3 and 

addresses the policies outlined in Section 8.4 of the Official Community Plan 

and includes the $20,000 Official Community Plan/Southeast Sector 

Comprehensive Planning Area application fee; 

2. establish Development Permit Areas and guidelines to promote reduction of 

greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation, and water conservation prior 

to rezoning of land within the Southeast Sector Comprehensive Development 

Area; 

3. identify the South Sub-Area as appropriate for rural and rural-residential 

development; 

AND THAT following First Reading, the Official Community Plan amendment bylaw 

be referred to the agencies and organizations listed in the Referral Comments 

section of the Planning Department report dated October 1 £ih, 2012 in accordance 

with Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act; 

AND THAT prior to Second Reading of the Official Community Plan amendment 

bylaw, the following information be submitted to the Township of Spallumcheen: 

1. a revised traffic impact study which addresses the requirements outlined in 

Section 8.3.d of the Official Community Plan which states that such a study will 

identify the amount of traffic generated by the development and the appropriate 

improvements required to support the anticipated level of traffic. The study 

must identify necessary improvements to all roads that are proposed to provide 

access to the proposed development, including those which have not been 

constructed; 

2. a revised environmental assessment which advises whether or not developing 

the subject properties under the Small Holding designation would negatively 

impact the areas identified as ESA 1 (high value). 

In accordance with the resolution of Council, and in consideration of new information 

provided by the applicant following the October 22, 2012 meeting of the Committee of 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



the Whole, staff have prepared Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795, 

2012 (attached). 

OCP Amendment Process 

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795 includes a text amendment to the 

OCP which would confirm that any future application to amend the OCP to permit a land 

use density greater than that which is proposed in the Concept Plan would require the 

applicant to go through the OCP amendment process, including provision of the 

required studies outlined in Section 8.3, addressing the applicable policies, and 

including payment of the $20,000 SE Sector OCP amendment application fee. 

For example, amending the OCP to go from Large Holdings (30.5 ha min. lot area) to 

Country Residential (2.0 ha min. lot area), Small Holdings (1 .0 ha min. lot area), or other 

smaller lot Residential designation would constitute an increase in density as the end 

result would be more dwelling units on a given area of land. The same provision would 

apply if a land owner proposed to go from Small Holdings to Residential to permit R.1 

-(Residential Single Family) zoning. 

The rationale behind this policy is to ensure that the required studies are oriented to the 

level of development being proposed and that the Township is provided with adequate 

payment to undertake the Financial Cost Recovery Analysis (FCRA) oriented to the 

level of development being proposed. Technical studies and an FCRA prepared for a 

Rural scale of development would not be transferrable to a higher density form of 

development. 

It is to be noted that this policy is proposed to apply to all of the SE Sector 

Comprehensive Planning Area whether currently under application (i.e. North Sub-Area) 

or not (i.e. Central Sub-Area). 

Traffic Impact Study 

The Official Community Plan requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) in conjunction with 

OCP amendment applications for a Sub-Area of the SE Sector. The TIS is to identify 

the amount of traffic generated by the development and appropriate improvements 

required to support the anticipated level of traffic. 

The applicant submitted a Transportation Review 1 by CTQ Consultants Ltd. which was 

included with the Planning Department report to Committee of the Whole dated October 

18, 2012. As the CTQ report (dated November 17, 2011) did not address the impact of 

traffic generated by the proposed development on proposed or existing roads including 

Keddleston, Mclennan, Glenhayes, and Ridgeview which lead into Electoral Area "C", 

and the new road proposed to link the South Sub-Area to Greenhow Road, Council 

resolved that, prior to Second Reading of the OCP Amendment Bylaw, additional 

information be provided to meet the requirements of the OCP. 

1 

CTQ Consultants Ltd., PV Estates, Spallumcheen BC, Transportation Review, November 17, 2011 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



To address the deficiencies, the applicant submitted a second report by CTQ on 

October 31, 2012 2 (attached). Neither of the two CTQ reports address the question of 

improvements which may be needed to existing roads connecting to the South Sub 

Area, nor the classification (triggered by the proposed South Sub-Area development 

alone) of the proposed road connection to Greenhow Road. With respect to the latter, it 

is important to determine what classification of road would be required to service the 

proposed Rural development of the South Sub-Area, notwithstanding any road 

classification triggered by the proposed "PV Estates" industrial development, in order 

that road costs could be reasonably differentiated between development of the South 

Sub-Area and development of "PV Estates". In other words, the question is: would the 

proposed Rural development of the South Sub-Area require construction of a Local or 

Collector road from the west side of the South Sub-Area through intervening lands to 

Greenhow Road? 

The table below summarizes the build-out and vehicle trip information from the two CTQ 

reports: 

PROPOSED SOUTH-SUB AREA DEVELOPMENT 

VEHICLE 

POTENTIAL A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS PER 

ROAD ROAD CLASS NEW DAY 

HOMES 

average 10 per 

inbound outbound inbound outbound 

home 

Greenhaw Proposed Collector 140 28 80 91 52 1400 

Ridgeview 10 2 6 7 4 100 

Glenhayes 

Local 

60 12 34 39 22 600 

Mclennan 

(gravel} 

70 14 40 46 26 700 

Keddleston 25 5 14 16 9 250 

The October 2012 CTQ Traffic Review states that the following intersections are 

sufficient to allow for the addition of the potential new home sites: 

• Ridgeview Road I Baker Hogg Road, 

• McLennan Road I L & A Road, 

• Keddleston Road I Silver Star Road. 

The Traffic Review notes that the existing alignment of Glenhayes Road could serve up 

to ten new home sites but beyond that a new Collector roadway would be required to 

connect with either Greenhow Road or Ridgeview Road. 

The Traffic Review concludes: 

The anticipated level of rural residential traffic anticipated with in the South Sub area 

is best supported by the utilizing the existing rural road network located both within 

2 

CTQ Consultants Ltd., South East Sector- South Sub Area- Spallumcheen BC, Traffic Review, October 30, 2012 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



the Township of Spallumcheen and the adjacent Regional District. Allowing rural 

development to proceed from extensions to existing infrastructure prevents major hill 

side roadway construction impacts from occurring over large areas that will service a 

minor number of home sites. 

Whereas this is contrary to OCP policy which states that access to the SE Sector 

Comprehensive Planning Area shall not be provided from roads outside the Township, 

and in particular shall not be provided solely from roads within Electoral Areas B and C, 

the applicant's Transportation Engineer is suggesting that such access would be 

appropriate to service the proposed rural development. 

Environmentally Sensitive Areas & Wildlife Corridors 

Whereas the applicant has provided an Environmental Assessment in accordance with 

the requirements of the Official Community Plan, and the applicant's Concept Plan for 

the South Sub-Area shows the locations of 'very high value' Environmentally Sensitive 

Areas (ESA 1) and connecting wildlife movement corridors, at the time of the October 

22, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting, the applicant did not propose to have the 

ESA 1 areas and connecting corridors designated as "Open Space" on the Official 

Community Plan future land use map (Schedule B). As such, the most significant areas 

identified in the Environmental Assessment would not have been incorporated into the 

future land use concept for the South Sub-Area and would therefore not be evident to 

anyone reviewing the Official Community Plan with regards to this area. Furthermore, 

not designating the areas as Open Space would be a departure from the approach 

taken in the North Sub-Area where such areas are proposed to be designated Open 

Space in the OCP. 

Recognizing that the conclusions of the Environmental Assessment were not proposed 

to be reflected in the OCP amending bylaw, at the Regular Meeting of November 5, 

2012, Council resolved (in part) that prior to Second Reading of the Official Community 

Plan Amendment Bylaw a revised environmental assessment be submitted which 

advises whether or not developing the subject properties under the Small Holding 

designation would negativei,Y impact the areas identified as ESA 1 (high value). 

Planning staff discussed this matter with the applicant and suggested that to rectify the 

'information gap' the applicant could either have their environmental consultant address 

the question of how ESA 1 areas and connecting corridors could be identified and 

protected if not designated in the OCP or the applicant could propose to designate the 

areas as Open Space on the OCP future land use map. 

The applicant had some concerns about the potential Open Space designation and in 

response the Planning Department advised that the following new policy would be 

recommended to Council for inclusion in the OCP: 

Within the Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area, lands determined 

(through the Sub-Area planning process) to be Very High Value Environmentally 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Sensitive Areas (ESA - Level 1 ), creeks, wildlife movement corridors, and slopes 

in excess of 30% grade are designated Open Space on Schedule B. Lands 

designated Open Space may be public or privately owned and shall remain free 

of development except as authorized through an approved Development Permit. 

Without amendment to the Official Community Plan, the Open Space areas 

designated on Schedule B may be modified in accordance with an approved 

Hillside Development Permit provided the modification is in accordance with the 

recommendations of a qualified environmental professional. 

Recognizing that there may be justifiable reasons to revise the configuration of Open 

Space areas once more detailed site planning is undertaken, the proposed OCP policy 

would allow for such areas to be modified, without the need for an OCP amendment, 

provided the changes are addressed through the Hillside Development Permit process 

and in accordance with the recommendations of a qualified environmental professional. 

This policy approach would be consistent with the existing OCP Hillside Development 

Permit area guidelines and provisions of Development Approval Information Area No.4. 

Having reviewed the proposed policy the applicant has advised the Planning 

Department that the policy addresses his concerns and the applicant has proposed to 

have the ESA 1 and connecting corridors shown as Open Space on the Official 

Community Plan future land use map (OCP Schedule B). Included in the attached 

Bylaw No. 1795 is provision to add the Open Space designation to OCP Schedule 8 

(future land use map) and to include Open Space designated areas within the list of 

Natural Areas in Section 15.2 (p. 45) of the OCP. The Planning Department is satisfied 

that this will establish the missing link between the Environmental Assessment report 

and the Official Community Plan and that no additional environmental information is 

needed at this time. 

South Sub-Area Rural Land Use Concept 

While not intending to discourage higher density, fully serviced, mixed-use development 

in this area as described in the Official Community Plan, Council has generally agreed 

that a rural form of development (ranging from Large Holdings to Small Holdings) may 

be appropriate for the South Sub-Area over the foreseeable future. 

In this regard, to formally acknowledge that rural development within the South Sub 

Area is in compliance with the vision for this area, it is recommended that the following 

policy statement be added to Section 8.1.4 n) of the Official Community Plan: 

viii. 

Whereas Rural development is considered appropriate within the South 

Sub-Area at least for the duration of this Official Community Plan, it is 

acknowledged that future development in keeping with Smart Growth 

principles would be consistent with the longer term vision for the 

Southeast Sector Comprehensive Planning Area. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Page 9 

REFERRALS: 

Section 879 of the Local Government Act (LGA) states that during the amendment of an 

OCP, the proposing local government must provide one or more opportunities it 

considers appropriate for consultation with person, organizations and authorities it 

considers will be affected. Specifically, local governments must consider whether 

consultation is required with the board of the regional district in which the area covered 

by the plan is located, the board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area 

covered by the plan, the council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered 

by the plan, first nations, school districts and Provincial and Federal governments and 

their agencies. 

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

amend an OCP for an area that includes any part of a school district, the local 

government must consult with the school district board at the time of preparing or 

amending the OCP. 

In keeping with Section 879 and 881 of the LGA, this OCP Amendment application was 

referred to the following agencies and organizations for comment: 

• Spallumcheen Municipal Office, Public Works Manager, Approving Officer, and 

Building Inspector 

• Spallumcheen Agricultural Advisory Committee 

• Larkin Water District 

• Greater Vernon Water 

• Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure 

• Interior Health Authority 

• Armstrong - Spallumcheen Parks and Recreation Commission 

• Regional Fire Protection Officer 

• Armstrong/Spallumcheen Fire Department 

• Ministry of Environment I Ministry of Natural Resource Operations 

• Ministry of Forest and Range 

• Archaeology Branch 

• School District No. 83 

• Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources 

• Ministry of Agriculture and Lands 

• Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator 

• First Nations: OKIB and Splatsin 

Responses received as a result of the application referral were included as an Appendix 

to the Planning Department report dated October 18, 2012 presented to the Committee 

of the Whole. 

In accordance with the November 5, 2012 resolution of Council and requirements of the 

Local Government Act, following First Reading, Official Community Plan Amendment 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 


11 -0082-SPL-OCP {Willowhaven Investments) Page 10 

Bylaw No. 1795, 2012 will be referred to the above noted agencies and organizations 

for comments. In addition, given the existing road connections linking the South Sub 

Area to lands within the Regional District of North Okanagan, Bylaw No. 1795 will also 

be referred to the RDNO Electoral Area Advisory Committee, the Advisory Planning 

Commission for Electoral Area 'C', the BX-Swan Lake Fire Department and School 

District No. 22 for comments. 

The bylaw will also be referred to the Township's Chief Financial Officer and the 

Regional District's Engineering Services Manager for any comments with respect to the 

bylaw's impact on the Township's Financial Plan and the Regional Waste Management 

Plan. 

These referrals may be considered appropriate consultation for the purpose of Sections 

879 and 881 of the Local Government Act. 

Section 882(3) of the Local Government Act requires that, after First Reading, the 

Township consider an Official Community Plan amendment in conjunction with its 

Financial Plan and any applicable waste management plan. This step should be 

undertaken after the Financial Cost Recovery Analysis (FCRA) has been completed. 

When Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1795 is prepared for Council's 

consideration of Second Reading, the results of the FCRA and the referral process will 

be reported to Council. 

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING: 

The applicant held a Public Information Meeting (PIM) on July 30, 2012 in accordance 

with the Township's PIM policy. Materials from the applicant's Public Information 

Meeting and written submissions submitted to the applicant were attached to the 

Planning Department report dated October 18, 2012. In addition to the above, a letter 

dated August 7, 2012 was submitted to the Township of Spallumcheen office from Brian 

Wills representing a group of landowners in the Keddleston Road and Deerwood Road 

area. The letter was received by Council at the September 4, 2012 Regular Meeting of 

Council at which time Council resolved that the matter be more fully discussed when the 

(South Sub-Area OCP amendment) application is brought forward to Committee of the 

Whole. 

PLANNING ANAL VSIS: 

The Planning Analysis provided in the October 18, 2012 Planning Department report, 

outlined the manner in which the proposed South Sub-Area Concept Plan addresses 

the minimum requirements for such plans as specified in Section 8.1.3 of the OCP. In 

addition, the staff report included a description of how the Concept Plan addresses the 

policies of the SE Sector Comprehensive Planning Area and the Official Community 

Plan as a whole. The analysis has not been repeated in this report therefore, for more 

information, the reader is encouraged to review the October 18 1 h report included in the 

agenda package for the October 22nd meeting of the Committee of the Whole. 



June 6, 2013 - Item G.1 



Page 11 

SUMMARY: 

This is an application for Official Community Plan Amendment submitted in March 2011 

for the South Sub-Area of the SE Sector Comprehensive Planning Area. 

At the Regular Meeting of Council held November 5, 2012, Council passed a resolution 

providing direction to staff to prepare the OCP Amendment Bylaw. Bylaw No. 1795, 

(attached) not only outlines changes to the future land use map (OCP Schedule B) but 

also policy additions and refinements to specific sections of the OCP. 

At their November 5 1 h, 2012 Regular Meeting, Council also directed that, prior to Second 

Reading and scheduling of a Public Hearing, additional information regarding the traffic 

impact study and protection of environmentally sensitive areas be submitted by the 

applicant. 

In partial fulfillment of this requirement, it is now proposed that ESA 1 and wildlife 

corridors would be designated as Open Space on OCP Schedule B. Associated with 

this proposed map designation, staff have included a new OCP policy in Bylaw No. 

1795 to describe the intent and provisions of the Open Space designation. 

Also, as follow-up to Council's direction, the applicant has submitted a second report 

from CTQ Consultants (a Traffic Review) which provides an estimate of peak hour 

vehicle trips however it does not address whether any improvements would be needed 

to existing roads connecting to the South Sub-Area, nor the classification of the 

proposed road connection to Greenhaw Road as determined by the proposed level of 

development within the South Sub-Area. Staff recommend that prior to Second 

Reading, the applicant submit information from their Transportation Engineer which 

addresses this deficiency. 

The Planning Department recommends Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 

1795 be granted First Reading. Following First Reading of Bylaw No. 1795, the South 

Sub-Area Financial Cost Recovery Analysis is to be initiated by the Township. 

A follow-up report will be prepared for Council when the bylaw is brought forward for 

Second Reading. 

Prepared by: 

Marnie Skobalski, MCIP, RPP 

Planner

REGULAR AGENDA - Regional District of North Okanagan

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?