REGULAR AGENDA - Regional District of North Okanagan

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN 

ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING 

Thursday, December 8, 2011 

10:30 am 

REGULAR AGENDA 

A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 

1. Regular Agenda – December 8, 2011 

(Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items) 

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

RECOMMENDATION 1 

That the Agenda of the December 8, 2011 Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

meeting be approved as presented. 

B. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 

1. Electoral Area Advisory Committee – November 3, 2011 

RECOMMENDATION 2 Page 1 

That the minutes of the November 3, 2011 Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

Meeting be adopted as circulated. 

C. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 

1. Waiver of Lot Frontage Application 

FORSLUND, Linda c/o J.R. Shortt 

(See item F.2) 


CULLEN, Glen and Carrie c/o Richard and Irene Montgomery 

(See item F.3) 

D. REPORTS 

1. Advisory Planning Commission Meetings 


That the minutes of the following Advisory Planning Commission meetings be 

received for information: 

a. Electoral Area "C" – Meeting of November 30, 2011 (to be distributed at 

meeting) 

b. Electoral Area "F" – Meeting of November 21, 2011 

2. Eagle Pass Heliskiing Referral

Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

Agenda – Regular - 2 - December 8, 2011 

[File No. 11-0614-E-REF] 

- Commercial Tenure Amendment and Management Plan dated October 6, 2011 


That the referral dated October 6, 2011 from Eagle Pass Heliskiing c/o Front Counter 

BC regarding the proposed Commercial Tenure Amendment and Management Plan 

be received for information. 

E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

F. NEW BUSINESS 

1. Bylaw 2485 - Electoral Areas "D" & "E" Official Community Plan 

- Staff report dated November 22, 2011 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that Electoral Areas “D” & “E” 

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 be amended to include the changes 

outlined in Attachment 2, “Referral Comments and Public Feedback” of the report 

dated November 22, 2011 from the Sustainability Coordinator; and further, 

That it be recommended that Electoral Areas “D” & “E” Official Community Plan 

Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 be given Second Reading, as amended, and referred to 

Public Hearing. 


FORSLUND, Linda c/o J.R. Shortt [File No. 11-0205-E-SUB] 



That the memorandum from the Planning Department dated November 16, 2011 

regarding Waiver of Lot Frontage Application for the property legally described as Lot 

3, Sec 27, Twp 45, ODYD, Plan KAP91514 and located at 1404 Highway 6, Electoral 

Area “E” be received for information; and further, 

DIRECTION REQUESTED 

The Electoral Area Advisory Committee is requested to choose one of the following 

options: 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the 10% minimum lot frontage 

requirement of Section 803.7 of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning 

Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 BE WAIVED for the property legally described as Lot 3, Sec 

27, Twp 45, ODYD, Plan KAP91514 and located at 1404 Highway 6, Electoral Area 

“E” by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot A from 174.47 metres to 132.88 

metres as shown on the site plan attached to the Planning Department report dated 

November 16, 2011. 

Or



That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the 10% minimum frontage 

requirement of Section 803.7 of the RDNO Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 NOT BE 

WAIVED for the property legally described as Lot 3, Sec 27, Twp 45, ODYD, Plan 

KAP91514 and located at 1404 Highway 6, Electoral Area “E”. 


CULLEN, Glen and Carrie c/o Richard and Irene Montgomery 

[File No. 11-0613-F-WVR] 



That the memorandum from the Planning Department dated November 16, 2011 

regarding Waiver of Lot Frontage Application for the properties legally described as 

Lots 1 and 3, Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP74661 and located at 227 

and 229 Glenmary Road, Electoral Area ‘F’ be received for information; and further, 

DIRECTION REQUESTED 

The Electoral Area Advisory Committee is requested to choose one of the following 

options: 


requirement of Section 802.7 of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning 

Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 BE WAIVED for the properties legally described as Lots 1 and 

3, Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP74661 and located at 227 and 229 

Glenmary Road, Electoral Area ‘F’ by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot 3 

from 170.7 metres to 23.3 metres and proposed Lot 1 from 94.07 metres to 84.32 

metres as shown on the site plan attached to the Planning Department report dated 

November 16, 2011. 

Or 


requirement of Section 802.7 of the RDNO Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 NOT BE 

WAIVED for the properties legally described as Lots 1 and 3, Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, 

W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP74661 and located at 227 and 229 Glenmary Road, Electoral 

Area ‘F’. 

4. Agricultural Land Commission Application 

COOKE, Robert and Leslie [File No. 11-0472-F-ALR] 

- Staff report dated September 21, 2011 


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the application of Robert and 

Leslie Cooke under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to 

subdivide the property legally described as The NE ¼ of Sec 26, Twp 18, R8, W6M, 

KDYD, Except Plans 6432, B11041, 31145, H13556 and KAP45812, located at 69 

Ashton Cooke Road, Electoral Area ‘F’ not be authorized for submission to the 

Agricultural Land Commission pursuant to Section 25(3) of the Agricultural Land 

Commission Act.




WIFFEN, Arlene [File No. 11-0507-C-ALR] 



That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the application to deposit fill 

under Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act on the property legally 

described as Lot 16, Sec 36, Twp 9, ODYD, Plan 411 and located at 1788 Francis 

Street, Electoral Area ‘C’ be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land 

Commission. 

6. Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan 



That the report dated November 21, 2011 from the Sustainability Coordinator 

regarding the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan be received for 

information; and further, 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Shuswap River 

Watershed Sustainability Plan Preliminary Issue Identification Paper be endorsed to 

inform Phase II of the planning process. 

7. Building Department Review Project 


OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Page 214 

The following are staff recommendations for resolution of the Building Department 

funding problem: 

1. That taxation be used to fund a portion of the Building Department budget to a 

maximum of $200,000 in 2012; and further, 

2. That a refundable surcharge be implemented as part of the fee schedule within 

the Building Bylaw; and further, 

3. That the Notice on Title fee be increased to reflect the full cost of the Notice on 

Title process and further, 

4. That the remainder of the recommendations from the Building Department 

Review Project Report dated April 27, 2011 be considered in 2012 for 

effectiveness and cost efficiency of the Building Department.



8. Natural Resource Road Act 

- Letter dated October 26, 2011 from UBCM 

FOR DISCUSSION Page 221 

9. Illegal Dumping - Sugar Lake Campsite 

- Staff e-mail 

FOR DISCUSSION Page 224 

10. O’Keefe Ranch Watermain Extension 


That the offer of financial assistance towards the O’Keefe Ranch water connection 

fees ($1,500 from Electoral Area “B” discretionary fund and $1,000 from Electoral 

Area “C” discretionary fund) be withdrawn if O’Keefe Ranch has not met the 

outstanding conditions by January 31, 2012, namely: 

• Signing of the Greater Vernon Water Terms and Conditions; and 

• Securing the Easement in favour of Greater Vernon Water through private land. 

11. North Okanagan Jaws of Life Coordination Understanding 



That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Memorandum of 

Understanding referred to as North Okanagan Jaws of Life Coordination 

Understanding be endorsed. 

12. Vernon / North Okanagan Safe Communities Unit 

- Report dated November 28, 2011 

- November 2011 SpeedWatch report 

- BlockWatch Program report dated November 28, 2011 


That the reports dated November 28, 2011 from the Vernon / North Okanagan 

Detachment – Safe Communities Unit be received for information. 

G. IN CAMERA 


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)(e) of the Community Charter.



H. REPORT FROM IN CAMERA 

I. ADJOURNMENT

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA 

December 8, 2011 - 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, November 3, 2011 

Members: Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area "D" Chair 

Director E. Foisy Electoral Area "E" Vice Chair 

Director M. Gavinchuk Electoral Area "B" 

Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area “C” 

Alt. Director B. Cowan Electoral Area “F” 

Staff: L. Mellott General Manager, Electoral Area Administration 

G. Routley Deputy Planning Manager 

L. Frank Sustainability Coordinator / Planning Technologist 

(Temporary) 

L. Schrauwen Clerk, Electoral Area Administration / Human 

Resources (taking minutes) 

Others: 

Public 

CALL MEETING TO ORDER 

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA 

Regular Agenda – November 3, 2011 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Gavinchuk 

That the Agenda of the November 3, 2011 Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting be 

approved as presented. 

CARRIED 

ADOPTION OF MINUTES 

Electoral Area Advisory Committee – October 6, 2011 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Foisy 

That the minutes of the October 6, 2011 Electoral Area Advisory Committee Meeting be 

adopted as circulated. 

CARRIED 

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 

Official Community Plan / Rezoning Application 

METCALFE, David and Deanna c/o Tim and Dawn Wierzbicki 

David and Deanna Metcalfe as well as Tim and Dawn Wierzbicki were present to answer 

possible questions. 

Page 1 of 232




Minutes – Regular - 2 - November 3, 2011 

Development Permit Application 

SEMINUTIN, Valery and Tammy 

Valery Seminutin spoke in support of the application. 

Development Permit with Variance Application 

PURSER, Stephen and Yvonne 

No one was present to speak to this application. 

REPORTS 

Advisory Planning Commission Meetings 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Director Cowan and Director Foisy 

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

information: 

- Electoral Area "C" – Meeting of October 26, 2011 

- Electoral Area "F" – Meeting of October 17, 2011 

CARRIED 

Vernon / North Okanagan Safe Communities Unit 


That the report dated October 24, 2011 from the Vernon / North Okanagan Detachment – Safe 

Communities Unit be received for information. 

CARRIED 

The GM, Electoral Area Administration was requested to confirm with the Crime Prevention 

Coordinator as to the number of people in each electoral area who belong to a Blockwatch 

Program. 

NEW BUSINESS 

Bylaw 2484 – Kingfisher Local Area Plan 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Director Cowan and Director Macnabb 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that Bylaw No. 2484, 2011 being the 

Kingfisher Local Area Plan, be amended to include the changes outlined in Attachment 2, 

“Referral Comments and Public Feedback”; and further, 

That it be recommended that the Kingfisher Local Area Plan, Bylaw No. 2484, 2011 be given 

Second Reading, as amended and referred to Public Hearing; and further, 

That the Public Hearing be delegated to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee; and further, 

That staff be directed to set a date for the Public Hearing far enough in advance to ensure wide 

spread community notification. 

CARRIED 






Discussion ensued regarding seasonal residents and how their opinions are integrated into the 

Kingfisher Local Area Plan. It was noted that the Board of Directors receives input through the 

Public Hearing process. The Code of Conduct item in the Kingfisher Local Area Plan was 

discussed with regard to seasonal residents and tourists. 

Discussion took place regarding how the Kingfisher Local Area Plan integrates with other 

planning documents. It was noted that the Kingfisher Local Area Plan will be an appendix to the 

Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan, and it was developed concurrent with the Regional 

Growth Strategy. 

Official Community Plan / Rezoning Application 

METCALFE, David and Deanna c/o Tim and Dawn Wierzbicki [File No.10-0773-F-OR] 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Director Cowan and Director Macnabb 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the application to amend the Electoral 

Area “F” Official Community Plan land use designation and the zoning of the properties legally 

described as Lot 1 & 2, Sec 15, Twp 20, R8, W6M, KDYD, Plan 35737, and located at 75 & 57 

Parsons Road, Electoral Area ‘F’ from Country Residential to Small Holdings be supported and 

staff be directed to prepare an Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw for First Reading 

only; and further, 

That the applicant be required to hold a Public Information Meeting in accordance with the 

Public Information Meeting Guide, prior to consideration of bylaws for further readings. 

CARRIED 

Development Permit Application 

SEMINUTIN, Valery and Tammy [File No. 11-0433-C-DP] 

Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Foisy 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that an exemption to Section 1701.3.b.ii of 

the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be approved for the 

property legally described as Lot B, Sec 35, Twp 9, ODYD, Plan 33375 and located at 915 

Pottery Road, Electoral Area ‘C’ to permit the floodplain setback of an accessory residential 

building to be reduced from 15 m to 10 m as shown on the site plan attached to the Planning 

Department Report dated October 12, 2011 and subject to a Section 219 Covenant being 

registered on the title of the subject property which saves harmless the Regional District from 

any damages that may be caused by flooding; and further, 

That a Development Permit be issued for the property legally described as Lot B, Sec 35, Twp 

9, ODYD, Plan 33375 and located at 915 Pottery Road, Electoral Area ‘C’ subject to: 

1. The dimensions and siting of the accessory residential building to be constructed on the 

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

Report dated October 12, 2011; 

2. Land within 15 m of the natural boundary of Hog Gulch Creek must remain free of 

development with the exception of fencing, works and plantings to control erosion, protect 

banks, protect fisheries or waterfowl habitat or otherwise preserve and enhance the creek 

and associated habitats and except as permitted under the Riparian Areas Regulation. 

CARRIED 






Development Permit with Variance Application 

PURSER, Stephen and Yvonne [File No. 11-0274-F-DP] 

Moved and seconded by Alternate Director Cowan and Director Gavinchuk 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that upon consideration of input from adjacent 

landowners, a Development Permit with Variance be issued for the property legally described as 

South 10 Chains of the Fractional W ½ of the SE ¼ of Sec 27, Twp 20, R8, W6M, KDYD, 

Except Plans 26399, H809, and KAP76653 and located at 8259 Highway 97A, Electoral Area 

“F” to vary Sections 1101.2.e and 1201.6.d of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning 

Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 by waiving the requirement to pave a commercial parking and loading 

area subject to the following conditions: 

1. The dimensions and siting of buildings on the land be in general accordance with the site 

plan and building elevations attached to and forming part of Planning Department 

Information Report dated September 21, 2011; 

2. No natural vegetation shall be removed or degraded within a horizontal distance of 15 m 

from the natural boundary of Rogers Creek nor shall any development occur which will 

preclude growth of natural vegetation except in accordance with the written permission of 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Environment; 

3. No building or structure or any part thereof, including any fixed equipment may be 

constructed, reconstructed, moved, extended or located, nor should any landfill, land 

clearing or other disturbance take place within a horizontal distance of 15 metres from the 

natural boundary of Rogers Creek; 

4. Any clearing and/or excavation or fill done on the subject property should be completed in 

such a manner as to ensure that sediment, concrete washwater, leachates or any other 

substance of any type that may be deleterious to aquatic life should not be deposited into 

Rogers Creek and/or adjacent flood channels via ditches, storm sewers or overland flow, 

and all construction and excavation wastes, overburden, soil or any other substances that 

may be deleterious to aquatic life should be disposed of or placed in such a manner as to 

prevent their entry into Rogers Creek; 

5. A means of sewage disposal that does not discharge directly into Rogers Creek must be 

installed. The applicant must provide evidence that the filings required by the Sewerage 

System Regulation under the Health Act have been made, or that a holding tank permit has 

been issued, or that treated sewage effluent will be disposed of in accordance with the 

Environmental Management Act; 

6. A storm water management plan must be prepared by a professional engineer to provide for 

the control of run-off from any parking areas, internal roadways, and buildings during and 

after the period of construction of any buildings. Storm water outlet facilities should not be 

installed directly into Rogers Creek or into a tributary watercourse, drainage ditch or gully 

except where a stormwater renovation system is being implemented. Storm water 

management systems should be consistent with the "Land Development Guidelines for the 

Protection of Aquatic Habitats" (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and Department 

of Fisheries and Oceans, 1992), and may require approval by the Department of Fisheries 

and Oceans and/or the Ministry of Environment. The storm water management plan should 

also be consistent with the document titled Stormwater Planning: A Guide for BC; 

7. The driveway, parking and loading area shall be graded to provide an even surface, be 

drained so that no surface water accumulates thereon or runs off onto any sidewalk, or runs 

off onto any highway and that the surface shall be kept free of weeds, and shall be 

gravelled, treated to suppress dust and have access to and from highways as approved by 

the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure where applicable. 

CARRIED 






IN CAMERA 


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. 

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

11:11 p.m. 

The regular meeting of the Electoral Area Advisory Committee reconvened at 11:42 a.m. 

ADJOURNMENT 

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:51 a.m. 

Certified Correct: 

Chair 

Corporate Officer 


1 


December 8, 2011 - Item D.1 


MINUTES of the REGULAR meeting of the Advisory Planning Commission 

Electoral Area ‘F’ held in the Board Room at the Enderby Fire Hall on 

MONDAY, November 21, 2011. 

MEMBERS: 

Keith Gray, Chairperson 

Dale Fennell, Vice Chairperson 

Bob Honeyman 

Diane Larsen 

Tilman Nahm 

Robert Whitley 

Herman Halvorson, Director 

OTHERS PRESENT: Gail Murphy, Recording Secretary 

GUESTS: Jackie Pearase, Incoming Director, Leslie & Robert Cooke 

Keith Gray, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 6:56 PM. 

A. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: 

Moved by Tilman Nahm 

Seconded by Dale Fennell 

“That the Minutes of the October 17, 2011 regular meeting of the Advisory 

Planning Commission Electoral Area “F” APC be adopted as circulated.” 

CARRIED 

Moved by Bob Honeyman 

Seconded by Diane Larsen 

“That the agenda order be changed from D New Business to C and C Unfinished 

Business to D.” 

CARRIED 

Keith Gray led the Introduction of the APC Committee and Guests to each other. 

B. PETITION AND DELEGATIONS: 


R. & L. Cooke 

(File No. 11-0472-F-ALR 

PETITION: 

a. Robert Cooke is asking to have 5 acres taken off of the 62 acres. 

b. The land has been in the family name since 1902 but due to illness of 

his wife, the property has become too much for them so they want to 

subdivide the 5 acres to build a house and offer their children to buy the 

rest of the farm. 

c. The land that is proposed for subdivision is divided by a swampy area, 

gravel pit and hillside with the possibility of 1 to 2 ½ acres of the 5 

acres could be farm land. 

Page 6 of 232 

1

2 



C. NEW BUSINESS: 


R. & L. Cooke 

(File No. 11-0472-F-ALR 

Moved by Dale Fennell 

Seconded by Tilman Nahm 

“That the APC accept the recommendations of Development Services to not be 

authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land Commission pursuant to 

Section 25(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.” 

Discussion: 

a. Dale stated he has concerns for the water from the Edwin Stream as he 

has water rights on it along with three others. Dale stated the Creek has 

never dried up but the volume of the creek has diminished somewhat in 

the last two years. He is concerned with any further development on the 

property that might occur in that swampy area as it could impact the flow of 

the stream. Page 9 (5) addresses the stream and the water licenses along 

with concerns and guidelines. Page 7, under planning stated that a portion 

was subdivided (KAP45812) from the subject property (H13550 – NE1/4) 

in 1991. Dale says the water is critical to the adjacent properties with water 

licenses from Edwin stream. 

b. Tilman Nahm viewed the property and is concerned with the possibility of 

septic pollution entering that water course. 

CARRIED 

D. Unfinished Business 

1. Rezoning/OCP Amendment Application 

T. & J. ZUMMAC 

(File No. 09-0489-F-OR) 

- Bylaw 2425 

- Bylaw 2426 

After some discussion, while waiting for a telephone conference from Planning it 

was: 

Moved by Tilman Nahm 

Seconded by Dale Fennell 

“That the APC table this application to a later date for further information from the 

Planning Department by speaker phone or a personal visit.” 

E. ADJOURNMENT: 

“There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M.” 

Next Area “F” APC meeting will be held on December 19, 2011 in the Fire Hall. 


2

3 

Certified Correct: 



_______________________________ 

Chair 

__________________________ 

Secretary 


3



Eagle Pass Heliskiing 

Commercial Tenure Amendment 

And 

Management Plan 

October 2011 

EPH Tenure Amendment Application Management Plan – October 6, 2011 

Page | 1 




General Overview of Business 

o Eagle Pass Heliskiing current operating tenure is 102 km long running 

north and south along the western side of the Monashee Mountains. 

Revelstoke is situated in approximately the mid point of the tenure. Our 

main base of operation is 20 km south of Revelstoke at Mulvehill Creek 

Wilderness Lodge. We also operate out of Silver Star Mountain Resort, 

and Sparkling Hill Wellness Hotel both just outside of Vernon, B.C. This 

will be our first winter operating our regular program from Echo Bay 

Lodge. 

o We offer lodge based, small group Heliskiing to our clients which 

specializes in a personalized boutique ski vacations that skiers can enjoy 

from around the world. 

o Eagle Pass Heliskiing has relocated it’s main lodge in part due to a loss in 

overlap tenure with CMH and is looking to secure poor weather skiing 

close to Echo Bay Lodge at Mulvehill Creek Lodge 

Objective of Tenure Amendment Application 

The objective of this application is to apply for the additional areas outlined in red on the 

overview map to augment and improve Eagle Pass’s current operation. This is required 

due to relocation of the base lodge and expansion of the operation. Another part of the 

of the expansion is a result of new partnerships with nearby resorts; Silver Star 

Mountain Resort and Sparkling Hill Resort nearby Vernon, B.C. The areas include: 

o Begbie Polygon: approx 5 km west of Revelstoke 

o South Cranberry Polygon: approx 30 km SW of Revelstoke near the weat 

shore of Upper Arrow Lake 

o Vidler Polygon: Due east of Cherryville and Sugar Lake 

o Mabel Shoulder Polygon: east of Kingfisher on N side of Tsuis Creek 

o Simard Creek Polygon: east of Kingfisher on S side of Tsuis Creek 

o Nelson Polygon: between Mabel Lake and the Shuswap Lake 

o Silver Star Polygon: NE of Silver Star Mountain Resort 

o Bews Polygon: between Anstey Arm and Lake Revelstoke in Perry River 

drainage 

o Griffin Polygin: west of 3 Valley Gap and adjoins existing EPH poylgons to 

the east and west. To the SE it borders Mt Griffin Park. 

Key Areas of Concern 

o Key areas of concern include environmental values, public and 

commercial interests in the proposed areas. Red and blue listed species 

and EPH’s potential impacts on them are of particular concern. EPH has 

an existing environmental management plan that should address the 

majority of the environmental issues. 


Page | 2 




Section 1: Description of the Operation & Activities Offered 

1.1 General Description of Operation 

1.1.1 General Area 

Our operating tenure is in the North Central Monashee Mountains north and south of 

the Trans Canada Highway between Revelstoke and Sicamous. It is on the west side of 

the height of land of the Monashee Range. It encompasses approximately 101,400 

hectares. 

Two new proposed polygons (Begbie and South Cranberry) are west and south of 

Revelstoke and drain into the Columbia River watershed. These two polygons are in 

close proximity to our new lodge located 18 km south of Revelstoke, which will serve as 

necessary poor weather skiing. 

More polygons are in between Silver Star Mountain Resort and our existing tenure to 

provide jump runs enroute from Silver Star Mountain or Sparkling Hill Resort near 

Vernon, B.C. 

1.1.2 Base Operation 

Base Operation 

Mulvehill Creek Wilderness Lodge, Revelstoke, B.C. 

o Regular ski program with 3 groups using A-star 

o Day ski program from Revelstoke, 3 groups in A-Star 

o Total skier day potential 1800 

Mulvehill Creek Wilderness Lodge is ideally situated for operating in the south and mid 

parts of EPH current tenure. It is located 18 km south of Revelstoke off of hwy #23 and 

along the shores of the Columbia River. From here, we will also be able to shuttle 

guests west on Hwy 1 or towards Mica Dam in order to access the northern tenure 

area. Mulvehill Creek Lodge is using 100% micro hydro energy. 

Other Lodging 

Sparkling Hill Wellness Hotel, Vernon B.C. 

o Private Ski Lodge 

o Exclusive private ski program using Bell 407 (guide and tail guide) 

o Total skier day potential 280-540 

Sparkling Hill Resort is located 18 km south of Vernon, B.C. off hwy #97. 


Page | 3 




Silver Star Mountain Resort, Vernon B.C. 

o Day ski semi private program 

o Private and semi private program using B2 A-Star 

o Total skier day potential 280-540 

Eagle Pass Heliskiing is commencing day ski operations from Silver Star Mountain 

Resort this December. Silver Star Mountain Resort is located 36 km to the southwest of 

EPH southern tenure boundary which is along the NE side of Mabel Lake. 

1.1.3 Improvements 

o 2 new Enviro Tanks for remote fuel caches 

1.1.4 Access 

1.1.5 Staff 

o Most guests skiing with Eagle Pass Heliskiing fly to and from Kelowna 

International Airport and use ground shuttle or heli transfer to the 

respective lodges – all located on private land. Ground transfer is 2.5 

hours using highway 97 N and then on the TransCanada to Revelstoke. If 

there are highway closures, the ground shuttle will be through highway 6 

in Vernon to Nakusp and then north to Revelstoke. EPH does offer heli 

transfer direct from Kelowna International Airport. 

Staff Category # of Employees Experience and/or Certificates 

Lead Guide 6 UIAGM/ACMG Full Certificate or 

Equivalent 

Guide 8 ACMG/CSGA assistant 

Office 

2 full time/ 1 part 

Lodge Staff 10-12 N/A 

Total Staff 

28 full time 

winter 

6 year round 


Page | 4 




1.2 Commercial Recreation Activities Offered On Crown Land 

1.2.1 Description of Experience Being Offered 

o Eagle Pass Heliskiing offers small group Heliskiing utilizing either a 

Eurocopter B2 A-Star or a Bell 407, both small powerful machines which 

fit 4 and 5 guests plus guide and pilot. 

o Dec 15- April 15 Season 

o Multi Group lodge based packages from Mulvehill Creek Wilderness 

Lodge 

o Exclusive Private and Semi Private ski vacations from Sparkling Hill 

Wellness Hotel 

o Day skiing program from Silver Star Mountain Resort 

o Future plans of some form of ground transfer back up skiing during poor 

weather 

1.2.2 Detailed Listing of Activities & Level of Use 

o EPH is currently operating as a mechanized heliski operator and we also 

offer heli-assisted ski touring. All packages and ski product will be lodge 

based from Mulvehill Creek Lodge and Sparkling Hill Resort, or day skiing 

complimented from the community of Revelstoke and Silver Star Mountain 

Resort and surrounding area. 

o EPH is in the process of researching suitable areas for cat ski back up 

within its operating area which may commence in the 2013 or 2014 winter 

season. This area will be used only when flying is not and option. We 

anticipate that further conversations with agencies, stakeholders, and First 

Nations would be required to achieve approval of backup winter 

recreation. 


Page | 5 


Year Full 

Capacity 

is 

reached 



Extensive 

Area Map 

Reference 

Activity 

/Activitie 

s 

Specific 

References 

on Map 

Table 1.1 Extensive Areas of Use 

Activity Report Client Days 

Frequency 

of Use 

Period of 

use 

Existing or 

Proposed 

Use 

Current 

Year 

Next 

Year 

Year 3 Full 

Capacity 

Begbie Heliskiing W of 

Revelstoke 

Extensive Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

20-30 times 

per year 

0 100 100 150 2014 

Cranberry Heliskiing S of Mulvehill Extensive Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

30-40 times 

per year 

0 150 200 250 2014 


Vidler Helskiing E of Vernon Intensive Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

Simard 

Creek 

Silver 

Star 

Heliskiing E of Mabel Occasional Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

Heliskiing N of Silver 

Star 

Occasional Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

15 times per 

year 

5-10 times 

per year 

5-10 times 

per year 

0 80 150 250 2015 

0 25 25 25 2012 

0 25 25 50 2015 

Nelson Heliskiing E of Mabel Occasional Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

1-5 times per 

year 

0 36 36 150 2015 

Mabel 

Shoulder 

Heliskiing E of Mabel Occasional Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

5-10 times 

per year 

0 25 25 25 2012 

Griffin Heliskiing W of Griffin 

Lake 

Occasional Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

5-10 times 

per year 

0 25 25 25 2012 

Bews Helisking Perry River Occasional Dec 15- 

Apr 15 

5-10 times 

per year 

0 25 25 25 2012 


6



1.2.1.4 Notes and Descriptors for Proposed Polygons 

Begbie Creek Polygon (extensive use site) 

Begbie Creek polygon is located 5 km directly west of the town of Revelstoke and 11 

km north of Mulvehill Creek Wilderness Lodge. It encompasses the Begbie Creek 

drainage. It is bordered by CMH south near Mt Begbie, and to the north on Mt 

Macpherson. To the west, the zone borders on English Lake Park. This zone adjoins 

our existing tenure south of HWY #1 by 3 Valley Gap. 

Bioclimatic zones consist of Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICH) in the valley, Engelmann 

Spruce/Subalpine Fir (ESSF) and Alpine Tundra (AT) in the upper elevations. Skiing will 

occur between the elevations of 1100 and 2500 M. This zone is in close proximity to our 

main lodge and will provide good jump runs to our existing tenure area and good home 

runs. The skiing in this zone can be classified as low to moderate poor weather skiing at 

the lower elevations, and mod-high hazard good weather skiing in the higher 

elevations. The area will also allow for safe exit to main lodge in poor weather. 

21 Ha of this zone has been identified as UWR u-8-005 (Mountain Goat). 37 Ha of this 

zone has been identified as UWR u-8-004 (Caribou) but does not fall under the 

Mountain Caribou Section 16 Map Reserve. 

South Cranberry Creek Polygon (extensive use site) 

South Cranberry Creek polygon lies west of the Columbia River on the northern east 

facing half of Hall Mountain, and to the west of Coursier Lake, directly north and west of 

Pingston Lake and adjoins directly into our existing Gates Creek Zone. CMH Kootenay 

borders to the south and northwest of this zone. Great Canadian Snowmobile tours 

operate on and around Hall Mountain. 

Bioclimatic zones consist of ICH, ESSF and AT. Skiing will occur between 800 M and 

2500 M. The northeast aspect of Hall Mtn will provide good poor weather skiing as it 

has numerous low elevation cut blocks. The area to the south and east of Coursier lake 

is characterized by open and sparsely treed skiing near the tops of the runs, and 

excellent tree and cut block skiing below. Runs are in close proximity to each other and 

provide numerous aspects to ski, and provide safe exit to main valley and lodge in poor 

weather. EPH and CMH are currently working on a flight safety plan to ensure safe 

travel through existing and proposed terrain. 

26 Ha of this zone has been identified as UWR u-4-001 (Moose). Mountain Caribou 

Section 16 Map Reserve borders south of this zone along the top of Hall Peak and to 

the northwest of Coursier Lake on this proposed zone. 


7 




Vidler Polygon (intensive use site) 

Vidler polygon lies directly east of Cherryville and is bordered by Halycon Heliskiing to 

the north, CMH Kootenay to the west, and Keefer Lake adventures to the south. Vidler 

zone lies south of Vidler Creek, east of Mosquito Lake, and north of Mt Beavon. 

Bioclimatic zones consist of ICH and ESSF. The area has been heavily logged and 

would be the southern boundary of EPH. It will provide very good poor weather skiing 

for heliskiing from EPH’s bases of Silver Star Mountain Resort and Sparkling Hill Resort 

which is 30 km away. Skiing will occur between 800 M and 2200 M. Tops of runs are 

sparsely treed and most runs end up in cut blocks near the valley bottoms. South facing 

runs will offer great early to mid season tree skiing. 

EPH is currently entering a joint venture agreement with Keefer Lake Adventures to 

provide mechanized guiding service and expertise for their cat and heliski program. 

This polygon will tie into their existing tenure and EPH will look at drawing up a Joint 

Use agreement (JUA) with Keefer Lake in the future which has plans of offering both 

cat and heliski operations. 

Most of this proposed zone has been identified as UWR u-4-001, u-8-006 (Moose), and 

u-8-001 (Mule Deer). 

The following polygons are in between existing EPH operating Tenure and both 

Silver Star Mountain and Sparkling Hill Resort. These areas have been selected 

as jump in runs for multi group heliski programs and for jump in runs for private 

and semi private groups heading deeper into the bigger mountains. Most of these 

areas top out at 2000 M with skiing down to a minimum of 800 M. 

Mabel Shoulder Zone 

Mabel Shoulder zone lies directly east of Mabel Lake and north of Tsuis Creek. It ties 

into our existing tenure in the Mabel Zone. The border goes down to near lake level in 

consideration of a future lodge site. 

Bioclimatic zones consist of ICH near valley bottom and ESSF to the ridge tops. Skiing 

elevation will be from 800 M to 2000 M with numerous poor weather cut block skiing on 

the south aspect facing Tsuis Creek. This area can be characterized by low hazard 

poor weathers skiing 

Most of this zone has been identified as UWR u-8-006 (Moose), and u-8-001 (Mule 

Deer). 


8 




Simard Creek Polygon 

Simard Creek Zone lies directly east of Mabel Lake and south of Tsuis Creek. It ties 

into our existing tenure in the Mabel Zone. 

Bioclimatic zones consist of ICH near valley bottom and ESSF to the ridgetops. Skiing 

elevations will be from 800 M to 1900 M and will consist primarily of NW facing poor 

weather cut block skiing. 

Silver Star Polygon 

Silver Star zone lies due northeast from Silver Star Mountain Resort and Silver Star 

Provincial Park. To the east is Trinity valley and to the west is a high plateau which is 

used by recreational snowmobilers. 

Bioclimatic zones consist of ESSF and elevation ranges are between 800 M to 1500 M. 

This area will be for poor weather skiing from Silver Star Mountain Resort using NE 

facing cutblocks. 

Nelson Polygon 

Nelson polygon lies east of Mt Nelson, directly west of Monashee Park where it 

intersects with the Sushwap River. Recreational Snowmobiling is popular to the west of 

the polygon on Mt Nelson and towards Mount Mandela and Park Mtn to the south. This 

area serves as a jump run for skiing into Gates Creek from Silver Star Mountain. 

Bioclimatic zones consist of ESSF. Skiing elevations will be 1100 M to 2100 M and is 

primarly north east and east facing. Open trees at the top into cut blocks for pickups. 

This area is characterized as low hazard poor weather skiing. 

Bews Polygon 

Bews Polygon lies at the headwaters of Bews Creek and is a small sliver of untenured 

terrain that ties into our existing high use alpine area. The terrain is a cirque which our 

terrain currently uses half of. The height of land to the east forms the boundary for CMH 

Revelstoke. This extension of our Bews zone will allow us to ski the entire alpine bowl 

feature to our existing pickup. 

Bioclimatic zones are AT with elevation ranges from 1600 M to 2500 M and will consist 

of low to moderate hazard good weather skiing. 

A small section of this zone has been identified as UWR u-8-005 (Goat) 


9 




Griffin Polygon 

Griffin Polygon is located 10 km west of 3 Valley Gap and adjoins existing EPH 

poylgons to the east and west. To the SE it borders Mt Griffin Park. 

Bioclimatic zones in this polygon consist of AT, ESSF and ICH. Skiing will occur 

between 1900 m and 1000 m. This area can be characterized by a series of N and NE 

facing ridges offering good poor weather tree skiing, and jump runs between the 

existing polygons to the east and west. 

1.4 Intensive Use Sites 

Fuel Cache Site 

o #2 located 50 38’56.6” N 118 21’27.6” W 830 M 

Note: This fuel cache will play an integral role in supplying fuel to all ski programs 

working in the southern tenure area. On the safety side, should groups get caught on 

the western divide of the Monashees and not be able to get back through either 

Lindmark or Gates Creek back into the Columbia. The helicopter may have to follow the 

Shuswap valley south to Cherryville and then back towards Wap Creek. For this 

reason, a fuel cache will be necessary at this location and will have the following: 

o Overnight kit 

o Avalanche Rescue Gear 

o Rope Rescue Kit 

o Toboggan 

Fuel cache will be an Enviro tank complete with berm, spill kit and all emergency shut 

off valves. This cache will likely stay in place permanently and be available for use by 

forestry during fire season if requested. 

Radio Repeater Site 

o A new Radio Repeater site to be place somewhere in the western side of 

the Monashee Mountains that has the ability to use Mt English Repeater 

to access Mulvehill Creek Lodge and Sparkling Hill Resort and Silver Star 

Mountain Resort. This location is T.B.D. 

o All radio monitoring and tracking will be done from our main dispatch at 

Echo Bay Lodge (Mulvehill) 


10 


Distance to 

Environ. 

Sensitive 

Area 

200 M 

#2 Fuel Cache 30-40 days 1 daily yes N/A/ Logging Landing 400 M 



Table 1.2 Details of Intensive Use Sites 

Intensiv 

e Use 

Map 

Referen 

ce 

Intended 

Use 

Frequency 

of Use 

Period 

of use 

Desired 

Exclusivity 

Existing or 

Proposed 

improvements 

Environmentall 

y Sensitive Area 



11



Section 2: Overlap with Environmental & Cultural Values 

Eagle Pass Heliskiing contracted Dr. Steven Wilson, RPBio and Dennis Hamilton RPBio to 

develop an Environmental Management System. This management system is an ongoing 

process and is modified from year to year. EPH is committed to work cooperatively with WLAP 

to develop the Environmental Management System that will address environmental concerns 

while meeting EPH’s operational requirements. 

EPH looks to continue an open dialogue with public and commercial stakeholders within and 

bordering our tenure. 

Below is a portion of our environmental management system. The complete EMS is available 

on request. 

2.0 Eagle Pass Heli-skiing – Framework for Environmental Management System 

Prepared for: Eagle Pass Heli-skiing June 7, 2004 

Prepared by: Dr. Steven Wilson, RPBio 1 & Dennis Hamilton, RPBio. 2 

The following is a framework for an environmental management system for the Proposed Eagle Pass 

Heli-skiing (hereafter EPH) tenure. The intent of the framework is to outline and highlight the issues and 

approaches that will be considered as part of a full environmental management system that will be 

developed (in cooperation with WLAP) and implemented to support of EPH’s tenure application 

approval. 

The framework is based on the following principles: 

1 All operational practices are intended to be in compliance with WLAP’s current Interim Wildlife 

Guidelines for Commercial Backcountry Recreation in British Columbia, and EPH is committed to 

meeting the requirements of any future guidelines developed by the Province. In addition, EPH 

will adhere to BCHSSOA’s Best Practices for Sustainability. 

2 EPH will develop, in consultation with WLAP, an appropriate data management system to record 

wildlife sightings. It will include training all staff on identification of key wildlife species and their 

habitats, taking appropriate actions when wildlife are encountered and consistent recording of 

both wildlife sighting information and management actions. 

3 All sightings of key wildlife species (mountain goats, mountain caribou, grizzly bear, wolverine 

and other red- or blue-listed species or regionally-significant wildlife) will be recorded to 100 m 

UTM accuracy. This information will be reported annually to WLAP and LWBC. 

4 All EPH activities will involve good flight practices (consistent flightpaths, avoid flying over ridges, 

etc.) and no wildlife habitats will be altered (e.g., glading) without prior permission from the 

Province. 

5 EPH will fully cooperate with LWBC and/or WLAP initiatives to ensure compliance and to monitor 

1 EcoLogic Research, 406 Hemlock Avenue, Gabriola Island, BC, V0R 1X1 (sfwilson@shaw.ca) 

2 Nanuq Consulting Ltd, 512 West Innes Street, Nelson, BC, V1L 3J3 (dlhamilton@netidea.com) 


12 




the effectiveness of EPH’s operational strategies with respect to wildlife. 

2.2 Key Issues Identified in the Proposed Eagle Pass Tenure Area 

2.2.1 Mountain Goats 

Late winter goat ranges within the proposed tenure area have been mapped and confirmed via 

aerial reconnaissance. 

Operational Strategy 

Early winter: Before snow depths are adequate to restrict mountain goats to late winter ranges, 

animals are expected to range widely throughout the proposed tenure; therefore, all helicopter 

and skiing activity will adopt an avoid-when-seen approach. Flights 2 km) 

reconnaissance flights. 

Late winter: EPH will contract a qualified biologist (with approval of WLAP) to survey each 

January mapped late winter ranges for occupancy by mountain goats. All data related to these 

surveys will be delivered annually to WLAP and LWBC. Where ranges are occupied, seasonal 

closures will be established for the remainder of the season. Closure areas will include current 

line-of-sight approach distances specified by WLAP (currently 2 km), except where topographic 

barriers allow closer approaches. 

2.2.2 Mountain Caribou 

Caribou populations in the Monashees are currently very low; as a result, EPH expects to 

encounter caribou very rarely. During the majority of the ski season (after approximately 15 

January), caribou are expected to be located primarily in subalpine forests on gentle slopes. 


EPH will employ an avoid-when-seen strategy and will restrict skiing to areas >2 km away or in 

other drainages until caribou have moved out of the area. High-elevation or distant (>2 km) 

reconnaissance flights of the area will be used to determine when caribou have moved. 

2.2.3 Grizzly Bear 

Grizzly bear encounters are an issue primarily in the spring when bears are beginning to 

emerge from dens. Sites where grizzly bears are likely to be encountered include the base of 

avalanche chutes which are first to green-up in the spring. 


EPH will adopt an avoid-when-seen strategy with grizzly bears and will not ski on runs where 

grizzly bears have been sighted. Early morning and/or late afternoon reconnaissance flights will 

be used to determine when the grizzly bear has left the area, as this is the time the bears are 

most likely to be active. 

2.2.4 Wolverine 

Wolverines are wide-ranging mammals that could be encountered in any area of the tenure at 

any time. 


13 





EPH will adopt an avoid-when-seen strategy with wolverine and will not ski runs where 

wolverines are observed. Because wolverines travel quickly, skiing will be restricted on the day 

of the sighting only. In addition, active den sights will be mapped and avoided (1 km radius) for 

the remainder of the season. 

2.2.5 Other Red- and Blue-listed Species or Regionally Important Wildlife 

Operational strategies will be developed for other species in consultation with WLAP as part of 

the complete environmental management system to be developed before operations commence. 

2.1 Fish Values 

There are several watersheds within the proposed tenure area, including the Perry River in the 

north, the headwaters of the Eagle River in the central portion, and the head waters of the 

Shuswap River in the south. 

Eagle Pass Heliskiings' activities are not expected to significantly impact aquatic resources. All 

fuel handling will be conducted in accordance with “A Field Guide to Fuel Handling and 

Transportation & Storage” published by WLAP (3"' edition, 2002) and the Fuel Management 

Best Practices as outlined in HeliCat Canada Best Practices for Sustainability document. Fuel 

absorbent pads will be stored at all refueling sites. Double hulled enviro-tanks will be used to 

ensure compliance with all relevant regulations. 

2.2 First Nations 

EPH consulted with First Nations during its original tenure application dated June 2004. During 

this process, there was concern over some traditional trapping areas, however it was agreed 

that these would not be affected by a winter operation such as EPH. Other comments included 

concerns regarding environmental impacts and EPH mitigation strategies. EPH provided First 

Nations an outline of our management system for our environmental strategies. 

Most First Nations groups agreed that Heliskiing would be beneficial to both parties in 

encouraging local business and employment opportunities in the area. 

In the event that a first nations artifact or site is located, the location will be marked, and will be 

left untouched and immediately reported to the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection, and 

the appropriate First Nations group. 

The following are First Nations groups that EPH may approach prior to and during the 

application process for the proposed additional polygons: 

Begbie Creek Polygon 

Adams Lake Indian Band 

Little Shuswap Indian Band 

Lower Similkameen Indian Band 


14 




Neskonlith Indian Band 

Okanagan Indian Band 

Okanagan Nation Alliance 

Penticton Indian Band 

Shuswap Indian Band 

Splats'in First Nation 

Bews Creek Polygon 






Griffin Polygon 






Mabel Front Country Polygon 









Nelson Polygon 






Silver Star Polygon 






South Cranberry Polygon 




15 








Vidler 







2.3 Mineral Tenure 

I acknowledge that there may be mineral tenures that overlap with my area of use and understand that I may have 

to coordinate access and activities with the tenure holders. I further acknowledge that additional mineral tenures 

may be located in my area of use in the future and that I may have to coordinate access and activities with the 

tenure holders.Signed: ________________________________________________ 

(initial review by mapping contractor did not locate mineral tenures) 

2.4 Commercial Recreation Tenure & Guide Outfitter Territories 

2.4.1. Winter Commercial Recreation Stakeholders 

The proposed areas will border on and not overlap the following existing tenure holders: 

Canadian Mountain Holidays, Keefer Lake Adventures (possibly Halcyon Hot springs tenure on 

Hall Mountain). 

Great Canadian Snowmobile Tours has overlap in our current operating tenure. New overlap 

areas are in the Hall Mtn area in South Cranberry Creek Zone and a small section in the Mabel 

Front Country zone on a logging road. GCST has been consulted with in reference to potential 

overlap conflicts. GCST feels that having EPH in the area skiing will add an added level of 

safety in case of emergencies due to the remote nature and travel time to the nearest hospitals. 

There is a new overlap area presented by Carl Kuster Mountain Park which lies within our 

existing operating area but not within new proposed skiing zones or amendments. 

2.4.2 Guide/Outfitters 

EPH is aware of two guide/outfitters in the area; Sugar Valley Outfitters and Monashee 

Outfitting. The season of operation for EPH is Dec thru to mid April, which falls outside of the 

fall hunting season and therefore has a negligible effect on guide outfitting 


16 




I acknowledge that my areas of use may overlap with a commercial recreation tenure and/or guide outfitting 

territory. I understand that I am required to contact these tenures holders have them complete an Operator Input 

Form. I will receive this information from the regional LWBC office. 

Signed: ________________________________________________ 

3.0 Public Use and Access 

3.1 Winter Public Recreation 

3.1.1 Ski Touring 

At all times of the year, EPH will practice active avoidance when ski tourers are noted in the 

area. This will mean staying flexible and moving to different drainages to avoid these 

individuals. Potential areas within the new proposed polygons are in the Begbie Creek zone and 

South Cranberry zone leading into the Gates Creek Zone. 

To avoid visual and auditory disturbance and to ensure a pleasant backcountry experience for 

local tourers, EPH will ensure all flight paths avoid the intensive non-mechanized RMZ. 

3.1.2 Snowmobiling 

In EPH original management plan dated June 2004, consultation with both Revelstoke 

Snowmobile Club and Eagle Valley Snowmobile Club were conducted. EPH has not had 

conflict with any snowmobile user group in it’s 5 years of commercial operation and looks to 

continue a good relationship with the snowmobile community as a whole. High use areas such 

as Boulder Mountain have seen little conflict between the two user groups and EPH foresees no 

issues moving forward. 

Vidler Polygon and South Cranberry Polygon are potential areas where there is a moderate 

amount of snowmobile activity. EPH will continue to work with both clubs, and if there are 

others, to ensure that if issues develop, they can be mitigated between EPH and the clubs. 

3.0 The Okanagan Shuswap Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 

The Okanagan Shuswap LRMP was developed by over 30 different participants between 1995 

and 2000. The plan was approved by government in Dec 2001. The LRMP provides an 

integrated strategic direction for the management of Crown Lands in the Okanogan Shuswap. 

Many different resource management zones, (RMZ's) were developed that cover 93 % of the 

plan area excluding protected areas. (Figure 14) The existing management plan follows LRMP 

directives. It is intended that the new polygons will be made consistent with LRMP directives as 

well. 


17 




Figure 1 Okanagan Shuwap Land Resource Management Plan Area 


18 




Appendix 1 - Hazards and Safety Plan 

I certify that I have prepared Hazards and Safety Plan which meets or exceeds Workers Compensation 

Board and approved industry standards and that my operation will meet the requirements of this plan. 

____________________________________________________ Signed 

____________________ Date 


19 




~lI!, BRITISH 

~ COLUMBIA 

EPH General Overview 

Legend 

CI 

0 6 12 km. 

Scale: 1:435,353 

Copyright/Disclaimer 

The material contained in this web site is owned by the 

Government of British Columbia and protected by 

copyright law. It may not be reproduced or redistributed 

without the prior written permission of the Province of 

British Columbia. To request permission to reproduce 

all or part of the material on this web site please 

complete the Copyright Permission Request Form 

which can be accessed through the Copyright 

Information Page. 

CAUTION: Maps obtained using this site are not 

designed to assist in navigation. These maps may be 

generalized and may not reflect current conditions. 

Uncharted hazards may exist. DO NOT USE THESE 

MAPS FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES. 

Datum/Projection: NAD83, Albers Equal Area Conic 

Key Map of British Columbia 


~\b BRITISH 

~ COLUMBIA 

Vidler 

Legend 

C Contours. (1 :250,000) 

~ 

~ 

Contour · Indel( 

Contour-Intermediate 

Area of Exclusion 

Area of Indeflnlte Contours 

Forest Roads - (TEN ) 

Forest Ro ads - Current (FTEN) 

/ • Forest Service Road 

/ • Road Permit 

D Indian Re serves - Outlined 

Provincial Parks - Tantalis - Colour 

Filled 





















0 2.75 5.5 km. 

Scale: 1:191,555

D \ \ 0 

11\ I 

ces · .f 

::c::!: "" 

· . 

0 

V)c:o 

-:2: § , ~ 

12--, I-::J 

0 .... 

~~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ tl 

.. 

·u 

., 0 .!:-c 

: 

~ · 

0 

u . u ~ i~ 

South Cranberry 

Legend 


















, 

0 

"0 

u 




0 1250 2500 m. 

Scale: 1:88,812

;« Glacier 

"X< Icefleld 

~ canal 

~D a m 

~ 

~ DitCh 

..... BRITISH 

~ COLUMBIA 

Simard Creek 

Dam - Beaver 

Legend 

/ ' Flooded Land - Inundated 

Lake -Definite 











M'ih~L..1jfii! 

c:I . . 

Water· Rivers, Creeks, Shorelines, 

etc. (1 :20,000) 

sk 

ke 

o 

A R K 

/ FaIi S 

/Flume 

,.RaPIdS 

Rlv eror Stream - Definite 

RiverorStream-Dry 

Rlveror Strea m -Indefinite 

RlverorStream - Left Bank 

RlverorStream- Right Bank 

~ Dam- section Base 


/ ' l ake- Indefinite 

/ " lake-Inte rmittent 

~ Reservoir-Definite 

/ ' Reservoir -Indefinite 

/ ' Reservolr.lntermlttent 

Swamp 

A/ Breakwall or Breakwater • Large 

0 650 1300 m. 

Scale: 1:47,018 

l.J.J 







~ 




0::(

~lit, BRITISH 

~ COLUMBIA 

Silver Star 

Legend 

a Contours _ (1:250,000) 

~ 

Contour-Index 

Contour-Intermediate 

~ AreaOfExC lu 5lo n 

A rea oftndefinite Contours 

D Indian Reserves - Outlined 

Provincial Parks - Tantalis - Colou r 

Filled 





















0 1400 2800 m. 

Scale: 1:95,778

•.Jt, BRITISH 

~ COLUMBIA 

Nelson 

Legend 

c:a . . 


etc . (1 :20,000) 

;x>

..... BRITISH 

~ COLUMBIA 

Mabel Frontcountry 

Legend 

c:I . . 


etc. (1 :20,000) 

;« Glacier 

"X< Icefleld 

~ canal 

~D a m 

~ 

~ DitCh 

/ FaIiS 

/Flume 

Dam - Beaver 

,.RaPIdS 

~ 






Dam- section Base 
























/ " lake -Inte rmittent 

~ Reservoir-Definite 



Swamp 


0 800 1600 m. 

Scale: 1:57,467 

A R K

E E 3 3 3 ~ 

~ i 

. , ~ 

a a a 1i ~ ~ 

" " ~ ~ ~ • 0 

D \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ ,\\\\ " 

< 

~~ ] ~ 

.- ~ 

0 

~ :2 ~ 

~~g 

COS 

'7 ~ 

ii) 

~ 

0 .. 

< < < 

Griffon 

~ 

Legend 

~ 

::c::!: U) 

v)c:o 

:£ 

12--, u 

-:2: 

I-::J E 

~ 

~ 


















.~ 

E 



• 

~ 

~ ! 

~ 

~ .~ 

~ 

~ ~ i 

~ i .. .. 

~ 

.:!:O~ ~ • 


0 650 1300 m. 

Scale: 1:47,164

..... BRITISH 

~ COLUMBIA 

Bews 

Legend 

c:I . . 

Water · Rivers, Creeks, Shorelines, 

etc. (1 :20,000) 

;« Glacier 

"X< Icefleld 

~ canal 

~D a m 

~ 

~ DitCh 

/ FaIi S 

/Flume 

Dam - Beaver 

,.RaPIdS 

~ 








~ 


Swamp 























Reservoir-Definite 




0 600 1200 m. 

Scale: 1:43,682

..... BRITISH 

~ COLUMBIA 

Begbie 

Legend 

c:I . . 

Water · Rivers, Creeks, Shorelines, 

etc. (1 :20,000) 

;« Glacier 

"X< Icefleld 

~ canal 

~D a m 

~ 

~ DitCh 

/ FaIi S 

/Flume 

Dam - Beaver 

,.RaPIdS 

~ 








~ 


Swamp 























Reservoir-Definite 




0 650 1300 m. 

Scale: 1:47,164



118°35'0"W 

118°30'0"W 

118°25'0"W 

118°20'0"W 

118°15'0"W 

118°10'0"W 

118°5'0"W 

118°0'0"W 

50°55'0"N 

Griffin 

C 

r 

e 

e 

k 

Begbie 

MT 

BEGBIE 

M u l v e h i l l 

23 

76690 

C r 

L 

A 

K 

E 

i 

e 

m 

r i m 

D 

50°50'0"N 

50°50'0"N 

50°45'0"N 

50°40'0"N 

Kingfisher 

50°35'0"N 

50°30'0"N 

B 

A 

C a 

v 

a 

n 

a 

u 

g h 

y 

s 

i 

o 

N 

r 

C 

Mabel Front Country s 

u 

i 

s 

u 

T 

Simard 

e 

n 

t 

r 

r 

o 

T 

s 

o 

h 

w 

e 

t 

a 

L 

C r 

C 

r 

118°40'0"W 

EAGLE PASS HELISKIING 

INTENSIVE USE SITE MAP 

General Location 

1:250,000 

0 1 2 4 6 8 

Kilometers 

a 

W 

p 

MT 

MABEL 

C 

r 

r 

C 

r r y 

D e 

PARK 

MTN 

r 

C 

k 

e 

e 

r 

C 

W 

h i p 

[ 

JOSS 

d 

n 

u 

o 

H 

MTN 

Fuel Cache Site #2 

50º 38' 56.6" Nr 

C 

118º 21' 27.6" W 

118°35'0"W 

C 

r 

Nelson 

118°30'0"W 

TSUIUS 

MTN 

R 


Eagle Pass HeliSkiing 

Licence of Occupation 

# 3410026 

I 

Greenbush 

L 

R 

V 

E 


Tenure Amendment Zones 

[ 

k 

d 

a r 

L i n m 

V i 

C r ] 

t r u m 

Peters L 

e c 

MT 

S p 

Vidler 

k u m 

FOSTHALL 

SUGAR 

Twin Peaks 

Lake 

MTN 

C 

r 

118°25'0"W 

118°20'0"W 

118°15'0"W 

Forest Service Road 

Road Permit 

Road; Paved 

Road; Gravel 

River/Stream 

Lake/River 


ARMSTRONG 

PEAK 

g u e 

r 

C 

Monashee 

Park 

CARIBOO 

MTN 

k t 

a n e 

B l 

GATES 

PEAK 

r r y 

b 

e 

n 

a 

r 

C 

C 

r 

MT 

GUNNARSEN 

r 

C 

r 

C 

South Cranberry 

Coursier 

CRANBERRY 

Lake 

MTN South Cranberry 

Ecological Reserve 

Provincial Park 

Protected Area 

Private Land 

Survey Parcel 

O d i n 

L e d g e 

F o s t h a 

118°10'0"W 

P 

i 

n 

g 

s 

t 

o 

n 

C r 

F o s t h a l l 

118°5'0"W 

50°45'0"N 

50°40'0"N 

50°35'0"N 

50°30'0"N 

50°25'0"N 

Projection: BC Albers 

Datum: NAD83 

Base Data: LRDW 

±Date: August 23, 2011



118°24'0"W 

118°23'0"W 

118°22'0"W 

118°21'0"W 

118°20'0"W 

118°19'0"W 

118°18'0"W 

118°17'0"W 

50°40'30"N 

UPPER SHUSWAP RIVER ECOLOGICAL RESERVE 

50°40'0"N 

50°39'30"N 

50°39'0"N 

[[ 


50º 38' 56.6" N 

118º 21' 27.6" W 

50°39'0"N 

50°38'30"N 

MONASHEE PARK 

50°36'30"N 

50°36'0"N 

50°37'30"N 

50°38'0"N 

50°37'30"N 

50°38'30"N 

50°38'0"N 

50°40'0"N 

50°39'30"N 

50°41'0"N 

50°37'0"N 

50°40'30"N 

50°41'30"N 

50°41'0"N 

50°42'0"N 

50°37'0"N 

50°36'30"N 

50°41'30"N 

118°26'0"W 

118°25'0"W 



1:50,000 

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 

Kilometers 

118°24'0"W 

[ 

118°23'0"W 



Licence of Occupation 

# 3410026 

118°22'0"W 


Road Permit 

Road; Paved 

Road; Gravel 


118°21'0"W 

118°20'0"W 

Ecological Reserve 

Provincial Park 

River/Stream 

Lake/River 

118°19'0"W 

118°18'0"W 

Projection: BC Albers 

Datum: NAD83 


±Date: August 23, 2011

1000 

p 

a 

i 



900 

SUGAR-FALLS 


50º 38' 56.6" N 

118º 21' 27.6" W 

VANWYK 

[[ 

SUGAR LAKE 

r 

v e 

R 

800 

800 

s w 

u 

S h 

900 



1:5,000 

0 25 50 100 150 200 

Meters 

[ 



Road Permit 

Road; Paved 

Road; Gravel 


River/Stream 

Lake/River 

20m Contour - Index 

20m Contour - Intermediate 

±Projection: BC Albers 

Datum: NAD83 


Date: August 23, 2011



, 

., ... 

" 

, 

, , , 

"'- , 

, 

, , 



December 8, 2011 - Item F.1 

REGIONAL DISTRICT 

of 

NORTH OKANAGAN 

REPORT 

File No.: 3046.01.04 

TO: 

FROM: 


Laura Frank, Sustainability Coordinator 

DATE: November 22, 2011 

Electoral Areas “D” & “E” Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 

SUBJECT: 

2485, 2011 Amendments for Second Reading 

RECOMMENDATION: 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 being the Electoral 

Area “D” & “E” Official Community Plan, be amended to include the changes outlined in 

Attachment 2, “Referral Comments and Public Feedback” of the report dated November 22, 

2011 from the Sustainability Coordinator; and 

That it be recommended that Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 being the Electoral Area “D” & “E” Official 

Community Plan be given Second Reading, as amended and referred to Public Hearing. 

DISCUSSION: 

The purpose of this report is to outline the proposed changes to the Electoral Area “D” & “E” 

Official Community Plan Amendment, which resulted from the referral and consultation process. 

As well it presents the Electoral Area “D” & “E” Official Community Plan, Bylaw No 2485, 2011 

for Second Reading and referral to a public hearing. 

A track changes version (Attachment 1), “Recommended Revisions for Bylaw No 2485, 2011” 

highlights the revisions to the Electoral Areas “D” & “E” Official Community Plan that resulted 

from public engagement and referral. The referrals included: First Nations; School District #22; 

the Agricultural Land Commission; Interior Health; Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; 

Ministry of Natural Lands and Resource Operations; Ministry of Agriculture; Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada; adjacent Regional Districts and RDNO Staff, the Chief Financial 

Officer and the Manager of Environmental Services. Attachment 2, “Referral Comments and 

Public Feedback” summarizes: the submissions received; the Regional District of North 

Okanagan responses to the formal comments received; and the recommended revisions to the 

Electoral Areas “D” & “E” Official Community Plan, Bylaw 2485, 2011. 

Both the Area “D” and “E” Advisory Planning Commissions have reviewed the draft plan and 

have provided their feedback to both the consultant and staff, this feedback has been reviewed 

and addressed in Attachment 2 “Referral Comments and Public Feedback” of this report. 

Land use changes were not a part of the Terms of Reference for this planning process; 

however, a number of residents came forward during the consultation process requesting land 




Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan, Bylaw 2485, 2011 

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – November 22, 201 Page 2 

use designation changes. These six requests have been reviewed and staff’s 

recommendations are outlined in the table - Land Use Designations (Attachment 3). 

At the Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting held on August 4, 2011, the July 18, 2011 

staff report recommending Second Reading as amended was tabled in order to provide the 

Advisory Planning Commissions (APC) additional opportunities to review the proposed 

amendments. On October 13, 2011 the Director of Development Services, Rob Smailes and 

Laura Frank met with the Area E APC to review the recommended amendments and discuss 

any remaining issues or questions with the policies being brought forward. Based on the 

feedback provided at this meeting staff are recommending additional amendments to the 

Electoral Areas “D” & “E” Official Community Plan which are outlined in Attachment 2. 

Overall there was broad community support for the Electoral Areas “D” & “E” Official Community 

Plan. Residents were pleased with the plan and felt that it represented their values and goals 

for their communities. The planning process was carried out over three phases: the first phase 

involved extensive public consultation to determine the future vision residents had for their 

communities; the second phase focused on the creation of the plan and the third phase involved 

public consultation to review the draft plan policies. The public consultation process was open 

to all residents, local stewardship groups and societies; everyone was encouraged to participate 

in this planning process. 

BACKGROUND: 

At the Regional Board Priority setting workshops held on January 8 th and 9 th 2009, the review of 

the Electoral Areas “D” and “E” OCP was identified as a key priority for the Planning and 

Building Department. 

At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors held on November 4, 2009, the Board resolved 

to endorse the Terms of Reference attached to the report dated October 6, 2009 from the 

Sustainability Coordinator for the review of Electoral Areas ‘D” and ‘E” Official Community Plan. 

The Board authorized staff to issue a call for proposals for the review of Electoral Areas “D” and 

“E” Official Community Plan and further resolved that funding be included in the 2010 financial 

plan and be allocated out of the Community Works Fund. 

It was also recommended that due to limited capacity within the Planning Department the review 

of the Electoral Areas “D” and “E” OCP be carried out by a consultant. At the Regular Meeting 

of February 3, 2010, the Board of Directors recommended that True Consulting Group be 

commissioned to conduct the review of the Electoral Area “D” and “E” OCP at a cost of 

$69,630.00. 

On March 18, 2010 the consultant met with both the Area “D” & “E” Advisory Planning 

Commissions to introduce herself as well as outline the OCP review process. On April 14, 2010 

and April 28, 2010 the first public open houses were held at the Cherryville Community Hall and 

the White Valley Community Centre. The goal of these open houses was to provide an 

opportunity for residents to become familiar with the OCP process and identify community 

issues and opportunities. A number of display boards were on hand to provide residents with 

information on the OCP process, new legislative requirements, the area’s population profile, 

housing counts and development opportunities. Prior to these meetings area residents were 

mailed a newsletter/questionnaire to get them to identify what they want the area to be like in 

twenty years. 






After the first phase of the public consultation process which involved two public meetings, two 

joint Area “D” & “E” Advisory Planning Commission (APC) meetings and the solicitation of 

written and verbal correspondence from area residents, True consulting presented the draft 

Electoral Area “D” and “E” OCP to RDNO planning staff on January 19, 2011. The plan has 

since been posted on the RDNO website for review. 

The draft Electoral Area “D” and “E” OCP contains policies that address: Environmental Issues, 

Agricultural & Resource Use, Rural, Rural Residential & Residential Land Use, Commercial, 

Industrial and Special Land Use Areas, Quality of Life, Transportation & Servicing, Economy, 

Development Permit Areas and Implementation. 

On April 4 and 14, 2011 public open houses were held in Cherryville and Lumby to provide area 

residents with an opportunity to give feedback on the draft OCP and proposed policies. Display 

panels outlining the environment, agricultural and resource use, residential, rural and rural 

residential uses and quality of life policies were presented. These meetings were well attended 

and a number of discussions occurred around transportation, ground water, economic 

development, illegal dumping of garbage on crown land, crown land and resource management, 

community health and recreation & tourism. 

SUMMARY: 

Although the Electoral Area “D” and “E” OCP process has been delayed the work carried out to 

date has been delivered in accordance with the Terms of Reference which called for the 

consultant to: 

1) Establish a meaningful public participation program with the citizens of Rural 

Lumby and Cherryville with the intent to establish if community priorities have 

changed since the last OCP was adopted. 

2) Revisit the appropriateness of policies guiding the location and type of 

commercial, agricultural-industrial and rural residential land use. 

3) Review existing OCP policies and Development Permit Criteria within the 

context of Provincial legislative requirements including the Riparian Areas 

Regulation, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment 

Act, 2008 and Agricultural Land Commission regulations 

4) Develop targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases, and policies and 

actions proposed to achieve the targets 

5) Investigate the incorporation of greenhouse gas reductions, energy 

conservation and water conservation within the context of Development 

Permits. 

6) Develop policies that promote community business development, such as 

Home Occupations, that can be implemented through Zoning Bylaw review. 

7) Seek input and cooperation of the adjacent First Nations, the Village of 

Lumby, District of Coldstream and the Agricultural Land Commission. 

8) To prepare an amendment bylaw that reflects the community values of Rural 

Lumby and Cherryville. 

The Electoral Area “D” & “E” Official Community Plan has been amended based on agency 

referral and public feedback and is now ready for Second Reading and referral to a Public 

Hearing. 




Electoral Areas "0 " and "E" Official Community Plan, Bylaw 2485, 2011 

Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee - November 22, 201 

Page 4 

Submitted by: 

Approved For Inclusion: 

Endorsed by: 

Rob Smailes, MCIP 

General Manager, Planning and Building 





BYLAW NO. 2485 

A Bylaw of the Regional District of North Okanagan to adopt 

an Official Community Plan for Electoral Areas “D” and “E” 

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 said Official Community Plan shall be prepared in accordance with 

Section 877 of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C.; 

AND WHEREAS the said Official Community Plan may include policy and context 

statements in accordance with Section 878 of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C.; 

AND WHEREAS the said Official Community Plan may be expressed in maps, plans, 

reports, or any combination thereof; 

AND WHEREAS the Regional Board has caused to be carried out a report outlining the 

general planning objectives and development policies for the Regional District of North 

Okanagan. 

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 “ Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 

2485, 2011 “. 

2. The Official Community Plan Report marked Schedule "A", together with the 

Official Community Plan Maps marked Schedule "B", “C”, “D” attached hereto 

and forming part of this Bylaw, are hereby designated as the Official Community 

Plan for Electoral Areas "D" and “E” of the Regional District of North Okanagan. 

3. Bylaw No. 1690 being the "Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community 

Plan Designation Bylaw No. 1690, 2001", and all amending bylaws thereto, are 

hereby repealed. 

Read a FIRST time this 16 th day of May, 2011 

Bylaw considered in conjunction with the Regional District Financial Plan and Waste 

Management Plan this 16 th day of May, 2011 




Bylaw No. 2485 Page 2 

Read a SECOND time this day of , 2011 

Advertised on the day of , 2011, and 

the day of , 2011 

Public Hearing held pursuant to the provisions of Section 890 of the Local Government 

Act on 

the day of , 2011 

Received the approval of the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural 

Development pursuant to Section 882 of the Local Government Act 

Approval No. 

this day of , 2011 

Minister of Community, Sport and 

Cultural Development 

Read a THIRD time this day of , 2011 

ADOPTED this day of , 2011 

CHAIR 

CORPORATE OFFICER 




Attachment 1 

Recommended Revisions for 

Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Fringe Area Official 

Community Plan 

Regional District of the North Okanagan 

Electoral Area ‘D’ (Rural Lumby) 

and 

Electoral Area ‘E’ (Cherryville) 

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN 

By-law 2485, 2011 – Schedule ‘A’ 

November 22, 2011 

Track-Changes Version 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 

1.1 Legislative and Regulatory Content 

1.2 Community Consultation 

1.3 Community Vision 

1.4 Planning Principles 

1.5 The Sustainability Lens 

1.6 Acronyms 

1.7 Related Documents & Jurisdictions 

2 PLANNING CONTEXT 2-1 

2.1 Demographics and Growth Trends 

2.2 Housing 

2.3 Development Inventory and Opportunities 

2.4 Health and Socio-Economic Indicators 

2.5 First Nation Communities 

2.6 Planning Considerations 

3 ENVIRONMENT 3-1 

3.1 Context 

3.2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas Policies 

3.3 Watercourses and Riparian Areas Policies 

3.4 Wildlife Polices 

3.5 Floodplains and Alluvial Fans Policies 

3.6 Wildfire Policies 

3.7 Tree Retention and Tree Expansion Policies 

3.8 Hazardous Conditions Policies 

3.9 Energy and Conservation Policies 

3.10 Climate Change Policies 

4 AGRICULTURAL & RESOURCE USE 4-1 

4.1 Introduction 

4.2 Agriculture Policies 

4.3 Resource Policies 

4.4 Forestry Policies 

4.5 Sand, Gravel and Other Mineral Extraction Policies 

5 RURAL, RURAL RESDIENTIAL, & RESIDENTIAL 5-1 

5.1 Rural Land Use Policies 

5.2 Rural, Residential Policies 

5.3 Residential Land Use Policies 

5.4 Affordable Housing Policies 

5.5 Home Based Businesses / Home Occupations Policies 

6 COMMERCIAL 6-1 

6.1 Context 

6.2 Commercial Policies 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

7 INDUSTRIAL 7-1 

7.1 Context 

7.2 Industrial Policies 



8 SPECIAL USE AREAS 8-1 

8.1 Context 

8.2 Special Public Use Area Policies 

8.3 Comprehensive Resort and Ecovillage Development Overview 

8.4 Comprehensive Resort and Ecovillage Development Policies 

9 QUALITY OF LIFE 9-1 

9.1 Context 

9.2 Parks and Open Space Policies 

9.3 Heritage Conservation Policies 

9.4 School Facilities and Other Community Services Policies 

9.5 Police and Fire Protection Policies 

9.6 Community Accessibility and Inclusion Policies 

9.7 Seniors and Special Needs Policies 

9.8 Community Engagement 

9.9 Arts and Culture Policy 

9.10 Community Health Policies 

10 TRANSPORTATION & SERVICING 10-1 

10.1 Context 

10.2 Transportation Policies 

10.3 Water Policies 

10.4 Sewage Collection and Disposal Policies 

10.5 Drainage Collection and Disposal Policies 

10.6 Solid Waste Disposal Policies 

10.7 Other Utility Service Policies 

11 ECONOMY 11-1 

11.1 Context 

11.2 Economic Policies 

12 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS 12-1 

12.1 General 

12.2 Riparian Development Permit Area 

12.3 Hazardous Lands Development Permit Area 

12.4 Commercial and Industrial Development Permit Areas 

13 IMPLEMENTATION 12-1 

SCHEDULES 

Schedule B 

Schedule C 

Schedule D 

Land Use 

Environmentally Sensitive Areas 

Hazardous Conditions 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Acknowledgements 

The Development of the North Okanagan Electoral Areas ‘D’ and ‘E’ 

Official Community Plan has been a collaborative process, with the 

general public as vital contributors. T heir input throughout the 

planning process has helped shape the plan. Regional District staff, 

at all levels, also provided an important role and critical expertise. 

The following are especially acknowledged: 

Electoral Area Directors 

• Rick Fairbairn - Electoral Area ‘D’ 

• Eugene Foisy - Electoral Area ‘E’ 

Advisory Planning Committees - Area ‘D’ Area ‘E’ 

North Okanagan Regional District Planning Staff 

TRUE Consulting 

Preamble 

It is recognized that the Plan Area is within the traditional territory of the 

Okanagan First Nation and the Shuswap First Nation. This plan is without 

prejudice to and cannot be used to define and/or limit Aboriginal and Treaty 

Rights and Aboriginal Title of First Nations in British Columbia. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

INTRODUCTION 

1 

1.1 LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY CONTEXT 

The Province of British Columbia (BC) was divided into Regional Districts in 1965 in order to provide a 

form of local government for areas that are not part of a municipality (unincorporated areas). This 

Official Community Plan applies to a portion of the Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO) 

covering parts of Electoral Areas ‘D’ and ‘E’ as shown on Figure 1.1. 

The Regional District operates within the context of the legislation of the Province of British Columbia. 

The Local Government Act and the Community Charter provide legislation for Community Plans and 

outline the tools available to local governments to plan and regulate land uses. 

This plan builds upon the policies and principles of the OCP adopted by By-law 1690, 2001. The 

planning process started in 2010 and has expanded the OCP policies to ensure consistency with 

current legislation and to reflect the current community vision. 

This Official Community Plan provides a general statement of the policies of the North Okanagan 

Regional District about the form and character of land uses and servicing requirements in the plan 

area. The plan policies will guide decisions to be made by the Board of Directors when considering 

applications for various types of development. The Official Community Plan: 

a. expresses a community vision, developed through the planning process; 

b. provides an understanding of how the Regional District plans to work co-operatively with 

other jurisdictions, particularly the City of Vernon; District of Coldstream; Village of Lumby; 

First Nations; provincial government agencies; developers and community groups; 

c. contains statements regarding the Regional District’s plans to accommodate future growth 

and to integrate various land uses such as: residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, 

institutional and recreational uses; 

d. provides statements regarding options for servicing new areas and levels of servicing that 

are appropriate for different types and levels of development; 

e. recognizes the different growth pressures experienced within the plan area; 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

f. provides policies relating to the preservation and protection of the natural environment, its 

ecosystems and biological diversity; 

g. provides policies relating to avoiding hazards and promoting safety of humans and security 

of land improvements; 

h. contains policies respecting affordable, rental and special needs housing; 

i. contains targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and actions to achieve 

identified targets; and 

j. other discretionary statements referred to in Section 878 of the Local Government Act, in 

particular a Regional Context Statement, and where appropriate Part 27 of the Local 

Government Act dealing with Heritage Conservation. 

Figure 1.1: Plan Area Context 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

The Official Community Plan uses population data from the 2006 Census of Canada and provides 

both short-term and long-term directions for the Regional District’s future. Updates of the plan are 

recommended every 5-10 years to evaluate whether or not the plan is still accurate in reflecting 

community trends, needs and desires. 

Finally, the Official Community Plan provides a foundation for financial planning. Specifically, land 

use and servicing strategies create requirements for the years ahead and this information can be 

incorporated into the Regional District’s financial planning and direct applications for supportive 

funding. 

1.2 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 

Pursuant to Section 879 of the Local Government Act, the Official Community Plan process was a 

consultative exercise with opportunities for public input at several stages. The consultation process 

included meetings with the relevant Advisory Planning Commissions as well as public information 

meetings at key points in the planning process. The District has also maintained a web site that 

contains information on the OCP review process and draft documents. Stages in the planning 

process are outlined as follows. 

Official Community Plan Process 

Background Research and Review 

Draft Vision, Issues and Opportunities 

Consultation 

Draft OCP 

Consultation and Agency Referral 

Board Consideration and Approvals 

Implementation 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

1.3 COMMUNITY VISION 

A community vision has been developed as part of the planning process to set direction for the future 

of the area in a manner that reflects the desires and aspirations of a broad cross-section of interests 

across the region. 

Official Community Plan Vision 

“Area ‘D’ (Rural Lumby) and Area ‘E’ (Cherryville) are comprised 

of diverse, distinct and liveable rural areas where people live, 

learn, work and play in harmony with each other and the natural 

environment. 

We are a unique area within the Regional District and plan to 

protect and enhance that uniqueness. 

We are leaders in fostering social integrity, economic 

development, and environmental sustainability, where the 

principles of independence and self-sufficiency are valued. 

We are known as an area where the natural environment is 

carefully managed as both a “natural” area and a “working” 

environment that will be sustained in this balance for future 

generations.” 

1.4 PLANNING PRINCIPLES 

Planning principles were developed to articulate key themes and values that emerged from the 

research and consultation process. These principles are the basis of ‘who we are’, ‘what we believe 

in’ and ‘where we would like to go’ as a community. The Official Community Plan is guided by these 

principles. 

Principle 1 – 

Cultivate 

Partnerships 


Citizen 

Engagement 


Environmental 

Stewardship 

The Regional District with will seek out and develop and nurture partnerships 

with federal, provincial and regional government agencies, First Nations, 

businesses, non-governmental organizations, community associations, and 

others to assist in achieving the shared community vision. 

The Regional District is committed to providing opportunities for its citizens to 

engage in meaningful participation in the community decision-making process. 

Ensure the protection, restoration and management of the region’s natural and 

agricultural environments for present and future generations. There are natural 

environments that are highly valued for their unique and vital ecosystems 

(including contributing to supply of clean water), scenic beauty, outdoor 

recreation, and support of a resource based economy. Minimize conflicts by 

developing and applying clear growth management and land use policies. 


Natural 

Resource 

Conservation 

Support the wise use of energy and material resources by endorsing sustainable 

design and land and management practices. 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 


Local 

Economic 

Resilience 


Community 

Livability 


Housing 

Diversity 


Transportation 

Choice 


Responsible 

Provision of 

Services 


Community 

Leadership 



Encourage economic development as a key to prosperity for the entire 

community through: the designation of employment lands; supporting 

diversification of employment through business development; providing 

educational opportunities to residents; and maintaining the integrity of resource 

lands used for agriculture, forestry and mining. 

The Regional District will strive to enable a high quality of life for its residents, 

where everyone enjoys a safe, vibrant and healthy community and has access to 

education, jobs, public services, culture, heritage, recreation and the natural 

environment. This is an area with a strong sense of community. 

Support a wide range of housing types and tenures that will help ensure that 

people of all ages, abilities, household types and incomes have a diversity of 

housing choices and those residents and their families can continue to live in the 

area. This can in part be achieved by minimizing the costs of developing new 

lots and housing. 

Recognizing the transportation challenges associated with the dispersed 

settlement pattern in the plan area, the Regional District will work with Provincial 

authorities and support strategies to encourage transit, cycling, pedestrian and 

other modes of travel that minimize greenhouse gas emissions and ensure safe 

and efficient movement between communities and settlement areas. 

Infrastructure will be efficient, scaled appropriately and include suitable 

sustainable alternatives and technologies. The Regional District will not provide 

or allow services that are inconsistent with sustainable land management 

practices. 

The Regional District will provide ongoing leadership through adherence to the 

Guiding Principles, sustainable land management and the policies contained 

within the Official Community Plan when making land use decisions. 

1.5 THE SUSTAINABILITY LENS 

The community has a desire to see the area developed in a manner that is sustainable – 

environmentally, fiscally, economically and socially – so that children and grandchildren can satisfy 

their needs in the future and continue to enjoy the opportunities and amenities that the area has to 

offer. This commitment requires balancing the protection of the environment with the needs of a 

changing population and economy. The principles, objectives and policies contained within the plan 

reinforce a commitment to sustainability. Examples of sustainability principles that have been 

considered as part of the planning process include: 

Options to the car are emphasized. 

• Enhance connectivity between roads and trails. 

• Local services (e.g. Cherryville commercial area, recreation areas) are supported where 

feasible. 

Work in harmony with the natural systems. 

• Protect watercourses and environmentally sensitive areas (Development Permits and Building 

Permits used to trigger reviews and approvals). 

• Adopt and enforce Encourage anti-sprawl land use policies (Lumby is the nearest centre for 

higher order retail services, regional/urban cultural and recreation services and higher density 

residential development). 

• Understand groundwater and its capacity to support development (set clear conservative 

subdivision requirements for proof of water). 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

• Encourage and support the use of clean, alternative and renewable energy sources. 

• Consider opportunities to support re-cycling. 

• Support and encourage community forests. 

• Encourage water conservation. 

• Consideration of wildfire interface areas. 

• Direct development away from areas of high natural hazards to areas of no or low natural 

hazards. 

• Support best practices to manage surface water, drainage and groundwater consistent with 

the principles of sustainability. 

• Consider the development of best management practices to protect the supply and quality of 

water resources. 

• Establish a Regional Sustainability Committee. 

• Support Environmental Farm Plans for cattle ranches (livestock) on unprotected creeks. 

Buildings and infrastructure are greener, smarter and cheaper 

• Education on green alternatives 

• Discourage sprawl 

• Support local agriculture including ALC initiatives to support agricultural diversity (e.g. tourist 

accommodation where applicable). 

• Preserve agricultural land by supporting the retention of land within the Agricultural Land 

Reserve where ALR lands have suitability and capability for agriculture (e.g. large parcel size, 

suitable soils and compatible neighbouring land uses). 

• Investigate the need for a regional water conservation strategy, aimed at educating residents 

on water conservation methods and reducing water consumption. 

Jobs are close to home 

• Better internet service allows residents to work at home and reduce their carbon footprint. 

• Land use designations support home occupations. 

The spirit of the community is honoured 

• Principles of independence and self-sufficiency are valued. 

• Respect sacred First Nation sites. 

• Value heritage resources. 

• Support community driven initiatives (e.g. community recreation and culture) 

• Recognize, acknowledge and support the ongoing contributions of voluntary organizations and 

individual volunteers who improve the communities’ well-being. 

• Community services will be provided to a rural standard (e.g. community hall, parks, open 

space, solid waste, fire suppression). Residents will access urban services through 

neighbouring communities (schools, pools, libraries). 

• Ensure a safe community with programs for emergency preparedness. 

Everyone has a voice. 

• Planning processes engage the public. 

• Maintain connections between RDNO and local groups (e.g. APC, Stewardship Groups). 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

1.6 ACRONYMS 

The following Acronyms are used throughout the report. 

ALC 

ALR 

DFO 

HADD 

HLDPA 

LEED 

LGA 

LHA 

MOE 

MOTI 

OCP 

OSLRMP 

QEP 

RAR 

RCMP 

RDNO 

RDPA 

SEI 

SPEA 

TRIM 

Agricultural Land Commission 

Agricultural Land Reserve 

Department of Fisheries & Oceans 

Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction 

Hazardous Lands Development Permit Area 

Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design 

Local Government Act 

Local Health Area 

Ministry of Environment 

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 

Official Community Plan 

Okanagan Shuswap Land & Resource Management Plan 

Qualified Environmental Professional 

Riparian Areas Regulation 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

Regional District of North Okanagan 

Riparian Development Permit Area 

Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory 

Streamside Protection & Enhancement Area 

Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping 

1.7 RELATED DOCUMENTS & JURISDICTIONS 

Key RDNO Policy Documents and Studies 

• RDNO, Transportation Options for Rural Residents Study, 2009, prepared by Stantec 

Consultants 

• RDNO Zoning Bylaw No. 1880, 2003 

• Labour Force Supply and Demand Forecast: 2006 – 2031, North Okanagan Regional 

District, prepared by Peak Solutions Consulting, 2010 

• White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan, North Okanagan Regional 

District, prepared by Yates, Thorn, & Associates, 2010 

General Provincial and Federal Legislation and Policy Documents 

• Local Government Act and Community Charter 

• Bill 27, Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

• The British Columbia Climate Action Charter, which commits local governments to taking 

action on climate change, including planning liveable, sustainable communities, 

encouraging green developments and transit-oriented developments, pedestrian and 

cycling facilities, and implementing innovation infrastructure technologies 

• Agriculture Land Commission Act 

Other Resources 

• A Guide to Green Choices: Ideas and Practical Advice for Land Use Decisions in BC 

• Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development in 

BC 

• Resources from Waste: A Guide to Integrated Resource Recovery 

• Smart Growth 

• Green Bylaws Toolkit for Conserving Sensitive Ecosystems and Green Infrastructure 

• The Dock Primer, The Shore Primer, Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of 

Aquatic Habitat (DFO) (and other documents on the DFO website) 

• Environmental Guidelines for Urban and Rural Land Development in BC, Ministry of 

Environment, 2006 

• Planning for the Future; Age-friendly & Disability-friendly Official Community Plans, 

Rebekah Mahaffey 

• Protect our Forests and Rangeland, BC Government Brochure 

Where the RDNO does not have jurisdiction, the OCP may only state broad goals related to the topic. 

The following regulatory bodies have jurisdiction on certain matters and have been consulted in the 

OCP preparation process: 

• Agricultural Land Commission, 

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 

• Interior Health Authority/Ministry of Health Services, 

• Ministry of Agriculture, 

• Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development 

• Ministry of Energy and Mines, 

• Ministry of Environment, 

• Ministry of Forests, Mines and LandsLands, and Natural Resource Operations, 

• Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, 

• Ministry of Tourism, Trade and InvestmentJobs, Tourism and Innovation, 

• School District No. 22, and 

• First Nations – Okanagan Indian Band and Splatsin (Spallumcheen) Indian Band. 

The Growth Strategies Act and the Local Government Act provide mechanisms to link local 

community plans with regional plans. At the time this OCP was written, the RNDO had not yet 

adopted its Regional Growth Strategy. 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 



PLAN CONTEXT 

2 

2.1 DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH TRENDS 

The most comprehensive statistical profile of the plan area is collected by Statistics Canada every 

5 years. The most recent census was done in 2006. As shown in Figure 1.1, Electoral Areas ‘D’ and 

‘E’ cover a larger geographic area than the plan area; however the census data is representative 

because most of the population resides within the plan area boundary. 

Population growth trends are summarized in Figure 2.1. Statistics Canada reports a combined 2006 

population for the two Electoral Areas of 3771. This reflects a 5% decline from 1996 when the census 

reported 3,969 persons in the 2 Electoral Areas. This population decline contrasts the +5.2% growth 

rate for the whole of BC in the same period. Reasons attributed to the population decline include: an 

aging population; smaller household size; fewer job opportunities in the resource sector resulting in an 

exodus from the area of young families; and potentially, changes in the Census Canada reporting 

system that affect data comparability across years. 

Figure 2.1: Growth Trends 

Source: Statistics Canada Census 1971 - 2006 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Figure 2.2 provides an overview of the current population and shows an area where: “family” 

household size is similar to the provincial average; most families are married or common-law families; 

and, there is a low mobility rate (persons moving). It is significant that there are a high percentage of 

households with two adults and no children. Likely these are households that have raised their 

children and are remaining in the family home. 

Figure 2.2: Population Overview, 2006 



Population 

Characteristics 

ELECTORAL AREA 

D E BC 

Private occupied dwellings 1110 365 

Census families 920 270 

Census families with children 790 240 

at home 

Persons (avg.) in census 

2.8 2.8 2.9 

families 

Children at home under 18 

years 665 180 

Population 2837 934 

Lived at same address 1 year 

ago (non movers) 2465 840 

Median Age 43.4 44.9 40.8 

Figure 2.3: Population Profile 

Source: Statistics Canada Census, 2006 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Figure 2.3 reveals the following demographic characteristics: 

• higher than average number of teens 

• fewer people 20 to 44 years 

• higher than average numbers of older adults 45 – 64 

Although many of the area’s households still contain children, the aging of the population generally 

means a trend towards smaller household sizes. Over time (5 – 10 years) this may be followed by 

some household downsizing and/or a demand for new services to support the changing household 

demographic (e.g. home support services for seniors). 

2.2 HOUSING 

The 2006 Census data for RDNO, Electoral Areas ‘D’ and ‘E’ indicate the following general trends 

related to housing. 

• Total number of private dwellings—1654 

• Total number of owned dwellings—1315 

• Total number of rented dwellings—170 

• Number of dwellings constructed before 1986—945 (64%) (in BC as a whole – 62%) 

• Number of dwellings constructed after 1986—540 (36%) 

• Dwellings requiring major repair as a % of total occupied private dwellings—Area ‘D’ 14.8%; 

Area ‘E’ 5.5% (7.4% in BC as a whole) 

• Average value of owned dwelling – Area ‘D’ $328,952; Area ‘E’ $254,292 ($418,703 for BC 

as a whole) 

• Average number of rooms per dwelling—Area ‘D’ 7.2 rooms; Area ‘E’ 5.9 rooms (6.4 rooms 

in BC as a whole) 

Electoral Area 

Housing D E BC 

Single detached housing as a 

% of total occupied dwellings 89.7% 49.2% 

Median Monthly Payments 

• Rented dwelling $501 $527 $752 

• Owner-occupied dwellings $617 $358 $876 

Source: Statistics Canada Census, 2006 

It is significant that the area contains a very high percentage of single family homes and that in 

Cherryville, particularly; this housing is affordable relative to provincial averages. Although this area 

does not have a large supply of rental housing, this housing is more affordable than in BC as a whole. 

It is also evident that the bulk of the housing was built before the mid 1980’s. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

2.3 DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY AND OPPORTUNITIES 

Figure 2.5 provides an inventory of lots in the plan area based on current OCP land use 

designationsidentifies vacant lots with land use designations that support future development based 

on the existing OCP land use designations and the 2010 BC Assessment data. For the purpose of 

this inventory, vacant lots are lots with no assessed value. The inventory does not include vacant lots 

in the ALR because these lands are used for agriculture (e.g. Richlands) and are generally 

unavailable for residential development. As shown in Figure 2.5, the majority of vacant land with 

development potential is located in areas designated for Country Residential use (>2 ha). This supply 

can meet the most optimistic growth trend presented in Figure 2.1. With growth atrate of 1.5% over 

20 10 years, there would be a demand for an additional 475 units (230 units at 2.8 persons per unit). 

Figure 2.5: Existing Development Opportunities 

Development Area 

Land Use 

Designation 

Existing Units 

(est.) 

Potential Units 

Subdivision (est. 

units) 

• McInnes Road/ Rawlings 

Country 

80 130 210 

Lake Road 

Residential 

• Cherryville: Aumond Road/ 

Sugar Lake Road 

Country 

Residential & 100 60 160 

Small Holdings 

• Lumby: Lady Slipper Road/ 

Birch Road 

Country 



• Lumby: Hart Hurt Road/Mabel 

Lake Road 

Country 



Total 300 220 520 

Total 

Figure 2.6 summarizes building permit activity in the plan area as an estimate of current development 

activity. The building data incudes all types of construction (e.g. renovations, accessory buildings and 

non-residential uses) and there are often multiple permits for a single property. The data, therefore 

over represents development activity and yet is similar to our projection for optimistic growth 

conditions (23 units/year at 1.5% growth). 

Figure 2.6: Recent Building Permits (BP) and Authorizations to Construct (AC) 1 

Year Received 2009 2008 2007 

Application AC BP AC BP AC BP 

Area D 10 14 13 17 13 25 

Area E 7 0 8 2 10 5 

Total 17 14 21 19 23 30 

31 40 53 

1 

Includes all permits and authorizations including construction, renovations, accessory buildings, etc. over 

$25,000. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

2.4 HEALTH AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS 

Figure 2.7 demonstrates that while average household incomes are generally lower in the plan area 

than provincially, low income households (e.g. failing to meet housing affordability criteria) are 

proportionally less frequent in Area ‘E’ (6.7%) than in British Columbia as a whole (13.1%)(Figure 

2.8). It is likely that less expensive housing and lower operating costs are contributing to more 

affordable living conditions. 

Figure 2.7: Income (2005) (Median after tax income – all private households) 

Income ($) 

$50,000 

$45,000 

$40,000 

$35,000 

$30,000 

$25,000 

$20,000 

$15,000 

$10,000 

$5,000 

$- 

$39,055 

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 

$30,852 

$46,472 

Area D Area E British Columbia 

Area 

Figure 2.8: Housing Affordability (% of households in low income positions after tax) 

14.0% 

13.1% 13.1% 

Percent 

12.0% 

10.0% 

8.0% 

6.0% 

4.0% 

2.0% 

6.7% 

0.0% 

Area E Area D British Columbia 

Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 

Area 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

The two largest employment sectors in Area ‘D’ and ‘E’ are agriculture/resources and services. The 

resource sectors have been negatively impacted by global recessions in the past three years and 

changes in the structure of the forest industry. The community is interested in strategies to raise 

employment opportunities in the plan area. 

2.5 FIRST NATION COMMUNITIES 

There are no reserves within or adjacent to the plan area. The two nearest neighbouring reserves 

belong to the Okanagan Indian Band and the Splatsin (Spallmucheen) Indian Band. 

The Okanagan and Splatsin Bands have lived on the lands in their traditional territory for thousands of 

years. Both Bands maintain traditional spiritual and practical interest in the crown lands within the 

plan area and have an interest in the planning process and policies. 

2.6 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 

The review of the plan area identifies several trends and conditions to be considered in planning for 

the future. 

• There will be fewer young people and many will continue to leave the area to find work or to 

further their education. 

• There is a loss of job opportunities in traditional resource sectors. 

• Older workers will be retiring, and their well-paying senior positions may not remain 

• The proportion of seniors will continue to rise but older seniors have not traditionally stayed in 

this area. New opportunities for specialized housing and services are necessary to keep 

seniors. 

• Housing is affordable for existing residents but it may not be affordable for new home 

purchasers. 

• The area will continue to be a good place to raise children, but a ‘family friendly’ community 

requires good access to education. There has been a recent increase in young (0-4 years) but 

this will not offset the declining number of older teenaged students. 

• Regional projections anticipate that in-migration to the Okanagan region will be the largest 

driver of growth. Most of this growth is projected for the urban areas (Vernon, Lumby, 

Coldstream and Electoral Areas ‘B’ & ‘C’). There may also be potential for baby boomer 

migration to impact the growth of rural areas, particularly in the demand for rural hobby farm 

style housing. 

• An increase of home based business may provide local employment and drive a demand for 

more local support services. 

Over the last 10 years there have been many important local, regional, provincial and global changes 

that affect the way we plan our communities: 

• Global awareness of climate change and potential local impacts. 

• Fewer births than deaths throughout the western world with the result that the population is 

rapidly aging. 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

• Large scale recession and pull-back in the markets. 

• Heightened awareness of the importance of “sustainability”, in all forms—financial, social, 

economic, physical where many residents have chosen to live a life of “voluntary simplicity” 

where “simple living is not about a life of poverty, but a life of purpose. By embracing an 

existence characterized by ecological awareness, frugal consumption and personal growth, 

we can change our lives.” 1 . 

• Legislative changes in BC that give local governments more tools and more responsibilities 

(including planning for energy, water conservation and Green House Gas reduction). 

• Changes in the role that resource industries play in the local economy. 



• Changes in the level of services available (e.g. water supply) and changes in the level of 

servicing expected. 

• Increased challenges for lower income households in the region, manifesting itself particularly 

in the cost of housing, both rental and ownership. 

1 Mother Earth News – October/November 2010; Voluntary Simplicity: Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

ENVIRONMENT 

3 

3.1 CONTEXT 

Electoral Area ‘D’ and ‘E’ encompass the rural areas surrounding Lumby and Cherryville in the middle 

Shuswap River Watershed. These two electoral areas take in Sugar Lake, the Shuswap River valley 

as it courses south, west and north into Mabel Lake (and includes the south end of the lake). These 

areas have a strong rural character focusing on agricultural and forestry sectors, as well as tourism 

and the recreation opportunities afforded by mountains, lakes, rivers and pastoral settings. 

The area is geographically diverse with flat-bottomed river valleys, steep hillsides, forest lands, lands 

with high agricultural capability, and lands with low capability. There are also broad expanses of land 

at higher elevations such as Trinity Valley and Richlands. 

There are several physical factors that limit options for community development. Steep hillsides and 

floodplain areas severely restrict areas where community growth can safely be accommodated. Also, 

it should be noted that regulatory factors such as the Agricultural Land Reserve place further limits on 

where the community can provide housing and other developments that are essential for the 

community. 

The Community Plan area contains a diversity of natural features such as lakes, streams, hills, 

valleys, forests and open space within a small area. These features exemplify the interesting and 

unique landscape of this part of the Regional District. The biogeoclimatic zones start with Interior 

Douglas Fir forests on the valley bottoms and go through several transitions as elevations increase. 

Forest types include Cedar-Hemlock, Montane Spruce, Englemann Spruce / sub-alpine fir and even 

alpine tundra on the top of several mountains. These diverse natural conditions are strong factors for 

attracting people to the area. 

Many of the natural features are in a delicate balance that may be easily disturbed by pollution, and 

unsightly development. Natural features may be retained by ensuring thoughtful development. The 

plan area contains several significant natural features that not only are important landmarks; they help 

define the community and its landscapes. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Rawlings Lake 

The lake and surrounding marsh are very prolific for waterfowl production. On the Canada Land 

Inventory, this area is rated as Class 1, the highest rating. 

The lake and marsh should be protected by retaining the zoning in large parcels. 

Camel’s Hump 

Camel’s Hump is a prominent mountain east of Lumby which resembles a camel’s hump, and which is 

often climbed by hikers and climbers. Access to it is from Creighton Valley Road, and across private 

landlogging roads. 

Public access to Camel’s Hump should be continued in order that the public can walk There continues 

to be interest in public access to the top of this mountain. In the future, the RDNO may want to work 

with the province to pursue an adaptive management approach that can respond to potential user 

conflicts. 

Shuswap Falls 

The falls are unique in the Okanagan as the whole Shuswap River drops 21 metres over a series of 

falls. Although some of the flow goes through the penstocks to create electricity, at periods of high 

water or generator shutdown there is a large flow over the falls. 

The falls are a natural feature, but in 1929 a dam was constructed to raise the water level, and 

penstocks and a generating station were installed to provide electrical power for Lumby and Vernon. 

Prior to that time, fish may have been able to ascend the falls, but now the dam prohibits that 

movement. 

The falls are accessible from a day use park and observation platform provided for and maintained by 

B.C. Hydro. In addition, Hydro provides a canoe landing launching area and portage around the falls. 

The penstocks and generating station are not accessible to the public, although they are a rare 

example of small-scale hydroelectric power development that was common in the early part of this 

century. 

RDNO requires developers to consider flood hazards and provide appropriate building setbacks and 

elevations. Developers may be required to assess flood hazard potential as part of their development 

application process. 

In 2007, the British Columbia Climate Action Charter was introduced creating a partnership between 

the Province and local governments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and positively affect 

climate change. The Regional District of North Okanagan became a signatory of the Climate Action 

Charter. 

In 2008, Bill 27, The Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Act, was introduced by the 

Province mandating all local governments to include GHG reduction targets, policies and actions in all 

Official Community Plans and Rural Land Use Bylaws committing local governments to influence the 

reduction of community-wide emissions through various planning tools. 

The RDNO has reviewed regional target options and has concluded that a conservative regional 

target of 25% by 2020 is realistic, with potential to achieve a more aggressive target of 33%. Locally, 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 



based on pre-policy research, it was determined that Area D could achieve a 17% reduction and 

Area E a 213% reduction thereby supporting the 25% as conservative and achievable for this area. 

3.2 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS POLICIES 

3.2.1 Limited mapping is presently available to record 

environmentally sensitive areas in the plan area. The 

RDNO supports efforts to prepare a Sensitive 

Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) for the plan area and 

recognizes that the community wishes to be involved 

in this process. Sensitive environments may include: 

a. lands with ecological significance as habitat for 

pants plants and animals that are rare or 

endangered species (blue listed species mapped on Schedule C); 

b. habitat that supports a cluster of rare species or great biodiversity 

c. land that is distinctive from surrounding areas that do not have the same 

characteristics of ‘sensitivity’; 

d. land that is easily damaged or erodible (e.g. grasslands); 

e. wetlands or areas within a specified distance of a wetland (see riparian area 

policies); and, 

f. lands that have limited resiliency to disturbances or demonstrate slow rates of 

natural recovery after disturbance. 

3.2.2 Where appropriate, the Regional District may use one or more of the following tools to 

direct development away from Environmentally Sensitive Areas: 

a. Development Permit Areas; 

b. covenants registered under section 219 of the Land Titles Act; 

c. bare land strata to allow flexibility in conserving the feature or area; 

d. density bonus transfer or density averaging, to the developable portion of the site; 

e. development variance permits to vary conditions other than use or density; and/or 

f. voluntary stewardship such as contracts, leases or trusts to protect the feature or 

area. 

3.2.3 For Commercial and Industrial Development OCP Amendment Applications and/or 

Rezoning Applications, the RDNO may request a detailed Environmental Review of 

environmentally sensitive areas consistent with the regulations of the LGA 920.1(1) 

and as specified in a Development Approval Information Bylaw if adopted by the 

RDNO. The environmental objective of the Environmental Review is to aid the RDNO 

when making decisions about the impacts of development on sensitive ecosystems. 

review shall be conducted by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) and the 

review should include recommendations on the management of sensitive conditions 

relating to the natural environment of the area affected. Environmental management 

mechanisms that may be considered are; 

3.5.1 The establishment of an Environmental Reserve designation where development on 

private lands in sensitive areas is protected from adverse development. Passive uses, with 

minimal impact on the applicable area would be supported within the Environmental Reserve 

designation. Developments acceptable in the reserve area would include trails, interpretive 

signs, benches and other similar types of passive recreation, conservation or environmental 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

protection and management purpose or represent some other public benefit to the 

community that would not compromise the environmental sensitivity of the area. 

3.5.2 The use of Conservation Agreements, with the Regional District as a party to the 

agreement, to protect sensitive areas and implement conditions and recommendations of 

any environmental reviews conducted through the development approval process. 

3.5.3 A Conservation Zone or Environmental Reserve designation may be assigned to land 

covenanted or deeded against further development or use, including common property in 

strata title subdivisions. 

3.5.4 Owners entering into Conservation Agreements and placing voluntary conservation 

covenants on their land shall not be deprived of the privilege to enjoy land as their own but 

they may not close, fence or otherwise obstruct any adjoining public route of access. 

Developments acceptable in the covenanted area could include trails, interpretive signs, 

benches and other similar types of passive recreation, conservation or environmental 

protection and management purpose or represent some other public benefit to the 

community and not compromise the environmental sensitivity of the area. 

3.5.5 The Regional District has a park function and may take responsibility for the long term 

management of the lands that are designated as parkland and protected through 

Conservation Agreements. 

3.2.4 Areas of major importance to wildlife as inventoried on Schedule C should be protected 

by retaining the parcels as large lots Large Holdings or Non-Urban designations. 

3.2.5 Support the efforts of community organizations such as North Okanagan Parks and 

Natural Areas Trust (NOPNAT), an organization dedicated to preserving the natural 

areas of the North Okanagan for the enjoyment of present and future generations. 

3.2.6 The Regional District considers that the Shuswap River Watershed, including Sugar 

Lake, Mabel Lake, the Shuswap River, and other watercourses and water bodies 

shown on Schedule C are environmentally sensitive to development. Disturbances 

caused by development in these areas can have long lasting and negative effects on 

the ecosystem if development is not managed properly. 

3.3 WATERCOURSES AND RIPARIAN AREAS POLICIES 

In 2010 the Regional District launched the 

Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan 

(SRWSP) and process. The goal is to work with 

rural residents, community citizens, local 

organizations, municipal, provincial & federal 

governments, first nations and non-governmental 

agencies to achieve the sustainable management 

of the watershed. One of the main objectives is to 

protect and manage the quality and quantity of 

water within the watershed to ensure long-term 

preservation of the water resource. To reinforce 

this objective, the community has indicated they 

are opposed to the sale of any water as a commodity, and oppose any inter-basin 

transfers of water. The SRWSP planning process will complement and integrate with 

the goals and objectives of the Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP). A 

number of the following policies will be addressed in the planning process. 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

3.3.1 Encourage federal and provincial agencies to continue monitoring issues of 

environmental importance, particularly water quality in local watercourses. 

3.3.2 Programs that enhance the fish capability of watercourses should be encouraged, 

including installation of fish ladders at BC Hydro’s Shuswap Falls facility. 

3.3.3 Co-operate with senior governments to provide a coordinated strategy for the 

stewardship of watercourses to ensure that no harmful alteration, disruption and/or 

destruction of fish habitat occurs recognizing the framework of the Provincial Riparian 

Areas Regulation. The Regional District designates all watercourses as part of the 

Riparian Development Permit Area. Schedule C identifies known watercourses in the 

plan area using the Provincial TRIM 1:20,000 map but may not include all watercourse 

locations. Accordingly, the Regional District may require additional technical research 

as part of the approval process. Given the lack of comprehensive watercourse data, it 

is recommended that in situations where a property owner maintains that development 

is outside of a watercourse area, the Regional District may require confirmation from a 

Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) that the proposed development is not 

within a riparian watercourse area. 

3.4 WILDLIFE POLICIES 

3.4.1 Work co-operatively with the Federal and Provincial government agencies to protect 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

3.4.2 Consider developing a Bear Aware Strategy to minimize the potential of bear/human 

interactions. 

3.4.3 Require the connectivity and movement of threatened and endangered species be 

considered as part of neighbourhood planning projects and OCP Amendment 

applications or rezoning applications. This process will assess opportunities to use 

such tools as the transfer of density, density bonusing, land trusts, covenants, parkland 

dedication or development agreements to conserve corridors of “sensitive 

ecosystems”. 

3.4.33.4.4 Work with relevant agencies, including the Ministry of Environment and the 

RCMP to develop a “no shooting” strategy in populated areas of Cherryville. 

3.5 FLOODPLAINS & ALLUVIAL FANS POLICIES 



3.5.63.5.1 When mobile homes or buildings to be used for habitation, business, the 

storage of goods damageable by floodwaters or materials that can pollute 

watercourses, are to be located or constructed in any area subject to flooding, such 

buildings or mobile homes shall be flood proofed in accordance with the flood proofing 

requirements of the relevant governing agency. These requirements shall be contained 

in the appropriate implementing bylaws. 

3.5.73.5.2 Alluvial fans and the floodplains of the Shuswap River, Bessette Creek and 

Duteau Creek and as shown on Schedule C are considered Hazardous Lands 

Development Permit Areas and are subject to the guidelines established in the 

Development Permit Section of this Plan (Section 12.3). 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 



3.6 WILDFIRE POLICIES 

3.6.1 The Regional District will, in co-operation with the appropriate agencies, continue to 

work towards developing strategies and procedures to prevent interface fires. The 

RDNO will encourage proactive stand treatments to reduce fire hazards on Crown land 

adjacent to rural interface areas. 

3.6.2 It is recognized that all areas within the OCP plan area are generally susceptible to 

wildfire risks and development should be consistent with provincial Best Practices for 

reducing risk of loss from wildfires. 

3.6.3 Work with the Ministry of Forests, Mines and LandsLands and Natural Resource 

Operations to establish wildfire risk mapping for the plan area and subsequently 

evaluating and approving new developments in areas where fire hazard is high. 

a. Prior to undertaking any subdivision or land use development that will create four or 

more parcels or dwelling units within a high wildfire hazard area, the landowner 

shall will provide the Regional District with a Wildfire Hazard Assessment Report 

for the proposed development, prepared by a Registered Professional Forester 

licensed registered in BC or an equivalent quality professional. The Wildfire 

Hazard Assessment Report shall: assess the current wildfire hazard, assess 

conditions on the site and neighbouring lands, evaluate the proposed development 

for wildfire susceptibility, and provide Fire Smart wildfire hazard mitigation 

recommendations to reduce the hazard of wildfire for the land and buildings to 

moderate or lower. The recommendations of the Wildfire Hazard Assessment 

Report shall be implemented during development and written into a restrictive 

covenant to be registered on a property title advising the property owner of the 

ongoing responsibility to manage their land and buildings in accordance with the 

recommendations of the Wildfire Hazard Assessment Report. 

b. For any subdivision or land use development that will create fewer than four 

parcels or dwelling units in a high wildfire hazard area, and for any subdivision or 

land use development in a moderate wildfire hazard area, the property owner 

should register a standard restrictive covenant on the property title outlining specific 

wildfire mitigation practices for building construction and land management that the 

landowners should implement over the long term to reduce wildfire hazard in their 

development. 

3.6.4 Continue to work on education related to Fire Smart and appropriate codes of conduct 

related to wildfire in rural areas. 

3.6.5 Encourage new construction using “fire smartFire Smart” principles, balanced with 

interests in maintaining rural character. 

3.6.6 Encourage harvesting of health-damaged trees and replanting of infected or damaged 

forest areas. 

3.6.7 Work with community and other government groups to ensure evacuation plans are 

prepared and implemented and kept up to date. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

3.7 TREE RETENTION AND TREE EXPANSION POLICIES 

3.7.1 Encourage, where possible, developers to retain and expand natural tree cover when 

developing their properties while being consistent with policies above. Tree retention 

and expansion is particularly encouraged along road frontages, natural watercourses 

and areas that are visually significant or where riparian areas can be enhanced. 

3.8.1 As a result of a QEP assessment, the Regional District may recommend against the 

removal of vegetation on lands considered to be environmentally sensitive or where 

such removal may increase hazards such as rock fall, landslide, soil instability or 

flooding as part of the Development Permit process. In some instances, the Regional 

District may encourage planting to stabilize and enhance such lands. 

3.8 HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS POLICIES 

3.8.23.8.1 Hazardous conditions of concern to the Regional District includeand addressed 

through the Development Permit Area process are: 

a. areas of steep slopes (slopes in excess of 30%); 

b. rockfall/rolling rock hazard areas; 

c. landslides, land slip, subsidence or avalanche areas; 

d.a. floodplains; and, 

e.b. alluvial fans 

3.8.33.8.2 All lands subject to hazardous conditions within the plan area are subject to the 

A Hazardous Area Lands Development Permit Area. A Development Permit may be 

required prior to subdivision or building permit applications. 

a. A rezoning application may require an overall assessment of the site for 

development suitability (from conditions both on and off the site) prepared by a 

professional engineer and geoscientist licensed in BC specializing in geotechnical 

issues. Further detailed information may be required as a result of the assessment. 

b. A subdivision application may require a detailed Hazard Report (from conditions 

both on and off the site) specifying ways to reduce that hazard to a safe level and 

prepared by a professional engineer or geoscientist licensed in BC specializing in 

geotechnical assessment. The professional engineer will be required to determine 

an adequate level of safety given the type of hazard and the land use proposed. 

Completion of works that reduce the hazard may be required prior to subdivision 

approval depending upon the content of the report. 

3.8.43.8.3 Responding to the referral of an application for Crown Land tenure, the 

Regional District may request a detailed Hazard Report for the site itself and the effect 

upon development in areas neighbouring the site. 

3.9 ENERGY AND CONSERVATION POLICIES 

3.9.1 Encourage collaboration with other levels of government and utilities to address energy 

and emissions management and promote best practices in energy efficiency. 

3.9.2 Endeavour to participate in senior government programs and initiatives that address 

climate change impacts and energy management that help plan for local-scale impacts 

of climate change. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

3.9.3 Encourage planning, design and construction strategies to minimize greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

3.9.4 Encourage developers through education to follow best practices in sustainable 

development – seeking out leading edge technologies. 

3.9.5 Consider creating incentives for responsible development practices by creating an 

incentive for green building policy that exchanges developer investment in green 

technology for density bonusing, modified development standards or other appropriate 

mechanisms. As a performance benchmark the Regional District may choose to adopt 

the Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) standards. 

3.9.6 Explore strategies to increase recycling options in areas not serviced by the blue bag. 

3.9.7 New developments and redevelopments of property should consider the 

“Environmental Best Management Practices for Urban and Rural Land Development” 

(Ministry of Environment) and “Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelines for Urban 

and Rural Land Development in British Columbia” where applicable. 

3.9.8 Encourage and support initiatives to upgrade wood-burning appliances through the 

woodstove exchange program. 

3.10 CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES 

3.10.1 Bill 27, the Local Government Act, was amended in 2008 to require local government 

to integrate targets, policies and strategies for greenhouse gas emissions into their 

Official Community Plans by May 2010. 

562.01 An official development plan under section 562 must include targets for 

the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the area covered by the 

plan, and policies and actions of the Council proposed with respect to 

achieving those targets. 

GHG emission targets will be consistent with the overall target of the Regional District, 

more particularly, reducing GHG emissions by 25% by the year 2030. Strategies that 

will support GHG reductions include: 

a. promoting pedestrian and cycling facilities and routes as alternative transportation 

options; 

b. encouraging home-based businesses and encouraging changes in travel patterns; 

c. support provincial and federal programs to encourage energy retrofits; 

d. support the agricultural sector in developing ways to manage and recover energy; 

e. encourage the reduction of landfill waste; 

f. supporting local food security through local agricultural uses and food processing 

and by encouraging community gardens farmers markets to create more food 

independence; 

g. creating partnerships with local environmental groups to promote and support 

energy conservation and climate change initiatives within the Regional District; 

h. a pilot transit project that would support rural residents(e.g. Cherryville) traveling to 

Vernon for work or services; 

i. supporting Smart Growth planning principles as applicable to rural areas; and 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

j. protection of ecosystems that perform essential ecosystem services such as 

cleaning air and purifying water, with no net loss of forest land. 

3.10.2 As a signatory to the Climate Action Charter, the Regional District will take steps to 

address and support the goals of the Charter, including becoming carbon neutral in 

respect of its corporate operations by 2012. 

3.10.3 The Regional District recognizes the need to take a region-wide approach to energy 

and emissions planning and may complete a Climate Action Plan and may include 

targets, policies and actions in the Regional Growth Strategy. 

3.10.4 Adopt a “lead by example” approach to energy and emissions planning and will commit 

to setting corporate targets, by: 

a. seeking funding support for measuring the Regional District’s carbon footprint by 

mapping operations, collecting emissions data and calculating a corporate 

footprint, and, 

b. identifying best carbon reduction opportunities and setting specific reduction 

targets. 

3.10.5 Incorporate strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when engaged in major 

infrastructure planning and design projects or new facility construction. 

3.10.6 Determine which provincially funded initiatives that target the reduction of greenhouse 

gas emissions are available to the Regional District. 

3.10.7 The Regional District will explore new economically feasible policies, strategies and 

initiatives – passing bylaws when needed, that aim to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions and build environmentally sustainable communities. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

AGRICULTURAL & RESOURCE USE 

4 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

The natural resource sector has traditionally been the basis for jobs and economic development in the 

plan area. Forestry, particularly logging and forest production have been a significant source of 

employment and income. The Regional District does not have direct management responsibility of 

forest resources but can have a role in working with the province and to support initiatives that help to 

maintain jobs while protecting resources for future generations. 

The plan area contains a significant amount of land that is designated for Agricultural Use and is 

within the Agricultural Land Reserve. These lands typically support land extensive agricultural uses 

such as forage and livestock production and contribute to the rural character of the area. These lands 

continue to be under pressure for rural residential development however, there is also increasing 

recognition of their role in contributing to a more sustainable future. 

4.2 AGRICULTURE POLICIES 

4.2.1 Agricultural lands are designated on Schedules B, B1 & B2 and are within the ALR and 

the Agricultural Land Commission Act will take precedence. 

4.2.2 Lands designated Agricultural and within the ALR are intended to be used for 

agricultural purposes and associated uses as allowed by the Land ReserveAgricultural 

Land Commission and the Regional District. All uses and subdivision of Agricultural 

Land Reserve land, shall be in accordance with the Agricultural Land Commission Act, 

regulations thereto or Orders and Policies of the Land Reserve Commission. 

4.2.3 The minimum parcel size for Agricultural lands shall be 30.5 ha. Large parcel sizes 

and setbacks are encouraged and supported through the Zoning Bylaw regulations to 

minimize the potential for land use conflicts and to support long term agricultural use 

consistent with ALR Agricultural Land Commission Act objectives. 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 



4.2.4 Support the Agricultural Land Commission in its efforts to protect and enhance 

farmland. Where land is in the ALR, minimum parcel sizes shall apply only when the 

land is: 

a. excluded from the ALR; or 

b. approved for subdivision within the ALR pursuant to the Agricultural Land 

Commission Act, regulations thereto, or orders of the Commission; or 

c. exempted by the Agricultural Land Commission Act, regulations thereto, or orders 

of the Commission. 

4.2.5 Agricultural Industrial land uses that support local farm production should be 

encouraged. This type of agricultural use shall process or manufacture agricultural 

products, shall not be intrusive nor offensive to the surrounding area, shall be located 

sensitively to avoid high capability soils and shall not contaminate ground or surface 

water 

4.2.6 Agricultural Industrial uses may be permitted on lands designated as Agricultural 

providing these uses are in compliance with the Agricultural Land Commission Act and 

the Regional District Zoning Bylaw, decisions of the Land ReserveAgricultural Land 

Commission and standards of the Ministry of Agriculture. 

4.2.7 The Land Reserve Boundaries underwent a full comprehensive review through the 

2001 OCP process and the revised boundaries are reflected on Schedule B, B1 & B2. 

Having successfully completed this review, the RDNO is unlikely to advance additional 

requests for exclusions. If an exclusion application is advanced, the application will 

need to be supported by a soil analysis conducted by a professional agrologist or a soil 

scientist, concluding that the land is physically incapable of supporting agriculture as 

evaluated. Additionally it must be demonstrated that there are no negative impacts on 

agriculture. This information is to be provided at the expense of the landowner. 

4.2.8 The rural character of Electoral areas ‘D’ and ‘E’ shall be maintained to encourage the 

establishment of the widest range of agricultural activities. Support of programs which 

have a positive effect on agricultural activities such as noxious weed control, dog 

control, and routing of major roads and utilities to avoid farm severance’s, shall be 

considered. 

4.2.9 Where a non-Agricultural property is adjacent to a property which is in the ALR and a 

Subdivision or Development Permit application has been received for the non- 

Agricultural property, an appropriate buffer strip will be established and protected by 

Covenant on the non-Agricultural property following the “Landscape Buffer 

Specifications” published by the Land ReserveAgricultural Land Commission. The 

covenant is also intended to increase awareness of the right to farm in these areas and 

to increase awareness of the presence of neighbouring agricultural uses and thereby 

help to reduce the potential for future land use conflict. 

4.2.10 The Regional District will strongly encourage the Ministry of Agriculture and the 

Ministry of Forests, Mines and LandsLands and Natural Resource Operations to work 

with area ranchers to improve range land management practices with a goal to improve 

water quality. 

4.2.11 Notwithstanding the minimum parcel size required under the present bylaw (30.5 ha), 

the Zoning Bylaw may indicate a future minimum lot area for these subdivisions based 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 



on other land development considerations (e.g. 1.0 ha to support onsite septic disposal 

systems). The Zoning Bylaw may make provisions for smaller lots with the approval of 

the ALC for such purposes as roads. 

4.2.12 Support ALC policies regarding agri-tourism businesses. An amendment to the Zoning 

Bylaw is recommended to ensure consistency between different RDNO areas. 

4.2.13 Support the Province’s general policy of integrated multiple use land management 

such as grazing and timber management recognizing that the subdivision of lands is 

not supported for these separate uses. 

4.2.14 Minimize conflicts between agricultural and other land uses (e.g. 

residential/recreational) through the use of: 

a. agricultural setbacks as specified in Schedule G, Division 16, Zoning Bylaw 1888; 

b. supporting public access restrictions where appropriate; 

c. minimum distance setbacks for intensive agricultural operations; 

d. fencing requirements and landscape buffers; 

e. covenants that are registered with new rural subdivisions that recognize existing 

neighbouring agricultural use, as applicable: 

f. continued liaison with Provincial Ministries and Crown agencies in the planning, 

disposition, and management of Crown lands; and 

g. compliance with the Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA). 

4.2.15 Encourage all farming operations to comply with the followingprovincial regulations and 

guidelines as administered by the provinceparticularly as set out in the Environmental 

Management Act. Farming operations should include best management practices, 

beneficial biosecurity practices, good agricultural practices and compliance with all 

regulations and guidelines as administered by the province. 

4.2.16 environmental guidelines for farming practices as produced by the provincial ministries; 

4.2.17 regulations pertaining to agricultural waste control; and 

4.2.18 code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management (Waste Management Act; Health 

Act). 

4.2.19 

4.2.204.2.16 Recognize the importance of local food production, processing, distribution and 

sale of locally grown products. Efforts to improve the local agricultural economy may 

include: 

a. strategically locating a farmers market; 

b. initiatives to increase agricultural awareness; 

c. development of community gardens; 

d. density bonusing for projects providing opportunities for local food production (e.g., 

community gardens or greenhouses); and 

e. liaison with the Ministry of Agriculture regarding opportunities for hosting local 

workshops on ways to enhance opportunities for growing and marketing 

economically viable, local agricultural products. 

4.2.214.2.17 Encourage strategies that will see large agricultural land holdings retained and 

parcels consolidated and operated as single agricultural operations rather than broken 

up as individual land tenures with multiple ownership. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

4.2.224.2.18 Wherever possible, future major roads, utility or communication corridors 

should be directed away from and around land within the ALR. 

4.2.234.2.19 Support local agriculture through favourable consideration of proposals that 

enhance local agriculture through the strengthening of beneficial agricultural practices, 

support of local food systems, and the expansion of local markets and agri-tourism. 

The community supports the production of organic agricultural farming practices. 

4.3 RESOURCE POLICIES 

4.3.1 Lands designated for Resource Use on Schedule B, B1 and B2 are the large areas of 

crown land and undeveloped areas bordering the settled community area. 

4.3.2 Subdivision of these areas is discouraged to minimize rural sprawl and to avoid land 

use conflicts between aggregate or forestry and residential uses. 

4.3.3 The Regional District will work with the relevant provincial agencies to ensure that local 

community interests are considered as part of the future decision making process 

relating to these lands. Interests can include such topics as recreation and watershed 

concerns. 

4.3.4 The minimum parcel size for Resource lands including lands for Forestry uses shall be 

30.5 ha. Large parcel sizes and setbacks are encouraged to support large scale 

resource activities (e.g. rangeland, woodlots) and to minimize land use conflicts. 

Minimum parcel sizes are regulated through the Zoning By-law. 

4.3.5 The Regional District recognizes that the OCP area falls within the Okanagan Shuswap 

Land & Resource Management Plan (OSLRMP) and that future crown resource land 

use decisions will follow the recommendations of the OSLRMP. 

4.5.1 

4.4 FORESTRY POLICIES 

4.4.1 Provincial forests within the Resource designation shall be encouraged to be managed 

in accordance with economic, environmental and social objectives identified in this 

Plan and the objectives and strategies of the Okanagan Shuswap Land and Resource 

Management Plan (OSLRMP). 

4.4.2 Lands within the Community Plan area having potential for forest use and wood lot 

licences should be maintained in large parcels. 

4.4.3 New and existing Community Forests and other forestry tenures are a permitted use 

under the Resource designation. The action items for the Cherryville Community 

Forest stewardship group are as followsCommunity Stewardship Groups are supported 

and potential actions items for these groups include: 

a. working with the province to develop a water quality monitoring programs; for 

Cherry Creek, Ferry Creek and the Shuswap River to establish a water quality base 

line. 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 



b. implementing an education program to raise awareness of the impacts of actions 

onr water quality; 

c. identifying riparian areas in need of protection; and 

d. conducting a hydrological mapping exercise to identify potential impacts of logging 

on the water supply. 

4.4.4 Promote a wood friendly culture. One strategy to signify this culture is to adopt a 

“wood first” policy designed to link to the Province of British Columbia’s Wood First Act. 

A wood first policy could contain a number of directives including conditions that 

require: 

4.4.5 

4.4.6 all publicly funded buildings to include a detailed description of how wood will be used 

as a primary building material. 

4.4.7 giving favourable consideration to design proposals for publicly funded buildings that 

demonstrate a more substantial and/or innovative use of wood content as a primary 

building material. 

4.4.8 support local value added wood industries. 

4.4.9 encourage and support education opportunities such as those sponsored through 

Wood Works BC or local academic institutes. 

4.4.10 

4.4.114.4.4 Recognize the significant role of independent operators within the local forestry 

industry. In many cases their operations will be home-based industries. The Regional 

District will give favourable considerations to new initiatives were operators can 

successfully mitigate impacts on neighbouring rural properties. 

4.4.124.4.5 Support the establishment of Community Forests in cooperation with the 

Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands Lands and Natural Resource Operations that are 

based on sustainable local forest practices and the enhances the local forest industry 

(e.g. new jobs, better use of resources) for the long term benefit of the community. 

4.4.134.4.6 The Regional District will work with the Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands 

Lands and Natural Resource Operations and other stakeholders in the forest industry 

to protect the forest land base and promote sustainable forest operations while 

balancing recreation and other interests. Activities should reference the Okanagan 

Shuswap Land & Resource Management Plan. 

4.4.144.4.7 Support public education efforts concerning the value of local agricultural 

production, forestry, composting, and water conservation. 

4.4.154.4.8 Forestry uses shall implement Best Management Practices including practices 

that preserve critical watersheds and view sheds and mitigate erosion. 

4.4.16 The minimum parcel size for lands supporting Forestry uses and designated for 

Resource Use designation shall be 30.5 ha. Large parcel sizes and setbacks are 

encouraged to support large scale resource activities (e.g. rangeland) and to minimize 

land use conflicts. 

4.4.17 

4.4.184.4.9 Recognize the role of Woodlot Licences as a technique for managing small 

parcels of crown land together with private holdings, for forestry purposes. The RDNO 

may assist the community in working with relevant provincial agencies through term 

tenure management where there are community interests on crown lands (e.g. trails). 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

3 When considering the addition of new “industrial” resource uses (e.g. mineral 

extraction and large scale wood processing) the Regional District may require a 

vegetated natural buffer area, that is a minimum of 6m between neighbouring rural 

uses. New and Industrial Forest uses may also be subject to the Commercial and 

Industrial Permit Area if located on private land. 

4.5 SAND, GRAVEL AND OTHER MINERAL EXTRACTION POLICIES 

4.5.24.5.1 Land covering areas of high mineral and aggregate potential shall be retained 

in large parcels (Resource, Non-Urban and Large Holding Zones) to allow for 

extraction with minimum conflicts. 

4.5.34.5.2 Extraction of mineral resources shall be followed by reclamation. 

4.5.44.5.3 The Regional District recognizes that certain properties within the plan area as 

shown on Figure 4.1, including areas on Trinity Valley Road and along the boundary of 

the District of Coldstream have aggregate potential. The Regional District will have due 

regard for these resource values when considering land development proposals within 

the general vicinity of these deposits. 

4.5.54.5.4 The Ministry of Energy and Mines encourages the Regional District to 

undertake an evaluation of aggregate resources including supply and demand. Figure 

4.1 is based on partial information. More areas than shown probably have a high 

aggregate potential. 

4.5.64.5.5 All mineral exploration and mining activities will continue to be subject to the 

Mines Act, Mineral Tenure Act and associated regulations. The Regional District 

recognizes that the Ministry of Energy and Mines is the primary agency responsible for 

managing mining activities on Crown and private lands. 

4.5.74.5.6 Sand and gravel extraction and processing may be permitted on large lots 

(Resource, Non-Urban, Large Holdings) subject to consistency with Zoning Bylaw 

regulations. New uses will require a site specific amendment application and will need 

to demonstrate that proposed activities can be conducted in a manner that limits 

impacts on neighbouring properties, including: control of hours of operation; dust 

control; screening; access; traffic circulation and site reclamation. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Figure 4.1 Aggregate Deposits and Mineral Claims 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

RURAL, RURAL RESIDENTIAL, & RESIDENTIAL 

5 

5.1 RURAL LAND USE POLICIES 

5.1.1 Low density Rural lands are those used for, or having a potential for resource 

extraction and that are not suitable for intensive development because of limitations. 

These limitations include but are not limited to, elevation, slope, water, accessibility, 

distance to community services, disruption of existing resource or agricultural uses, or 

interference with watershed conservation and are designated in the locations shown on 

Schedules B, B1 and B2 as Large Holdings (LH) and Non-Urban (NU). 

5.1.2 The minimum parcel size for low density Rural use shall be appropriate to the use, but 

in no case shall the minimum parcel size be less than that of the Non-Urban zone (7.2 

ha) except in those cases where subdivision of a smaller lot is permitted by virtue of a 

road severance under the provisions of the Regional District Zoning Bylaw or Section 

946 of the Local Government Act. 

5.2 RURAL RESIDENTIAL POLICIES 

5.2.1 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 (CR) and Small Holdings (SH). The minimum parcel 

size for CR is 2 ha and for SH is 1 ha. 

5.2.2 Rural residential lands should conform to the following requirements: 

a. outside the Agricultural Land Reserve; 

b. not in an area with excessive slopes; 

c. not in an area that has high capacity for other uses such as gravel extraction, 

mining, or forest development; 

d. not subject to flooding or in an area with a high water table; and 

e. not subject to excessive expenditures for services such as roads, electric power 

and school bussing; 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

f. contains suitable building sites; 

g. contains sewage disposal areas; 

h. contains adequate water supplies as specified in the Subdivision Servicing Bylaw; 

i. does not destroy or alienate important habitat for fish and wildlife; and, 

j. does not detrimentally affect neighbouring properties and the community as a 

whole. 

5.2.3 Future Small Holdings (SH) developments are restricted to areas identified on 

Schedules B, B1 and B2. Applications to amend the Zoning Bylaw for the Small 

Holdings (SH) Zone should conform to the following requirements: 

a. be located in close proximity to local areas with similar residential densities and 

services; and 

b. the form and character of development should not detract from the rural character 

of the built and natural environment. 

5.2.4 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. 

5.2.5 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. 

5.2.6 At theWith Regional Boards’ discretionapproval, clustering shall be permitted to allow 

lots smaller than the minimum of the applicable zone provided that the number of lots 

in the cluster does not defeat the objectives of maintaining a rural area and the overall 

density is maintained. 

5.2.7 Within the plan area there are three (3) areas that currently support existing residential 

densities; : Whitevale; North of Lumby; and, the trailer park in Cherryville. These 

developments are not representative of the rural development supported in this plan 

and new designations are NOT contemplated except as outlined in 5.3.3. Challenges 

facing these development formats in rural areas include: 

a. transportation- focus on personal automobile; 

b. amenity space – local public spaces are limited; 

c. servicing – densities require community water and sewer; 

d. public opinion – neighbours do not support higher densities; and 

e. energy – sustainability policies encourage concentrated, infill development and 

discourage sprawl. 

5.2.8 Pursuant to Section 904 of the Local Government Act, the Regional Board may apply a 

bonus density to a maximum of 20% for Small Holdings (SH) designations without 

amendment to this Plan where application for amendment to the Zoning Bylaw 

proposes a minimum of 10% of additional land is dedicated for the following community 

or site amenities: 

a. dedication of parkland, linear parkland and/or Greenways where their location 

conforms to Parks dedicated on Schedules B, B1 and B2. ; 

b. long-term security and management of significant areas of mature, natural 

vegetation, or any other significant habitat amenity; 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

c. the maintenance of substantial buffer zones adjacent to major roads; or where the 

owner of property provides for the conservation or provision of any other amenities; 

and. 

d. a road and trail fund has been established by the RDNO and is supported by a trail 

network plan. 

5.2.9 Rural Residential land development that proposes to create more than 2 new lots shall 

not be considered for rezoning until a comprehensive plan consistent with the rural 

residential policies is provided, and until the roads and services adequate for the 

development are either in place or financial guarantees regarding their installation are 

provided. 

5.2.10 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. 

5.3 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE POLICIES 

5.3.1 In accordance with provincial recommendations and standards, no lots will be created 

less that 1.0 hectare unless connected to a community sewer system. Lots less than 

this size have been determined to be not acceptable for septic effluent disposal. There 

are three existing Residential developments in the plan area that were established 

prior to this policy. 

5.3.2 Residential use is development on lots less than 1 ha in size and is encouraged to be 

located within the Village of Lumby and not within the plan area. 

5.3.3 Notwithstanding the above, the Regional Board may consider Residential development 

in the “downtown” Cherryville area upon receipt of a comprehensive plan showing 

servicing details. Such a development would require a community sewer system. 

5.4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES 

5.4.1 The Regional Board supports the provision of secondary suites as a form of affordable 

housing that is regulated through the Zoning Bylaw. 

5.4.2 Manufactured Homes are recognized as another source of affordable housing and will 

be treated equivalent to site built homes with respect to where they are permitted and 

their siting on a lot, but with restrictions as may be established by the Zoning Bylaw. 

5.4.3 The Regional District recognizes that affordable housing and social housing projects 

benefit from close proximity to other services, therefore an urban location (e.g. Lumby) 

is considered more suitable than rural locations within the plan area. The Regional 

District will collaborate with the Village of Lumby on efforts to encourage affordable 

housing for the local community. 

5.4.4 The Zoning Bylaw conditionally supports a second dwelling in some zones for family 

members as a strategy to provide affordable housing and support aging in place. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Additional considerations that may be integrated into the Zoning Bylaw provisions 

include: 

a. Registration of a Housing Agreement specifying that the property shall not be 

subdivided and the second dwelling is intended for family members; 

b. In accordance with the regulations of the Agricultural Land Reserve Act; and 

c. In accordance with health regulations relating to the provision of water supply and 

sanitary sewer service permits. 

5.5 HOME BASED BUSINESSES / HOME OCCUPATIONS POLICIES 

5.5.1 Continue to support home occupations, including bed and breakfasts in association 

with a residential dwelling in all land use areas subject to the relevant requirements for 

home occupations specified in the Zoning Bylaw. Permitted uses should not cause land 

use conflicts or place excessive demands on services. Generally, these businesses 

are small scale, incubator businesses and when they reach sufficient size they may 

need to relocate to a more appropriate area. The RDNO may review the existing 

regulations should the area obtain high speed internet and expand opportunities for 

new home based businesses. 

5.5.2 It is recognized that within the plan area home occupations typically will be on large 

lots (> 1 ha) with a strong association to the agriculture and resource basis of the local 

economy. As such, the Zoning Bylaw makes special provision for home occupations in 

the plan area. 

5.5.3 Farm sales that are ancillary to the agricultural use of land within the Agricultural Land 

Reserve and are consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Bylaw, Minister of 

Agriculture standards and the Agricultural Land Commission Act will continue to be 

supported by the Regional Board. 

5.5.4 Requests to increase the size of home based business beyond that permitted in the 

Zoning Bylaw are not encouraged as these uses will be in direct conflict with the 

Commercial and Industrial Policies of this Plan. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

COMMERCIAL 

6 

6.1 CONTEXT 

Vernon has developed as the regional commercial business and service centre for the North 

Okanagan Regional District. The commercial policies in this plan reinforce the centralization of 

services while recognizing that some services, particularly tourist and local convenience services, 

should be provided at the local level. The rationale for local services includes building a sense of 

community and helping to reduce GHG emissions. 

In the future, ,commercial uses will continue to be encouraged to locate as infill development in larger 

communities, however, small scale commercial uses are supported where they are consistent with 

rural character (e.g. home based, agricultural, forestry). 

6.2 COMMERCIAL POLICIES 

6.2.1 Major Retail and Service Commercial uses should be encouraged to locate within the 

Village of Lumby and other nearby urban centres. 

6.2.2 Neighbourhood Commercial uses to supply goods and services to serve local needs 

should be permitted at locations to serve existing or future residential areas. Existing 

commercial lands are designated on Schedules B, B1 and B2. Applications for new 

neighbourhood commercial developments should address the following: 

a. Minimizing impacts on adjacent land uses; 

b. Strengthening an existing community focal point (e.g. in close proximity to existing 

commercial developments or community uses – “Downtown Cherryville”); 

c. Contributing to more sustainable land use patterns, minimizing trip generations and 

thereby reducing GHG emissions and supporting the sale of local products and 

foods, including local restaurants and famers markets; 

d. Provide safe access for both pedestrians and vehicles; and 

e. Consider alternative transportation options, including potential for connections to a 

local trail network. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

6.2.3 Highway and Tourist Commercial, and Recreation Commercial uses may be permitted 

at suitable locations subject to a successful OCP Amendment and Rezoning 

Application and the following conditions: 

a. sewage disposal, water supply, drainage and access shall meet the requirements 

of the authority having jurisdiction and any additional requirements of the Regional 

Board; 

b. the proposed use shall not adversely affect the environment or adjacent land uses; 

c. the site should be outside of the Agricultural Land Reserve unless prior approval 

has been obtained from the Land Reserve Commission; and 

d. include public consultation in the planning process. All OCP Amendment 

applications for Commercial uses shall be subject to a Public Information Meeting 

to be hosted in the community by the applicant prior to scheduling of a Public 

Hearing. 

6.2.4 In accordance with Development Permit Sections of this Plan, land designated as 

Commercial, including resort developments, is also designated as a Commercial and 

Industrial Development Permit Area (Section 12.4) in order to establish requirements 

respecting the form and character of development. 

6.2.5 The Regional Board supports development of Recreation Commercial accommodation 

uses, including rental cabins and campgrounds that are oriented towards tourists. To 

ensure availability of these uses for tourists and the general public, the Regional Board 

may require covenants to restrict further subdivision as a condition precedent to 

approvals when considering rezoning applications. 

6.2.6 The Regional Board encourages and supports new development proposals in Ecotourism 

and adventure tourism that seek to provide wilderness and natural experiences 

and education in a sustainable manner with the least amount of impact on the 

environment. 

6.2.7 Temporary Permits pursuant to Section 921 of the Local Government Act, including 

appropriate designations, may be considered for a commercial use of a short-term 

duration on a parcel designated Resource, Agricultural, Non-Urban, Rural, Small 

Holdings or Country Residential. 

6.2.8 The Regional Board supports, in principle, the development of tourist-related 

agricultural businesses such as vacation farms, farm bed and breakfast operations, 

farm-gate marketing, winery, etc. on agricultural lands subject to ALR regulations. 

6.2.9 The Regional district District will consider developing a sustainability checklist for new 

commercial development applications to encourage sustainability issues to be 

considered in the review process. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

INDUSTRIAL 

7 

7.1 CONTEXT 

The plan area is part of a larger regional industrial sector and it is important that going forward, the 

RDNO and the neighbouring municipalities work collaboratively in supporting the region’s industrial 

base. 

The plan area contains many large rural residential properties that may be regarded as viable 

locations for land extensive industrial activities. The Regional District may consider new industrial 

activities in a rural context but requires applicants to participate in a detailed review and consultation 

process. 

7.2 INDUSTRIAL POLICIES 

7.2.1 Lands designated for industrial use are recognized in the plan document and mapped 

on Schedules B, B1 and B2. The minimum parcel size for industrial uses is regulated 

through the Zoning Bylaw and is not less than 1 ha where the lot is serviced with an onsite 

septic tank effluent disposal system. 

7.2.2 Electoral Areas ‘D’ and ‘E’, in association with the Vernon, Village of Lumby and the 

District of Coldstream, should identify appropriate land resources for short and long 

term industrial development. Research and priority setting should include both vacant 

greenfield sites and brownfield sites (e.g. Lavington glass plant). 

7.2.3 Industrial land shall be serviced with potable water supplies, proper approved sanitary 

sewage disposal facilities, and suitable storm water drainage collection, treatment and 

disposal systems. 

7.2.4 Industry should be encouraged, particularly those industries which take advantage of 

local conditions, local resources and employ local people. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

7.2.5 Electoral Areas ‘D’ and ‘E’ should take advantage of possible grants available to aid in 

servicing industrial land. 

7.2.6 Major industrial land developments shall not be considered for rezoning until a 

comprehensive plan in accordance with the industrial policies is provided, and until the 

roads and services adequate for the development are either in place, or financial 

guarantees regarding their construction and installation are provided. Applications for 

new industrial developments will require a comprehensive review process including a 

traffic study that is conducted to review the impacts of the development on the rural 

road network. 

7.2.7 Industry emissions shall not adversely affect the land, water or air environment, either 

in the short term or cumulatively in the long term. Further, that noise, light and dust 

from industrial activities are kept at a level so as not to be a nuisance to surrounding 

areas. 

7.2.8 Agricultural Industrial uses shall be permitted in accordance with the provisions of the 

agricultural policies of this Plan. Agriculture is recognized as a regional growth 

opportunity and the Regional District supports more intensive use of agricultural lands 

in the ALR subject to relevant provincial regulations. 

7.2.9 In accordance with Section 12.4 land designated as “Industrial” is also designated as 

part of the Commercial and Industrial Development Permit Area in order to establish 

requirements respecting the form and character of development. 

7.2.10 Future industrial uses will not be supported in areas subject to flooding or other 

hazards, or in areas that will cause disruption to the established community. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

SPECIAL USE AREAS 

8 

8.1 CONTEXT 

From time to time, extraordinary land uses arise which do not conform with the usual residential, 

industrial, commercial, or open space land use categories. These include specialized and unique 

uses which have widely varying, site specific location requirements. In some instances these are 

public uses such as waste disposal sites, airports, health clinics, and minimum-security work camps. 

Special uses may also include uses that because of their unique development strategy may not be 

accommodated under other land use designations (e.g. comprehensive resorts and eco villages). 

Because of their uniqueness and special requirements, it is not possible to pre-designate specific 

areas for these uses. Nevertheless, it is essential that the need for such areas be recognized in the 

Plan. 

8.2 SPECIAL PUBLIC USE AREA POLICIES 

8.2.1 Special Public Uses that are intended to accommodate extraordinary public land uses 

shall be recognized and considered for rezoning without specific designation on the 

Official Community Plan Land Use Map, Schedules, B, B1 and B2. 

8.2.2 In rezoning of land to a Special Public Use, consideration shall be given to the 

following; 

a. the protection of the interests of adjacent land owners; 

b. the implementation of sustainability practices wherever possible; 

c. regulations, policies and guidelines of government agencies; and 

d. the incorporation of extraordinary development requirements by zoning, covenant, 

agreements, or development permit. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

8.3 COMPREHENSIVE RESORT AND ECOVILLAGE DEVELOPMENTS OVERVIEW 

Comprehensive Resort and Ecovillage Developments may be considered as Special Uses. These 

uses are recognized as potentially appropriate for the plan area however to ensure that they are 

consistent with the OCP’s overall planning principles and objectives they must be considered through 

individual OCP and Rezoning application processes. 

Comprehensive Resort developments are considered to be land uses that may have a residential 

component but the primary rationale for their development in the plan area is to support a recreational 

use (e.g. golf, fishing, skiing, eco-tours). These uses will contribute to the economy through job 

creation and may also provide specialized accommodation. 

Ecovillages are intentional communities formed with the goal of becoming more socially, economically 

and ecologically sustainable. Rural ecovillages are usually based on organic farming, and other 

approaches which promote ecosystem function and biodiversity. Some of the components of an 

ecovillage are: 

• educated commitment to principles 

• opportunities for local purchasing 

• alternatives to purchasing of global energy (e.g. oil) 

• local food 

• moral purchasing and decision making 

• respect diversity 

• sustainable design practices 

Overall an ecovillage is driven by a collective commitment to create an alternative, sustainable 

lifestyle. Applicants seeking approvals for these projects will need to clearly demonstrate a 

commitment to sustainability principles and to ensure that the project is consistent with the principles 

of growth management and rural protection. These uses are not an opportunity for satellite, market 

driven housing development. 

8.4 COMPREHENSIVE RESORT AND ECOVILLAGE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 

8.4.1 Comprehensive Resort or Ecovillage Developments must be recognized through site 

specific amendments to the Official Community Plan and shall only be considered in 

conjunction with rezoning to a Comprehensive Development Zone which will define the 

uses and development regulations specific to the lands in question. As part of the 

development application review process, or in advance of the application, the RDNO 

will work with stakeholders to define the terms of development approvals for unique 

comprehensive resort or ecovillage proposals. Potential stakeholders may include: 

• the Agricultural Land Commission 

• neighbourhood / community associations 

• Ministry of Health 

• Local Health Authority 

• School District 

• Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 



The goal of this review process will be to ensure that new developments contribute 

positively to sustainable rural character in the plan area. 

8.4.2 Comprehensively Resort and Ecovillage Developments must establish efficient, cost 

effective wastewater management systems. While conventional septic disposal 

systems may be appropriate for rural, large lot areas, it is no longer viewed as an 

acceptable means of wastewater management for new or expanded resort and 

ecovillage developments. Ecovillages may elect to pursue alternative development 

strategies but will need to clearly demonstrate the long term viability of such initiatives, 

providing the appropriate supporting professional reports. 

8.4.3 Comprehensive Resort and Ecovillage Developments need to protect the quality of 

surface and ground water sources, while achieving an economically viable level of 

development without adding to the financial burden of taxpayers. 

8.4.4 Without diminishing the role of the City of Vernon or the Village of Lumby as the 

principal and secondary commercial and service centres in this area, comprehensive 

resort and ecovillage developments may include limited commercial and personal 

services to provide visitors and residents with a full service resort or sustainable 

community experience. 

8.4.5 Comprehensive developments in or adjacent to agricultural land should be avoided or 

heavily buffered except for “Bed and Breakfast” operations and “Agro-tourism” in 

accordance with Agricultural Land Reserve Commission regulations and Ministry of 

Agriculture standards. 

8.4.6 Comprehensive developments within this designation shall be largely self-contained 

and shall not facilitate nor be deemed to encourage further development on adjacent 

lands. 

8.4.7 In accordance with the provisions of the Development Permit Section of this Plan, land 

designated as ‘Comprehensive Resort or Ecovillage Development’ is also designated 

as a Development Permit Area in matters concerning the protection of the natural 

environment, protection of development from hazardous conditions, and matters 

concerning the form and character of commercial and industrial development. The 

establishment of objectives for the form and character of intensive residential 

development may also be required. 

8.4.8 The design of new and expanded comprehensive resort and ecovillage developments 

shall be responsive to the natural environment such that site grading and visual 

impacts from lands beyond are minimized. 

8.4.9 The Regional Board may require the developer to provide a Traffic Impact Assessment 

prepared by a professional engineer that addresses the potential for impacts the 

development may have on traffic patterns, safety and volumes in the surrounding 

community. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure must agree to the Terms 

of Reference for a Traffic Impact Assessment prior to preparation. 

8.4.10 The Regional Board may require the developer to provide an Environmental Impact 

Assessment prepared by a qualified environmental consultant to address potential 

impacts the development may have on the quality of the natural environment. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

8.4.11 Where a comprehensive development proposes a non-traditional land tenure system, 

such as ecovillage co-housing or cooperative ownership, the Regional Board may 

address the specialized nature of the ownership as part of the approval process to 

ensure that specialized ownership conditions are recognized over the long term (e.g. 

by future owners and neighbours). 

8.4.12 The Regional Board will require the developer to demonstrate how services can be met 

by the developer for such services as schools so that there are no indirect public costs 

(e.g. school buses). 

8.4.13 Developments which implement water conservation and re-use strategies are 

encouraged. 

8.4.14 Proposals for a Comprehensive Resort and Ecovillage Development projects shall 

demonstrate how storm-water and wastewater shall be managed on the site such that 

water quality and surrounding properties are not negatively impacted by the 

development. 

8.4.15 The level of servicing appropriate to each proposal shall be defined for consideration 

by the Regional Board, however, it is noted that all development must be serviced with 

a water system meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Regulation. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

QUALITY OF LIFE 

9 

Parks, Open Space Recreation, Heritage, Culture and Institutional 

9.1 CONTEXT 

The residents of the plan area pride themselves on the easy access to outdoor recreation 

opportunities. As the population increases and there are additional demands placed on the area’s 

resources, the Regional District may need to become more involved in the protection of existing 

amenities and meeting the new demands of a changing community. 

Parks and recreation are governed by the Regional District through the White Valley Parks, 

Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee whose members are one representative from each of 

three jurisdictions (Electoral Areas D and E and the Village of Lumby). The administration function is 

currently managed by the Village of Lumby who provide services under contract to the North 

Okanagan Regional District. 

Local community associations are also key participants in the delivery of services to the residents of 

the plan area managing such facilities as the Cherryville Community Hall. Local and grassroots 

organizations such as the Cherryville Community Club and the Mabel Lake Community Association 

are formed into “not for profit” societies - representing the “doers” of the community – creative people 

matching community needs to appropriate activities. 

Throughout the plan area there are many trails that are used regularly by both residents and tourists. 

These trails include traditional use paths, formally designated and signed trails and forestry roads. 

The community is interested in protecting and developing this trail network with an emphasis on such 

aspects as integrated multiuse management and the development of alternate transportation 

networks. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Many of the community services used by residents in the plan area (high schools, hospitals, health 

clinics, recreation facilities) are located in nearby communities where higher population densities are 

available to support these services. The plan area policies support the continued centralization of 

these services however, residents also recognize that local, rural services can help create a sense of 

place, contribute to employment within the community and support other industries such as tourism. 

Residents would like to encourage local services to the greatest extent possible. 

The Plan area also contains historical and archaeological features which should be preserved, 

protected, and designated so that the public is aware of their significance. History helps communities 

to achieve maturity by making its citizens aware of past conditions and the contributions of pioneers to 

the community. Settlement by non-natives in this area began over one hundred years ago and was 

fostered by the search for gold. As the earliest pioneers searched for valuable minerals, the 

agriculture and forestry industries developed. These factors are important in the context of this plan as 

they are essential to the identity of the communities within the plan area (see Cherryville and Area 

History inset). Objectives and policies focusing on conservation of important heritage resources will 

be addressed in this plan. In addition to several historical buildings, other significant heritage features 

include: 

Indian Rock Paintings (Pictographs) 

There are two known locations of Indian rock paintings in the Community Plan area, both of which are 

described in the book "Pictographs in Interior British Columbia" by John Corner. The first is on the 

south side of Highway No. 6 about three kilometres west of the Sugar Lake Road in Section 26, 

Township 57, while the second is on the north side of Creighton Valley Road about 13 km south and 

east of Highway No. 6, in Section 13, Township 41. 

Cherryville Gold Diggings 

The earliest exploration in the Lumby area was associated with the search for gold on Cherry and 

Monashee Creeks over a hundred years ago. Some of the workings are still visible on Monashee 

Creek in Section 1, Township 57. 

Archaeological Sites 

The Community Plan area contains eight recorded archaeological sites, most of which are either 

former Indian dwellings or places in which rock tools were shaped. These sites are located along the 

Shuswap River, a short distance upstream or downstream from Shuswap Falls, or at Rawlings Lake. 

In addition, there may well be other sites uncovered in the future. Archaeological sites are protected 

under the Heritage Conservation Act and should not be disturbed without approval from the 

appropriate provincial ministry. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Cherryville and Area History 

In 1863 Mr. W.C. Young, then stationed in Osoyoos, was instructed by Governor Douglas to 

visit Okanagan Gold strikes. Two miles from the mouth of Cherry Creek, he found a budding 

and as yet unnamed settlement, consisting of two houses and another being built. A mile 

further along the creek was a cabin and the discovery claim of partners, Pion and Louis. 

Between 1863 and 1895 the original town, of what we know as Cherryville, was merely a small 

mining camp, located deep within the canyon walls of Cherry Creek. It boasted a population of 

nearly 100 people, half of which were Chinese miners. Every possible method of extraction 

was tried to get the gold and silver from the area. 

With more and more miners heading into the Cherry Creek area, a road was built from Lumby 

in 1877. According to the B.C. Department of Public Works and under supervision of C.A. 

Vernon, the route came through Blue Springs Valley. It was about eight feet wide. With a road 

to the area, families began to arrive. Like all communities, in the 1800’s they were known by 

the Post Office name. The first known post office in the area was listed as the Cherry Creek 

Post Office. The community of Cherryville was christened when Olava Handon Hanson 

became postmaster. She submitted three names into Ottawa, one being Cherry Creek, 

another Cherryville and the third one, no one can recall. Ottawa choose Cherryville. It was 

always felt that Cherry Creek and Cherryville were named after the wild Choke Cherries that 

grew abundantly, along the banks of the creek, as there were no cherry trees in the area. 

In the 1900’s, the town site of Hilton, at Richlands Estates, was located on what is now the 

corner of Creighton Valley Road and Holmes Road. It was originally sold to wealthy 

Englishmen, as an area with a mild climate, suitable for orchards. The Settlement quickly grew 

with money coming from England. It had a post office, hotel, livery stable, barber shop, grocery 

store, hardware store, butcher shop and blacksmith shop. Many orchards were established 

and irrigation was put in. While the area was beautiful it was not the same as the South 

Okanagan and quick fortunes failed to materialize. The community dwindled, when the First 

World War began and the money stopped coming from England. Some of the people remained 

in the area, finding other ways of making a living. The original Richlands School House, now 

used by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, is the only building left at the Hilton site. There are 

still two of the old homes remaining; one at the Burnyeat Ranch and the other at the Neil 

place. Neither is habitable. 

The Hilton School was built in 1907 and kept is name until 1948, when the new school was 

built beside it and renamed Cherryville School. The area grew. Ranches and farms sprang up. 

A mill was built in 1948 on Sugar Lake Road (Ferguson Mill). Logging remains a major 

industry in the community. As of 1998, Cherryville remains unincorporated and has a 

population of 1,000 people. It has two general stores, both carrying gas and propane – with one 

of them being a liquor vender. It also has a golf course, three restaurants, a library, a quilt 

shop, a campground, a gun club, and two churches. It also boasts of some of the most 

beautiful scenery in B.C. 

Source: Provided by the Cherryville Historical Society for the 2001, Official Community Plan 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

9.2 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE POLICIES 

9.2.1 Areas recognized as having value for public recreation and 

protected natural areas are designated as Parks and Open 

Space on Schedules B, B1 and B2. 

9.2.2 The White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan 

provides comprehensive planning and service delivery 

strategies for the plan area. This document has not been 

formally adopted by the RDNO and does not provide specific 

park designations for the plan area but does provide guidance 

to direct future decision making. 

9.2.3 Support a community planning process to determine the short-term and long-term 

goals and objectives to establish Hanson Park as the civic focal point of the community 

of Cherryville. 

9.2.4 Encouraged strategies to protect McIntyre Lake including: designation as a BC Park, ; 

designation as a conservation area, ; transfer of ownership to the Regional District of 

North Okanagan; or designation as a recreation site under the Forest & Range 

Practices Protection Act. Land use management should consider multi use options 

including supporting recreation and protecting wildlife. 

9.2.5 Work with the relevant provincial agencies to ensure that those key crown land 

holdings which are currently used for recreation or which need to be safeguarded for 

ecological reasons be secured. Lands of particular interest to the community include 

the Meadows and Richlands. 

9.2.6 The concept of a recreation plan for the Shuswap River will be considered in the 

Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan and process which is being developed in 

collaboration with BC Hydro, First Nations, members of the community and applicable 

government agencies. 

9.2.7 The Regional Board, through White Valley Parks and Recreation, will undertake a 

comprehensive inventory of undeveloped public access points to the Shuswap River, 

Mabel Lake and Sugar Lake. 

9.2.8 The Regional Board, through White Valley Parks and Recreation, and in co-ordination 

with local groups and organizations will support a Trails Master Planning process, 

including an inventory of existing resources. The community is heavily dependent on 

the private automobile for its transportation needs; however, there is an interest in 

supporting trail development for alternate transportation use, local recreation use, and 

tourism development (e.g. to support a burgeoning local horse industry). 

9.2.9 If practical, parks and recreational trails should not be situated in or adjacent to 

agricultural lands. If there are no alternative locations, these areas should be buffered 

to protect park users from agricultural activities and agriculture from park users and 

their pets. Fencing and signage should also be considered to reduce impacts on 

farming. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

9.2.10 The Regional Board, through Whitevalley Parks and Recreation, may initiate a 

community process to determine the best use of the “Meadows” on Sugar Lake Road 

and the “gravel pits” on Highway 6. 

9.2.11 Joint development and use of school and park sites by School District No. 22 and the 

Regional District should be continued, and when required, site specific formal 

agreements may be concluded to provide for integrated development and use. 

9.2.12 The Regional District will work with School District No. 22 to support multi-use options 

for schools. In particular, schools with declining enrolment may have vacant floor 

space that can support new community activities. Opportunities may include 

partnerships with local community groups for activities and services, such as: day 

cares, after school programs, recreation and cultural activities and private education 

initiatives. 

9.2.13 Where applicable, parkland, or money in lieu of parkland, shall be provided to the 

Regional District pursuant to Part 26: Division 10 Development Cost Charge Recovery 

and 10.1 School Site Acquisitions Charges of the Local Government Act. The parkland 

or money in lieu shall be provided as a condition precedent to subdivision within the 

Plan area. 

9.2.14 Review The White Valley Parks and Recreation Development Cost Charge Bylaw 

1390, 1996 to ensure that the regulations and fees are relevant to the current 

objectives for parks planning. 

9.2.15 Development Cost Charges that are payable for parks purposes as a condition 

precedent to subdivision approval, shall be waived if the value of the parkland, or the 

amount of the money in lieu of parkland, required to be provided pursuant to the 

provisions of Part 26: Division 10 – Development Cost Charge Recovery of the Local 

Government Act, is equal to or exceeds the amount of the applicable Development 

Cost Charge. If the value of the parkland, or the amount of payment in lieu of parkland, 

is less than the applicable Development Cost Charge, then the balance of the 

Development Cost Charge shall be paid as a condition precedent to subdivision 

approval. 

9.2.16 Waterfront properties that have long range potential as public access should be 

protected by acquiring where possible the right of first refusal in favour of the Regional 

District. 

9.2.17 In the acquisition and development of open spaces, quality of the recreation 

experience should be considered the number one priority in the planning process as 

well as in the management of the site in the future. The focus should be on the values 

of specific additions to the present opportunities. 

9.2.18 Address the need for trail connectivity and trail extensions as part of the review 

process for new subdivisions. 

9.2.19 Work with local organizations to support community research, planning and 

management of parks, stewardship projects and trails. Support community grass roots 

organizations in their effort to secure funding for these projects. 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

9.2.20 Encourage co-ordination of the efforts of different levels of government who provide 

public outdoor space. The emphasis for future outdoor recreation space in the 

Community Plan area should be on the provision of resource-based facilities (i.e. 

hiking, historical, scenic and natural interest, etc.). 

9.2.21 Continue to recognize the role of local grass root organizations in the local provision of 

sustainable cultural and recreational services. The Regional District supports efforts to 

secure funding for these projects and has also played an important role in supporting 

sustainable upgrades to local community facilities. 

9.3 HERITAGE CONSERVATION POLICIES 



9.3.1 Recognize the importance of heritage resources in the plan area as representative of 

its history and key to its identity, character and sense of place, and seek to integrate 

heritage conservation, and awareness about heritage into planning and day-to-day 

decisions. 

9.3.2 Pursuant to section 953 of the Local Government Act, The Regional Board may, by 

bylaw, appoint a Heritage Advisory Commission for all, or part of the Electoral Areas. 

Furthermore, the terms of reference to be established by the Board for the Commission 

will include, but not be limited to: a mandate to advise the Board on heritage matters 

and other matters referred to it by the Board; and direction to undertake activities 

specified in the terms of reference. 

9.3.3 Pursuant to section 954 of the Local Government Act, the Board may, by resolution, 

establish a Community Heritage Register for purposes of identifying heritage properties 

within the Plan area. 

9.3.4 The Regional Board will cooperate with property owners seeking heritage designation 

or other heritage recognition for their properties by employing the following policies and 

the associated potential regulatory mechanisms for conserving and protecting the 

heritage resources within the Plan area. 

a. The Board may consider Conservation Covenants under Section 219 of the Land 

Title Act for buildings with established heritage value. 

b. The Board may, when conditions warrant creative solutions not possible within 

existing regulatory frameworks, enter into Heritage Revitalization Agreements with 

property owners for the preservation of heritage resources. Utilization of these 

agreements will be pursuant to section 966 of the Local Government Act. 

c. Pursuant to section 967 of the Local Government Act, The Board may, by Bylaw, 

designate real property, in whole or in part, considered to have heritage value or 

character, or is deemed necessary or desirable for the conservation of protected 

heritage resources. The Board will emphasize and encourage voluntary 

designation over imposed designation recognizing constraints associated with such 

designation. Furthermore, the terms and conditions for such designation will 

include guidelines and policies regarding the issuance of a Heritage Alteration 

Permit. 

d. The Board recognizes the particular vulnerability of heritage resources currently 

located within the Provincial Agricultural Land Reserve and will cooperate with the 

Provincial Land Reserve Commission to protect these resources through 

designation or other mechanisms. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

9.3.5 The Regional Board will work with the community and landowners to ensure the 

Heritage Resources (Chinese Diggings and miners’ cabins along Cherry Creek) are 

preserved. The general locations of these resources are shown on Schedule B2. 

9.3.6 The community plan area contains numerous native archaeological sites including rock 

paintings, former dwellings and places where rock tools where shaped. The general 

locations of these sites are shown on Schedules B, B1 and B2. These sites are 

protected under the Heritage Conservation Act which provides that designated heritage 

sites shall not be disturbed without permission of the Archaeological Branch. The 

Regional District would also provide a referral to the Splatsin and Okanagan Indian 

Bands should an application be received in the vicinity of these resources. 

9.3.7 The Regional Board will work with the community and the agencies having jurisdiction 

to ensure that landmarks such as creeks and mountains represent the historical names 

given when the area was first settled. 

9.4 SCHOOL FACILITIES AND OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICIES 

9.4.1 Public service, assembly and civic uses such as schools, community halls, health 

clinics, churches and fire halls are permitted in all areas and land use designations 

except in the Residential Single Family designations; except that Assembly uses 

pursuant to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act of B.C. shall also be 

permitted in areas designated for Single Family use consistent with the Zoning Bylaw 

where appropriate siting, parking, buffering and setbacks standards can be met. 

9.4.2 Pursuant to the Parks and Open Space policies of this Plan, the Regional District 

encourages the joint use and development of school sites in co-operation with School 

District No. 22. 

9.4.3 When determining the location for any new school facilities, the siting in or adjacent to 

agricultural land should be avoided. 

9.4.39.4.4 The RDNO will continue to work with the School District to ensure students 

experience safe, healthy environments. 

9.5 POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION POLICIES 

9.5.1 Continue to recognize the plan area as a rural area where residents acknowledge and 

accept that beyond a very limited area close to the village Village of Lumby fire 

protection services are not provided by either the Regional District through local 

volunteer fire departments. The only fire department with the plan area is located in 

Lumby and it does service a limited part of Area D. The Regional District will continue 

to provide emergency services throughout the plan area as part of a region-wide 

service delivery model. 

9.5.2 Support and encourage the application of Fire Smart principles for existing and new 

development. 

9.5.3 Continue to support and work closely with the RCMP. This may include the formation 

of citizen support groups such as Neighbourhood Watch through the Safe 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Communities Program (where densities warrant this type of program), as a proactive 

step in the reduction of crime. 

9.6 COMMUNITY ACCESSIBILITY AND INCLUSION POLICIES 



9.6.1 Support opportunities for balanced, active and diverse lifestyles where housing, public 

services and amenities are affordable, accessible and inclusive. 

9.6.2 Encourage land use patterns, community activities and events that generate intergenerational 

and inter-cultural interest, participation and social integration. 

9.6.3 Consider establishing a region-wide committee to provide feedback and direction to 

elected officials and staff on aging and disability issues. This feedback may include 

facilitating the preparation of an age-friendly assessment of the community to discover 

what is working around accessibility and inclusion and what needs improvement. 

9.7 SENIORS AND SPECIAL NEEDS POLICIES 

9.7.1 The essential role of pioneers, founding families, elders and other seniors in the 

settlement of this area is gratefully acknowledged. It is important that their changing 

housing needs and requirements for support services be recognized and addressed 

within the community. 

9.7.2 Support local strategies and partnerships to deliver seniors’ care, assisted living 

services and residential based services for persons with special needs. 

9.7.3 Access for persons with special needs should be considered in the design of public 

buildings and transportation facilities (including trails). 

9.7.4 Support local initiatives to become more involved in the Age-Friendly Communities 

Program. Currently this has been a Lumby led initiative but there is potential for 

benefits throughout the plan area. Improved communications (high speed internet and 

broader cell phone coverage) are essential for a successful age-friendly community, 

supporting all age groups with such services as: remote educational opportunities, 

particularly for children and youth; home occupations; and services for seniors 

choosing to age in place. 

9.7.5 When reviewing new development applications, the Regional District will apply an agefriendly 

lens to the review process to support a local population that hopes to age in 

place. While many of the health and support services needed by seniors are outside 

the jurisdiction of the Regional District the community can benefit from a greater 

awareness of age-friendly features and barriers. (See age-friendly features and 

barriers in information box following). 

9.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 

9.8.1 Support community participation in planning processes and encourage community 

engagement in a variety of volunteer organizations including the Advisory Planning 

Committee. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

An Age-Friendly Lens: 

Considerations for Planners, Developers and Service Providers 

Suggestions for improving age-friendliness in rural areas . . . 

• Support programs that use retired professionals (e.g., pharmacists, nurses, 

teachers) to provide volunteer support for seniors’ in their homes —for example, 

to explain medication and health care issues. 

• Work with the local Health Authority and the Provincial government to identify 

programs appropriate to the area. 

• Support a Safely Home Program—a program developed for cognitively impaired 

people through the Alzheimer Society. 

• Provide cooking services to seniors living on their own. 

• Support the efforts of the Interior Health Authority to attract more rural doctors. 

• Support daycare services that offer respite services for caretakers. 

• Support a home visit program to provide social visits to seniors. 

• Families can learn about available community programs and services. 

For Information Only 

9.9 ARTS AND CULTURE POLICY 

9.9.1 It is recognized that the region’s larger urban 

centres (e.g. Vernon) will be the focal point for 

regional cultural expression and diversity but the 

Regional District will work with regional 

institutions and associations to support cultural 

amenities and/or programs at the local level. 

Vacant classrooms, for example, may provide an 

opportunity for local programs, special events, 

celebrations support for local artists. 

9.10 COMMUNITY HEALTH POLICIES 

9.10.1 Recognize the importance of open spaces, parks, cultural and artistic events and 

recreational opportunities in enhancing the quality of life of residents. 

9.10.2 Support medical facilities that operate on smaller scales (e.g. palliative care homes) in 

rural residential land use designations. It is anticipated that these smaller specialized 

facilities may be more “footloose” in terms of their locational decision and able to 

succeed in a rural area where they can integrate an attractive rural setting into their 

overall service delivery model. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

TRANSPORTATION & SERVICING 

10 

10.1 CONTEXT 

Highway 6 is the main highway corridor in the plan area. Over the years efforts have been made to 

plan a transportation network with efficient linkages between and within the rural areas as shown on 

the Land Use Plan (Schedules B, B1 and B2). The development of these connections has been 

limited, restricted by: a lack of funding; a slow rate of new development and developer driven 

investment; and, competing jurisdictions (e.g. ALR). 

A network of secondary roads provides access to many of the settled areas within the plan area. 

These roads were typically constructed to a rural standard to accommodate lower traffic volumes and 

are characterized by narrower travel lanes, ditches for storm water and they lack designated space for 

pedestrian or bicycle travel. Some of the local roads are in reasonable condition but many roads are 

minimally maintained and surfaced with dirt or gravel. 

In 2007, the Province of British Columbia passed the Climate Action Charter which commits all 

communities in the province to significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. 

Reducing personal vehicle traffic through alternative forms of transportation is one of the key ways to 

meet this goal; however, it is difficult to implement these types of “urban” conservation strategies 

where there is a dispersed settlement pattern and no public transit. 

The plan area contains a mix of small “urban” lots, primarily located close to Lumby and serviced with 

community water, and large “rural” lots with independent water and sewer systems. For the term of 

this plan, policies support planning strategies that will see this area continue to be a “rural” area with 

larger rural lots on independent water and sewer systems. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

The plan area is within the area that was examined as part of the Groundwater Assessment in the 

Okanagan Basin (GAOB) project that was initiated in 2004 and completed in 2009. 2 The primary 

objective of the GAOB project was to characterize and provide sound scientific understanding of 

groundwater resources in this region and to assist communities with long-rang planning for the 

continued provision of safe and sustainable water supplies. The recommendations of this study reenforce 

the need for continued groundwater research and monitoring and the use of this information 

in land use planning and decision making. 

The community has expressed interest in new development opportunities that utilize alternative green 

energy and servicing strategies. Green infrastructure and servicing may be a good companion for 

new rural development in this area; however the Regional District should proceed cautiously to ensure 

that these developments are sustainable over the long term, in terms of social, environmental and 

economic costs. 

10.2 TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 

10.2.1 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Land Reserve Commission and 

the North Okanagan Regional District should perform a detailed review of the “Major 

Street Network Plan” to ensure that long term goals can be achieved. This review 

should coincide with The Regional District supports the preparation of a Bicycle and 

Trail Network Plan. The plan should to consider crossovers between the road and 

trail network plans. Planning should also consider the and opportunities for 

alternative transportation modes including: bicycle routes, trails, a Handidart, 

community van, carpool and car co-operatives. 

10.2.2 Until the above mentioned review is undertaken, the The existing and proposed 

major roads designated on Schedules B, B1 and B2 are endorsed as the long term 

major routes for movement of traffic, and shall have a minimum width of 25 metres. 

The location of proposed routes within the Agricultural Land Reserve is not to be 

construed as having the endorsement of the Agricultural Land Reserve Commission. 

The construction, upgrading, or dedication of these routes may not proceed without 

the approval of the Commission. However, it is recognized that Provincial Agricultural 

Land Commission Resolution #1625/83 permits some upgrading without additional 

approvals being required. 

10.2.3 New roads and major improvements to existing roads shall be located so as to 

provide minimum disruption to agricultural uses. 

10.2.4 Planning for future roads and subdivisions shall take into consideration the needs of 

public transit, school buses, pedestrians, farm equipment and bicycle routes and 

other environmentally sensitive transportation methods. 

10.2.5 For developments in which road upgrading will be required as a result of the 

development, the development will not occur until roads adequate for the 

development are in place. 

2 

Carmichael, V., Kenny, S., Allen, D., and Gellein, C. 2009 “Compendium of Aquifer Hydraulic Properties from Reevaluated 

Pumping Tests in the North Okanagan, British Columbia” , B.C. Ministry of the Environment and Simon 

Fraser University. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

10.2.6 Access to crown lands and water-bodies shall be provided wherever necessary 

under the appropriate subdivision regulations or as a condition precedent to 

rezoning. 

10.2.7 Local roads shall have a minimum right of way width of 20 meters. 

10.2.8 Continuous strip development along highways will be discouraged for safety, 

aesthetic and functional reasons. 

10.2.9 The Regional Board supports the 

concept of an all-weather road to link 

the Village of Lumby with Silver Star 

Village. The new road is to function 

as the “connector” of different 

geographic areas (e.g. White Valley 

to Silver Star to Vernon). It is not 

intended to function as a local road 

and catalyst for new development. 

Should the road be constructed, the 

area would continue to support large 

lots for rural or resource use. 

10.2.10 Proposed transportation routes 

should avoid wetlands and streams 

and consider the impacts of roads on 

sensitive natural ecosystems, if 

possible. Environmental Impact 

Assessments may be necessary, at 

the discretion of relevant government 

agencies. (see “Road Design 

considerations to minimize impacts 

on Watercourses for information 

only). Transportation routes should 

follow property boundaries and avoid 

bisecting productive agricultural 

lands. 

10.2.11 Encourage the Ministry of 

Transportation and Infrastructure and 

Infrastructure (MoTI) to consider the 

Road Design Considerations 

to Minimize Impacts on 

Watercourses 

In low-gradient terrain, for example, 

alternative design and maintenance 

practices could maintain phosphorus 

delivery from roads to receiving waters at 

lower rates than is presently the case. Some 

approaches to achieve this objective are as 

follows: 

• implement strict erosion and 

sedimentation control practices during 

road construction; 

• design local road systems to avoid 

riparian areas and to minimize surface 

runoff and erosion susceptibility; 

• maintain natural drainage patterns; 

• minimize ditch length connected to the 

natural surface drainage network; 

• employ infiltration systems where 

required to control surface runoff and 

sediment transport; and 

• minimize soil exposure caused by ditch 

maintenance operations. 

For Information Only 

needs of pedestrians and cyclists when approving new roads or upgrading existing 

roads. The community of Whitevale, for example, has expressed interest in the 

development of walkways and bike trails along Whitevale Road and in the Whitevale 

area generally. New road designs, for example, can support alternative 

transportation options with the addition of wider shoulders for pedestrian travel or a 

wider paved travel surface that can become a designated bicycle route. 

10.2.12 New roads shall be encouraged to connect into the existing road network plan as 

shown on Schedules B, B1 & B2. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

10.2.13 Transportation planning may be required as part of the development review process 

to ensure that traffic issues and impacts are considered in relation to a new 

development proposal. 

10.2.14 Recognize the importance of accessibility for seniors and the mobility impaired and 

support designs that accommodate these user groups. 

10.3 WATER POLICIES 

10.3.1 Potable water shall be provided through community water systems for comprehensive 

residential, recreational, industrial and commercial developments within the 

Community Plan area. 

10.3.2 Development of land (where more than 1 additional lot is created) that is dependent 

upon subsurface groundwater supplies in areas that are known to have supply issues 

should shall be subject to certification by a professional engineer, or a groundwater 

geologist, or by a hydrogeologist as to the quality and quantity of water available prior 

to rezoning or subdivision approval as the case may be. The Regional Board may 

request information that demonstrates the impact to neighboring wells of such a 

development. Proven wells with registered well logs may be exempt from the above 

certification. 

10.3.3 The Regional District should work with the provincial government to ensure data 

collected through the development review process contributes the understanding of 

water resources over the long term (e.g. can be integrated into the numerical flow 

models for aquifer characterization). This may require a review of the Subdivision 

Bylaw to ensure that the data collected and tests conducted can be effectively used in 

the decision making process. It is important that this information provide both an 

understanding of impacts of the proposed development on the existing water supply 

and provide a reliable predictive assessment of the availability of the water supply to 

accommodate the proposed development.Regional District policies may be reviewed to 

ensure consistency with the province’s updates to the Water Act. 

10.3.4 Encourage water conservation for all land uses, including residential, commercial, 

industrial and agriculture. The Regional District will encourage public acceptance of 

water conservation when designing homes, such as low water consumption plumbing 

fixtures and consideration of water confinement measures such as cisterns or water 

storage facilities to capture rainwater and snowmelt so as to provide for irrigation and 

perhaps a water source for firefighting. 

10.3.5 Encourage and support public education on water supply and a drop-off facility for 

water testing. 

10.4 SEWAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL POLICIES 

10.4.1 A study of subsurface soil conditions (the terms of reference established with 

assistance of the North Okanagan Health Region) shall be undertaken to determine the 

best method of sewage treatment and disposal for new development (where more than 

1 additional lot is created). The study shall be carried out prior to rezoning or 

subdivision approval as the case may be. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

10.4.2 Holding tanks shall not be permitted as a method of sewage disposal except for 

commercial and industrial uses pursuant to the Regional District of North Okanagan 

Holding Tank Sewage Disposal Bylaw No. 671, 1985 and amendments thereto, and in 

an emergency to replace malfunctioning septic tanks on a temporary basis. 

10.4.3 Sewage treatment facilities proposed to be utilized for commercial developments which 

propose direct discharge of effluent into watercourses or water bodies shall not be 

supported. 

10.4.310.4.4 The Regional District recognizes that new and innovative independent on-site 

system strategies continue to be developed and may have application in the RDNO 

subject to approval from the relevant agencies. 

10.5 DRAINAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL POLICIES 

10.5.1 The Regional Board may request a study of the drainage requirements for developable 

lands located within the Community Plan area to be undertaken before development 

approvals are considered. This study shall include the works required, and the method 

of treatment and disposal, and should consider innovative methods of handling and 

treatment. 

10.5.2 Adequate drainage works, that are consistent with the “Land Development Guidelines 

for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat (1992)”, shall be provided in conjunction with new 

development to ensure that erosion and siltation of receiving creeks and streams is 

prevented. Such works will also serve to prevent damage to property, including 

agricultural lands, by peak drainage run-offs. 

10.5.3 The Regional District has limited capacity to manage stormwater but supports 

alternative stormwater management solutions that are both cost effective and 

environmentally sustainable. This may include strategies to reduce and control run-off 

such as storm water detention ponds, limiting impervious surfaces, retaining open 

ditches. Provision shall be made to manage all stormwater safety without offsite 

impacts to other properties. 

10.5.4 Encourage public acceptance of water conservation when designing homes, such as 

low water consumption plumbing fixtures and consideration of water confinement 

measures such as cisterns or water storage facilities to capture rainwater and 

snowmelt so as to provide for irrigation and perhaps a water source for fire-fighting. 

10.5.5 In rural areas, retain low areas, water bodies, and ditches as part of the rainwater and 

stormwater drainage system. 

10.5.6 Strongly encourage measures to limit runoff to minimize the release of substances 

harmful to the environment. This may include the requirement of preventative 

measures such as implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan or 

treatment like stormwater interceptors. Commercial and industrial may require oil 

interceptors to mitigate contamination of water sources. This is standard practices but 

may not be required owing to limited development of this nature. 

10.6 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL POLICIES 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

10.6.1 Diversion of a variety of materials from the waste stream is encouraged through 

recycling facilities and backyard composting with special attention paid to the 3R 

hierarchy of waste management: Reduce-Reuse-Recycle. 

10.6.2 Support implementation of the policies in the RDNO’s 2007 Solid Waste Management 

Plan. 

10.7 OTHER UTILITY SERVICE POLICIES 

10.7.1 The co-operation of the B. C. Hydro and Power Authority shall be solicited in improving 

the appearance of the structures and rights-of-way of their transmission lines. 

10.7.2 The Zoning bylaw shall continue to allow the installation of servicing equipment in 

locations where it is required and where it is not offensive because of size, 

appearance, noise, or odour. 

10.7.3 When considering bonus density policies pursuant to Section 904 of the Local 

Government Act and set out in Section 2 of this plan, where an owner provides land 

associated with the provision of a local utility the Regional District may consider this a 

kind of amenity. 

10.7.4 Encourage the provision and expansion of telecommunications coverage, and 

provision of natural gas service. 

10.7.5 Encourage new developments to consider generating some of their own energy with 

methods such as solar, wind or geothermal energy. Support the establishment of small 

scale green energy development projects that use water, wind, sunlight, biomass or 

geothermal energy to generate electricity for sale into the electrical transmission and 

distribution infrastructure when those facilities: 

a. have been property evaluated and are shown to be technically sound, 

environmentally sensitive and socially responsible; 

b. are located, designed, constructed and operated in a manner that is consistent with 

the overall vision for the region, e.g. does not negatively impact environmental 

quality; 

c. can be connected into the existing transmission and distribution infrastructure with 

minimal impact and does not require the development of any new major 

transmission corridors; and 

d. provides tangible community benefits comparable to projects currently under 

development. 

10.7.6 Discourage the creation of lots straddling utility rights-of-ways. 



10.7.7 All land use designations (except Single Family Residential) permit facilities for Public 

Utilities and Services. 

10.7.8 The Regional District encourages initiatives exploring new sustainability practices that 

would lead to alternative servicing standards, recognizing that approvals for alternative 

practices may rest with other jurisdictions. 

10.7.810.7.9 Infrastructure that supports local renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, 

geothermal, biomass and hydro) is supported as a permitted use in all land use zones 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

subject to the approval of standards in the Zoning By-law for such infrastructure as 

solar panels and wind turbines. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

ECONOMY 

11 

11.1 CONTEXT 

The 2006 Census data for the plan area reflect high employment in the primary industries, especially 

forestry – the provincial average is 5%, while the plan area is at 15%. Over the last decade there has 

been a shrinking in the area’s total labour force, and the role of the forestry industry has also declined. 

In 2001, for example, primary industry represented 20% of the total occupations. Other sectors 

where the economy is focused is on processing and manufacturing, trades and transport, and sales 

and service. 

Within the plan area the residents are concerned about the future 

employment opportunities and have been exploring new ways to 

diversify the economy and create a more sustainable future. 

Opportunities in agriculture, tourism, home-based businesses, 

industrial land development and the service sector are among the 

options being considered. Due to the remote location of many of the 

areas’ residents and communities there are challenges in establishing 

efficient home based businesses as a result of the lack of high speed 

internet access and cell phone coverage. 

A sustainable local economy 

can grow around a 

consciousness that treasures 

our piece of the earth. 

Visioning Workshop 2010 

A healthy environment is essential for a healthy economy that is based on natural resources. While 

the plan area has expanded to include some areas of crown land, there is a large crown land base 

outside of the plan area that is tightly linked to the future of the area and the local economy. Much of 

this land base is outside the scope of the local government but local government and the community 

can become engaged on key issues such as recreation and community forests, and forest reserves. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

11.2 ECONOMIC POLICIES 

11.2.1 Recognize the importance of communication 

connectivity for businesses and families in rural 

areas and work with community groups to explore 

options for improving the level of communication 

services specifically cell phone coverage and high 

speed internet access. 

11.2.2 Support the innovative and sustainable use of local 

wood and consider adopting a Wood First Policy 

and supporting other Wood Products Initiatives to 

capitalize on the area’s natural assets. 

Without modernization of 

communication services, 

Cherryville will stay in the same 

stagnation it is currently 

experiencing with the decline of 

the forest industry, etc. 

Visioning Workshop 2010 

11.2.3 Support initiatives that increase local food production and agricultural activities in the 

community. 

11.2.4 Continue to support activities that promote local food production and provide 

opportunities for the sale of produce and other local food products such as the 

seasonal Farmers Market or similar opportunities. 

11.2.5 Participate in the multiparty efforts to address region-wide economic sustainability, 

economic diversification and adjustments, and issues associated with changes in the 

local forestry based economy. 

11.2.6 As part of the diversification of the local economy, recognize the role of new regional 

educational facilities, and encourage these institutions to consider research and 

educational opportunities to focus on regional issues, including: research on 

agricultural opportunities; forest sector diversification, water conservation. 

11.2.7 Work with other agencies and organizations to promote tourism development in 

Electoral Areas ‘D’ and ‘E’ and build on the potential associated with: 

• innovative home-based employment/business opportunities; 

• travel corridors; and 

• tourism experiences associated with a high quality natural environment such as 

sport-tourism and eco-tourism where the environment and natural surroundings are 

protected, enjoyed and respected. 

11.2.8 Promote the region as a sustainable rural environment, where planning considers the 

environment, social and economic aspects of the community. This environment is 

anticipated to be a strong draw for new business opportunities that require a healthy, 

clean natural environment such as: health retreats, and natural or organic farming. 

11.2.9 The Regional District will continue to support and encourage annual sporting and 

artistic events and festivals (e.g. Cherryville Days) as important economic benefits to 

the community. 

11.2.911.2.10 The plan area contains significant cultural, business and recreational assets 

that contribute to the quality of life for local residents. Potentially these assets may 

also support stronger tourism opportunities. The RDNO may have a role in assisting 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

the region to better develop their tourism potential through various tourism market 

research and planning initiatives. Others in the region that may be able to support this 

initiative include the Thompson Okanagan Tourism Association (TOTA), a regional 

destination marketing organization (RDMO) and the School of Tourism at Thompson 

Rivers University. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS 

12 

12.1 GENERAL 

Section 919 of the Local Government Act states that an Official Community Plan may designate 

Ddevelopment Ppermit Aareas for one or more of the following purposes: for the protection of the 

natural environment, protection of development from hazardous conditions, and/or to regulate the 

form and character of commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential development. 

There are three types of Development Permit Areas within the Community Plan area where 

development permits are required: 

1) Protection of the Natural Environment: Riparian Development Permit Area 

2) Protection of Development Conditions: Hazardous Lands Development Area 

3) Form and Character of Industrial and Commercial Development: Commercial and Industrial 

Development Permit Area 

12.1.1 Where land is subject to more than one Development Permit Area designation, a single 

development permit is required. The application will be subject to the requirements of 

all applicable Development Permit Areas, and any development permit issued will be in 

accordance with the guidelines of all such areas. 

12.1.2 The Board may consider the adoption of a Delegation Bylaw whereby Regional District 

staff could issue delegated development permits where: Delegated development 

permits will be issued by Regional District staff where: 

i. variances or floodplain exemptions will not be required to any community 

Community planPlan, Zoning Bylaw or subdivision Subdivision bylaw Bylaw of 

the Regional District of North Okanagan; and 

ii. in development permit areas designated as Riparian Areas or Hazardous 

Lands, the use is low density residential, rural or agricultural only, and 

• The proposed building or use of land conform with flood plain setbacks 

and Flood Construction Levels contained in the Regional District Zoning 

Bylaw; and 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

• The use will not involve the bulk storage of fuel oil, gasoline or other 

substances that could result in the pollution of the environment; and 

• Where no existing land clearing, placement of fills, or other works or 

undertakings have occurred on the lands in question that may have 

resulted in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of 

fisheries habitat and is in accordance with the Riparian Areas 

Regulation. 

The Regional District recognizes that variances a variance may could be considered as 

part of the Development Permit process, but not necessarily approved, for new 

developments where site specific conditions warrant reduced setback standards such 

as, but not limited to, situations where topographical constraints would necessitate 

environmental modification. 

12.1.3 The Regional District may establish Development Permit Area designations and 

guidelines pursuant to the Local Government Act section 919.1(gf) to guide the form 

and character of development in a resort area such as Comprehensive Developments 

and Ecovillage Developments if one is proposed to be established through applications 

to amend this Official Community Plan. For properties designated Comprehensive 

Development or Ecovillage Development a development permit following the 

guidelines of 12.5 Commercial and Industrial Development Permit Area will apply. 

12.1.4 Where new information is received concerning areas that may be hazardous or where 

protection of the natural environment is justified, the Regional District will consider 

designation of these areas within a Development Permit Area. 

12.2 RIPARIAN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 

Designation 

12.2.1 The Riparian Development Permit Area (RDPA) is designated under 

Section 919.1(1)(a) of the Local Government Act. The primary objective of the 

Riparian Development Permit Area designation is to regulate development activities in 

watercourses and their riparian areas in order to preserve natural features, functions 

and conditions that support natural processes. The RDPA will assist the RDNO in 

implementing the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation, which applies to 

“development” involvingincluding: 

a) removal, alteration, disruption or destruction of vegetation; 

b) disturbance of soils; 

c) construction or erection of buildings and structures; 

d) creation of non-structural impervious or semi-impervious surfaces; 

e) flood protection works; 

f) construction of roads, trails, docks, wharves, and bridges; 

g) provision and maintenance of sewer and water services; 

h) development of drainage systems; 

i) development of utility corridors; 

j) subdivision as defined in Section 872 of the Local Government Act; 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

within a “riparian assessment area” as defined in 12.2.3. 

Area 

12.2.2 The Regional District considers that the Shuswap River Watershed, including Sugar 

Lake, Mabel Lake, Rawlings Lake, the Shuswap River and all other watercourses as 

subject to the Riparian Areas RegulationsDevelopment Permit Area. 

12.2.3 The RDPA is consistent with the Riparian Assessment Area (Figure 12.1), as is defined 

under the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) as: 

a. For a stream, the 30 metre strip on both sides of the stream measured from the 

high water mark, 

b. For a ravine less than 60 metres wide, a strip on both sides of the stream 

measured from the high water mark to a point that is 30 metres beyond the top of 

the ravine bank; and 

c. For a ravine 60 metres wide or grater, a strip on both sides of the stream 

measured from the high water mark to a point that is 10 metres beyond the top of 

the ravine bank. 

High water mark is defined under the Riparian Areas Regulations (RAR) as the visible 

high water mark of a stream where the presence and action of the water are so 

common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark on the soil 

of the bed of the stream a character distinct from that of its banks, in vegetation, as well 

as in the nature of the soil itself, and includes the active floodplain. 

Stream is defined under the Regulations (RAR) as any of the following that provides 

fish habitat: 

a. a watercourse, whether it usually contains water or not; 

b. a pond, lake, river, creek or brook; 

c. a ditch, spring or wetland that is connected by surface flow to something referred to 

in paragraph a) or b). 

Ravine is defined under the Regulations (RAR) as a narrow, steep sided valley that is 

commonly eroded by running water and has a slope grade greater than 3:1. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Figure 12.1: Riparian Assessment Area: 

Source: British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection, Riparian 

Areas Regulation Implementation Guidebook, March 2005 

Guidelines 

12.2.4 Drawings for Riparian Development Permit Area Applications should include a detailed 

site plan that indicates: 

a. location of existing and proposed buildings and structures in relation to any 

sensitive area, watercourse, pond or lake on, or adjacent to the subject property 

and; 

b. location of existing and proposed driveways, parking areas and other impervious 

surface areas and how the storm water run-off will be managed, and; 

c. location of existing and proposed vehicular routes that cross watercourses, 

including details on culverts and bridges, (Note that culvert construction in fishery 

streams may be violations of Section 35(1) of the federal Fisheries Act) andor 

stream crossings which may require approval from the Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada (DFO); 

d. details on existing and proposed streamside vegetation. ; 

e. stormwater management systems and sediment control plans consistent tothat will 

protect water quality and quantity of any nearby fish bearing watercourses; 

f. Details details on the proposed method of sewage disposal; and 

f.g. an assessment by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) must be carried 

out in accordance with the Riparian Areas Regulation. The Regional District of 

North Okanagan requires notification from the Province that a Riparian Areas 

assessment report has been received, demonstrating that the proposed 

development meets the requirements of Section 4(2) or of Section 4(3) of the 

Riparian Areas Regulation. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

12.2.5 Upon reviewing a Riparian Development Permit application the Regional Board will 

consider the following guidelines. 

a. land within an identified spea Streamside Protection & Enhancement Area (SPEA) 

as determined by a QEP should be kept free of development with the exceptions of 

fencing, and works and plantings to control erosion, protect banks, protect fisheries 

or otherwise preserve and enhance the natural water course and associated 

habitats; 

b. the Regional Board may, where appropriate, require fencing of sensitive habitat to 

protect fish bearing watercourses from livestock or the public, as a condition of 

development approval; 

c. an assessment by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) must be carried 

out in accordance with the Riparian Areas Regulation and the report must state in 

their professional opinion that a lesser setback will not negatively affect the 

functioning of the watercourse or riparian area and that the criteria listed in the 

Riparian Areas Regulation has been fulfilled, including acceptance by DFO and 

MOE where required. 

d. c. the Regional Board may require a Restrictive Covenant to ensure long term 

protection of vegetation along a natural watercourse, pond or lake so that it will be 

maintained to provide shade for the water surface, bank stability, and wildlife or 

waterfowl habitat sufficient for species which frequent the area; 

e. d. a means of sewage disposal that does not discharge directly into a waterbody 

or watercourse shall be installed for all developments. 

f. e. for Commercial Zones the applicant must provide evidence that the filings 

required by the Sewerage System Regulation under the Health Act have been 

made, or that a holding tank permit has been issued under the Regulation and the 

proposed holding tank complies with Regional District of North Okanagan Holding 

Tank Sewage Disposal Bylaw No. 671, 1985 and amendments thereto, or that 

sewage will be disposed of in accordance with the Municipal Sewage Regulations 

under the Environmental Management Act. 

g. f. where an on-site sewage disposal system is proposed as part of a commercial 

development, a study of subsurface soil conditions may be required to be 

undertaken by a QEP qualified professional to determine the suitability for thisof the 

proposed system and septic tank, drainage and deposit fields or systems utilizing 

the irrigation of waste water shall be prohibited in areas containing unsuitable soil 

or groundwater which is subject to degradation; 

h. g. a storm water management system should be installed to control the quantity 

and quality of run-off from parking areas, internal roadways, and buildings, and 

these systems shall should be in accordance with recommendations of the QEP. 

i. h. commercial and industrial developments which entail the use of chemical 

products which could contaminate the natural environment shall provide means to 

control these products within an appropriate containment facility as approved by 

the authority having jurisdiction. 

Exemptions 

12.2.6 Notwithstanding the Policies of this Section and pursuant to Section 919.1 (4) of the 

Local Government Act, the following development proposals may not require Development 

Permits: 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

a. the construction, alteration, addition, repair, demolition and maintenance of farm 

buildings, farm fences and normal farm practices as they are subject to the Farm 

Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act; 

b. reconstruction, renovation or repair of a legal permanent structure that maintains 

the same footprint in accordance with provisions of the relevant section of the Local 

Government Act. Only if the existing footprint is expanded or moved and or land or 

vegetation is disturbed would a RDPA Riparian Development Permit be required; 

b.c. a proposed subdivision where a Riparian Area assessment report has been 

completed; or where no modifications are proposed within the Riparian 

Assessment Area and a Section 219 covenant has been registered on the title of 

the property restricting development within the Riparian Assessment Area; 

complies with all conditions of subdivision required by the applicable provincial and 

federal agencies and the applicant’s solicitor has offered an unconditional letter of 

undertaking to register any and all restrictive covenants required by those agencies 

as a condition precedent to final subdivision approval by the Regional District; 

c.d. clearing of land for cultivation, growing and harvesting of crops. However, the 

landowner should contact the Ministry of Environment and the Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans appropriate agencies to ensure compliance with provincial 

and federal regulations; 

d.e. an area where the applicant can demonstrate that the conditions guidelines of 

the RDPA Riparian Development Permit Area have already been satisfied, or a 

Development Permit for the same area has already been issued in the past and the 

conditions in the Development Permit have all been met, or the conditions 

addressed in the previous Development Permit will not be affected; or 

e.f. a letter is provided by a QEP confirming that there is no watercourse or riparian 

area as defined by the Riparian Areas Regulation. 

12.3 HAZARDOUS LANDS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 

Designation 

Area 

12.3.1 The Hazardous Lands Development Permit Area (HLDPA) is designated under the 

Local Government Act, Section 919.1(1)b for the purpose of protecting development 

from hazardous conditions. 

12.3.2 The Hazardous Lands Development Permit Area has been established to identify lands 

where development within the identified hazard areas may create a risk to property. 

12.3.3 The objectives of the Hazardous Lands Development Permit Area are: 

a. To promote awareness of the potential hazards related to terrain conditions which 

may be present; 

b. To allow appropriate development of lands within specified areas, supported by 

geotechnical assessment and incorporation of appropriate design provisions to 

mitigate hazards and ensure safe development, where identified natural hazards 

warrant such provisions. 

12.3.4 Lands subject to hazardous conditions and designated as the Hazardous Lands 

Development Permit Area include: the alluvial fans of four area creeks (Sowsap, 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Ireland, Bigg and Gallon Creeks and the NE ¼ of Section 33 Township 43, near the 

south end of Mabel Lake) and all Provincially designated floodplains that exist along 

the Shuswap River, its lake system, Bessette Creek and Duteau Creek as shown on 

Schedule D. 

Unless a Development Permit exemption applies, all properties within areas shown as 

Hazardous Lands on Schedule D will require a Hazardous Lands Development Permit 

prior to one, or both any of the following: 

a. Subdivision of Lland must not be subdivided; or 

b.a. Construction of, addition to or alteration of a building or other structure must not be 

started; or 

c.b. Alteration of Lland or a building or other structure must not be altered. 

Guidelines 

12.3.5 Upon reviewing a Hazardous Lands Development Permit application the Regional 

Board will consider the following guidelines: 

Alluvial Fans and Unstable Slopes 

a. restricting the construction of septic tank, drainage and deposit fields, or irrigation 

or water systems in areas containing unstable soil; 

b. vegetation planting and/or preservation to control erosion or to protect banks where 

requested by the Ministry of Environment and/or Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada; and 

c. construction of works necessary to eliminate the hazard in which the 

recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer shall be required to be 

provided by the developer. 

d. where a qualified geotechnical engineer reports that the proposed development 

cannot be safely constructed on the land, the Development Permit Application may 

be refused. 

e. registration of a Restrictive Covenant to save harmless the Regional District in the 

event of any damages as a result of land slippage, debris flow or flooding. The 

Restrictive Covenant may be registered on title identifying the hazard and remedial 

requirements as specified in the geotechnical or engineering reports for the benefit 

and safe use of future owners. 

Shuswap River, Bessette Creek and Duteau Creek Floodplain Areas 

a. no buildings or foundations for buildings should be built within an area below the 

Normal High Water Mark of a lake or watercourse as defined by the Ministry of 

Environment; and, 

b. the Regional Board may require a Restrictive Covenant for a development within a 

floodplain, as defined by the Ministry of Environment to save harmless the Regional 

District in the event of any damages as a result of land slippage, debris flow or 

flooding. The Restrictive covenant may be registered on title identifying the hazard 

and remedial requirements as specified in the geotechnical or engineering reports 

for the benefit and safe use of future owners. 


Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 



b.c. the Regional Board may consider requests for exemption to the Floodplain in 

accordance with section 910(5), and 910(6) of the LGA. 

Exemptions 

12.3.6 Notwithstanding the Policies of this Section and pursuant to Section 919.1 (4) of the 

Local Government Act, the following development proposals may not require 

Development Permits: 

a. interior alterations or repairs to a building; 

b. exterior decks, walkways, ramps, stairways; 

c. accessory buildings not greater than 10m² which conform to the Zoning Bylaw; 

d. additions of not greater than 25 percent of the existing building footprint which 

conform to the Zoning Bylaw; 

e. repairs to malfunctioning septic systems; 

f. the siting of the building is located outside of the designated Floodplain area as 

shown on Schedule D; 

12.3.7 A Development Permit may also not be required where: 

a. developments is in the floodplain where the conditions of the Floodplain 

Management Provisions of the Zoning Bylaw have been met; 

b. the proposed building will not be used for storage of hazardous chemicals; 

c. the proposed building is not located in an area that may be subject to torrents or 

land slippage, and; 

d. there is an existing covenant registered on the property that “Saves Harmless” the 

Regional District from damages due to flooding, torrents or land slippage. 

12.4 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 

Designation 

12.4.1 The Commercial and Industrial Development Permit Area is designated under 

Section 919.1(1)(f) of the Local Government Act as an area for the establishment of 

objectives and the provision of guidelines for the form and character of commercial and 

industrial development. including alterations and additions, and shall require a 

Development Permit prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Authorization to 

Construct. 

12.4.2 The Regional District has the objective of maintaining the attractive rural setting and 

visual quality within Electoral Areas and to ensure that the form and character of 

commercial and industrial developments are appropriately integrated into this rural 

setting and co-ordinated with existing developments in these areas. 

Area 

12.4.3 The Commercial and Industrial Development Permit Area includes all lands as 

designated commercial or industrial on Schedules B, B1 and B2. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

12.4.412.4.3 Unless a Development Permit exemption applies, all properties that are 

currently, or become zoned for Commercial and Industrial uses will require a 

commercial and Industrial Development Permit prior to one or bothany of the following: 

a. Subdivision of land;; or 

b. construction of, addition to or alteration of a building or other structure. 

Guidelines 

12.4.512.4.4 General principles of building siting and design are provided to help guide 

quality building standards appropriate to the plan area as follows: 

a. the massing of buildings should be variable in form and should be incorporated 

where practical, into smaller blocks which relate to the contours of the natural 

landscape; 

b. where more than one building is to be constructed on the site, the buildings should 

share common architectural features; 

c. exterior design and finish should incorporate products which complement the 

natural setting and include materials characteristic of the region such as smooth 

face brick, stucco, stone, natural stained or painted wood, or some combination of 

the above; 

d. the form and character of development and landscaping should harmonize with the 

natural setting and should reflect a low density of development. Landscaping 

should: 

• include groups of large native tree species and will be used to stabilize graded 

areas; 

• include supplementary screening in the form of fencing, hedging, planting, other 

screening materials or a combination of materials in the following areas: 

- around outdoor storage areas 

- around waste containers 

- around heating and cooling equipment and other service areas 

- between parking areas and the street 

• retain significant existing vegetation to retain the existing character of the area. 

This is especially important when development occurs adjacent to established 

rural and low density residential areas; and 

• where commercial or industrial properties border lands that are in the 

Agricultural Land Reserve, properties will be fenced on the developed side to 

discourage trespass onto agricultural lands. A minimum 6m setback/buffer 

shall should be provided between highway commercial uses and agricultural 

lands. The buffer can be landscaped but should not be incorporated into the 

overall land use activities. 

12.4.612.4.5 New development must provide safe and efficient vehicle entrances, exits and 

site circulation. Vehicle parking should be encouraged at the rear or side of a building 

and should be broken into smaller groups, and the smaller groups should be separated 

with landscaping or natural vegetation while still maintaining sight distances for safe 

access and egress. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

12.4.712.4.6 Design drawings for a Development Permit Application respecting the form and 

character of commercial or industrial development should include the following: 

a. a landscape plan indicating how the landscaping will co-ordinate with existing 

developments in the area and/or the natural surroundings as well as the size and 

density of plantings, type and density of ground cover, and the dimensions of the 

landscape area; 

b. a development plan indicating the location and size of buildings, parking areas, 

fencing, outside lighting, as well as the size, design and location of any signs; 

c. the building design showing the character of the building, exterior architectural 

details, building materials, and colours; and, 

d. demonstrate ability to harmonize with the natural landscape, including minimizing 

the impacts of servicing. 

Exemptions 

12.4.812.4.7 Notwithstanding the Policies of this Section and pursuant to Section 919.1 (4) of 

the Local Government Act, and with approval, the following development proposals 

may not require Development Permits: 

a. the erection of signs provided they conform to the requirements of the Ministry of 

Transportation and Infrastructure Sign Policy and the "Regional District of North 

Okanagan Zoning Bylaw"; 

b. minor additions to, or alterations of, a building or structure provided the addition or 

alteration conforms to all the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and does not 

require additional parking stalls and promotes the attractive natural setting and 

visual quality of the Electoral Area; or 

c. interior renovations that do not affect the exterior of the building, the repair or 

replacement of roofing, or painting; 

c.d. construction, including alterations and additions, to accessory buildings which will 

not be visible from an adjacent public road right-of-way, adjacent park or adjacent 

residential property, provided that the proposal requires no variance(s) from the 

Zoning Bylaw, no assessment under the Riparian Areas Regulation and no 

approval from the appropriate provincial ministry or agency. 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

IMPLEMENTATION 

13 

This Official Community Plan (OCP) points the general direction in which future growth and 

development should proceed. The adoption of the OCP is an initial and necessary step toward the 

realization of the objectives and goals within the OCP, yet it is only through implementation that the 

OCP will be fully effective. This Plan will be implemented through a variety of measures, ranging from 

the development of new bylaws and the direct involvement of residents, land owners, and 

stakeholders through RDNO committees and commissions, preparation of specified plans and 

studies, and public participation. Certain measures are to be implemented immediately; others may 

require months or years to complete. Some measures, such as increased community involvement, 

are ongoing while others will only be implemented when staff and the Board of Directors are reviewing 

new development applications. 

All proposed changes to this Plan must follow the amendment procedures contained in the Local 

Government Act. In addition, any proposed changes will be referred to the Advisory Planning 

Commissions, and public hearings as required by the Local Government Act to provide residents with 

the opportunity to comment on the issues and get involved in the implementation of the Plan. While 

every effort has been made in the preparation of this OCP to anticipate future development and 

associated requirements, it is important to stress that occasional amendments to this OCP may occur 

in response to new circumstances and situations. 

The following table is provide to highlight actions and responsibilities for the implementation of the 

OCP. Terms used in the implementation table include: 

Timing: 

Immediate 0-1 year Short 1-2 years 

Medium 2-5 years Long >5 years 

Ongoing – taking place now and will continue to be implemented 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Action: 

Co-operative 

Policy 

Regulatory 

Advocacy 

Education 

Management 

Implementation requires multiple parties to work cooperatively. 

Participants include: RDNO, First Nations, local 

community groups and members, agencies, provincial and 

federal government. 

Directs future RDNO decision making and actions. 

Implemented through local regulations. 

Activities to promote or support initiatives of interest to the 

community and its resources. 

Goal is to improve awareness and understanding. 

Activities that may be undertaken by the RDNO as part of 

ongoing administrative functions. 

Policy Action 

Type of Timing 

Sec. 

Action 

Environment – Environmentally Sensitive Areas 

3.2.1 Support preparation of SEI and include community Co-operative Medium 

in process. 

3.2.2 Use tools to protect ESA’s. Policy Long 

3.2.3 Request Environmental Review with Development Regulatory Ongoing 

Approval process. 

3.2.4 Discourage small lot subdivision in areas with Policy Long 

wildlife significance. 

3.2.5 Support efforts of community organizations. Policy Ongoing 

3.2.6 Recognition of watercourses as environmentally Policy Ongoing 

sensitive areas. 

Environment – Watercourses and Riparian Areas 

3.3.1 Encourage federal and provincial agencies to Co-operative/ Ongoing 

monitor environmental issues. 

Advocacy 

3.3.2 Encourage programs that enhance fish capability of Co-operative/ Ongoing 

watercourses. 

Advocacy 

3.3.3 Designation of watercourses as Riparian 

Regulatory Ongoing 

Development Permit Areas, within the framework of 

the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation. 

Environment – Wildlife 

3.4.1 Work with federal and provincial agencies to protect Co-operative/ Ongoing 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Advocacy 

3.4.2 Consider developing a Bear Aware Strategy. Education Medium 

3.4.3 Require consideration of wildlife movement in Policy Ongoing 

neighbourhood planning projects. 

3.4.4 Work with relevant agencies to develop a “no Co-operative Medium 

shooting” strategy in Cherryville. 

Environment – Floodplains & Alluvial Fans 

3.5.1 Require flood proofing of buildings located in areas Regulatory Ongoing 

subject to flooding. 

3.5.2 Designation of alluvial fans as Hazardous Lands 

Development Permit Areas. 

Regulatory Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 


Sec. 

Action 

Environment - Wildfire 

3.6.1 Work with appropriate agencies to develop Co-operative Ongoing 

strategies to prevent interface fires. 

3.6.2 Encourage development to be consistent with Co-operative/ Ongoing 

provincial Best Practices for reducing risk of loss 

from wildfires. 

Advocacy 

3.6.3 Work with relevant agencies to develop mapping of Co-operative/ Ongoing 

wildfire risks and to plan for new development. Advocacy 

3.6.4 Continue to work on education related to Fire Smart Education Ongoing 

in rural areas. 

3.6.5 Encourage new construction using Fire Smart Co-operative/ Medium 

principles. 

Education 

3.6.6 Encourage harvesting of health damaged trees. Co-operative Short 

3.6.7 Work with relevant agencies on emergency Co-operative/ Ongoing 

preparedness. 

Management 

Environment – Tree Retention and Expansion 

3.7.1 Encourage tree retention and expansion to benefit Co-operative/ Ongoing 

the environment. 

Advocacy 

Environment – Hazardous Conditions 

3.8.1 Recognition of hazardous conditions, floodplains Policy Ongoing 

and alluvial fans. 

3.8.2 Designation of Development Permit Area for Regulation Ongoing 

floodplains and alluvial fans. 

3.8.3 Possible request for Hazard Report for crown land Policy Ongoing 

development applications. 

Environment – Energy and Conservation 

3.9.1 Encourage management and best practices in 

energy efficiency. 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Ongoing 

3.9.2 Endeavour to participate in senior government 

programs that help plan for local-scale impacts of 

climate change. 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

3.9.3 Encourage planning, design, and construction 

strategies to minimize GHG emissions. 

Co-operative/ 

education 

3.9.4 Encourage developers to follow best practices in Co-operative/ 

sustainable development. 

education 

3.9.5 Consider creating incentives for responsible Policy 

development practices. 

3.9.6 Explore strategies to increase recycling options. Management 

Co-operative 

3.9.7 Encourage support and application of 

Policy 

environmental best practices. 

3.9.8 Encourage and support initiatives to upgrade woodburning 

Management 

appliances. 

Co-operative 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Medium 

Short 

Ongoing 

Medium 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 


Sec. 

Action 

Environment – Climate Change 

3.10.1 Meet GHG emission targets consistent with the Policy/ Immediate 

overall target of the Regional District and 

implement strategies that support GHG reductions. 

Management 

3.10.2 Support the goals of the Climate Action Charter. Policy/ Ongoing 

Management 

3.10.3 Consider completion of a Climate Action Plan. Policy Medium 

3.10.4 Adopt a “lead by example” approach to energy and Policy/ Short 

emissions planning. 

Management 

3.10.5 Incorporate GHG reduction strategies when Policy Ongoing 

engaged in RD projects. 

3.10.6 Research provincially funded GHG initiatives that Co-operative/ Short 

are available to the Regional District. 

Management 

3.10.7 Explore new economically feasible policies, 

strategies and initiatives to reduce GHG emissions 

and build environmentally sustainable communities. 

Policy Medium 

Agricultural & Resource Use - Agricultural 

4.2.1 Designation of ALR lands for Agricultural Use. Policy Ongoing 

4.2.2 Agricultural use shall be in accordance with the Policy Ongoing 

ALC Act. 

4.2.3 Minimum parcel size for Agricultural lands 30.5 ha. Policy/ Ongoing 

Regulation 

4.2.4 Support the ALC efforts to protect and enhance Policy/ Ongoing 

farmland. 

Co-operative 

4.2.5 Support sensitive siting of Agricultural Industrial Policy Ongoing 

uses. 

4.2.6 Permit Agricultural Industrial uses subject to RDNO Policy/ Ongoing 

Zoning. 

Regulation 

4.2.7 Require applicant for ALR exclusions to provide soil Policy Ongoing 

analysis and assess impacts on agriculture. 

4.2.8 Maintain rural character to support agriculture. Policy Ongoing 

4.2.9 Require buffer to protect ALR lands on adjoining Policy/ Ongoing 

non-agricultural lands. 

Regulation 

4.2.10 Encourage agricultural land management practices Co-operative Ongoing 

that improve water quality. 

4.2.11 Support ALC decisions for smaller lot sizes for Policy Ongoing 

unique siting considerations (e.g. roads). 

4.2.12 Support ALC policies for agri-tourism businesses. Policy/ Short 

Regulation 

4.2.13 Support agricultural use as part of crown land Co-operative Ongoing 

multiple use land management models. 

4.2.14 Minimize conflicts between agricultural and other 

land uses. 

Co-operative/ 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 


Sec. 

Action 

4.2.15 Support farming operations that follow provincial Co-operative/ Ongoing 

regulations and best management practices. Policy 

4.2.16 Recognize the importance of local food production, Co-operative/ Immediate 

processing, distribution and sale of locally grown 

products. 

Policy/ 

Education 

4.2.17 Encourage strategies that will see large agricultural Policy/ Ongoing 

land holdings retained and consolidated as single 

operations. 

Regulation 

4.2.18 Direct roads and utility corridors away from ALR. Co-operative/ Ongoing 

Policy 

4.2.19 Support proposals that enhance local agriculture. Policy Ongoing 

Agricultural & Resource Use - Resource 

4.3.1 Designation of large areas of undeveloped land and Policy/ Ongoing 

crown land for Resource Use. 

Regulation 

4.3.2 Subdivision of these areas is discouraged. Policy Ongoing 

4.3.3 Ensure that local interests are considered in future Policy/ Ongoing 

planning for Resource lands. 

Co-operative 

4.3.4 Commercial and Industrial Development Permit Policy/ Ongoing 

Area may apply to new Industrial Resource uses. Regulation 

4.3.5 Minimum Parcel size for Resource lands is 30.5 ha. Policy/ Ongoing 

Regulation 

4.3.6 Recognize the Okanagan Shuswap Land & 

Resource Management Plan directions for 

Resource uses. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Ongoing 

Agricultural & Resource Use - Forestry 

4.4.1 Recognize the Okanagan Shuswap Land & 

Resource Management Plan directions for Forestry 

uses. 

4.4.2 Lands supporting forestry uses maintained as large 

lots. 

4.4.3 New and existing Community Forests and other 

forestry tenures are permitted as Resource uses 

and supported through the actions of Community 

Stewardship Groups. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

4.4.4 Recognize role of independent operators. Policy Ongoing 

4.4.5 Support the establishment of Community Forests Policy/ Ongoing 

for long term community benefit. 

Co-operative 

4.4.6 Work with stakeholders in the forest industry to 

protect the forest land base and promote 

sustainable forest operations and other interests. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy 

Sec. 

Action 

Type of 

Action 

4.4.7 Support public education efforts concerning local Education 

agriculture, forestry, composting and water 

conservation 

4.4.8 Support forestry implementation of Best 

Policy/ 

Management Practices. 

Co-operative 

4.4.9 Recognize the role of Woodlot Licences as a Policy/ 

technique for managing small parcels for forestry. Co-operative 

Agricultural & Resource Use – Sand, Gravel and Other Mineral Extraction 

4.5.1 Retain land covering areas of high mineral and Policy/ 

aggregate potential in large parcels. 

Regulation 

4.5.2 Support site reclamation following extraction of Policy/ 

mineral resources. 

Co-operative 

4.5.3 Recognition of the resource value of lands with Policy/ 


Co-operative 

4.5.4 Encourage updated inventory of lands with Policy/ 


Co-operative 

4.5.5 Recognition of provincial agencies and having Policy/ 

primary responsibility for managing mining 

Co-operative 

activities. 

4.5.6 Sand and gravel extraction and process permitted Regulation 

on large lots subject to Zoning Bylaw. 

Rural, Rural Residential & Residential – Rural Use 

5.1.1 Support low density rural use. Policy/ 

Regulation 

5.1.2. Support minimum parcel size of 7.2 ha. Policy/ 

Rural, Rural Residential & Residential – Rural Residential Use 

5.2.1 Support minimum parcel size for Country 

Residential at 1 ha and Small Holdings at 2 ha. 

5.2.2 Rural residential designations should address rural 

conditions related to the ALR, environment and 

servicing. 

5.2.3 Future Small Holdings (SH) developments are 

restricted to areas identified on Schedules B, B1 

and B2. 

5.2.4 New developments to consider fire protection 

issues. 

5.2.5 Subdivisions to consider the physical site 

characteristics. 

5.2.6 Clustering is supported where rural area objectives 

are maintained. 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

Timing 

Medium 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Long 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 


Sec. 

Action 

5.2.7 Existing residential areas in Whitevale, in the Policy Ongoing 

trailer park in Cherryville and in an area North of 

Lumby, are not representative of the rural densities 

supported by the plan. 

5.2.8 Density bonuses supported for community or site Policy/ Short 

amenities including: parkland, trails and 

environmental management or protection. 

Regulation 

5.2.9 Development approvals including rezoning Policy Ongoing 

applications require a comprehensive plan. 

5.2.10 Assurance of water as specified in the Subdivision Policy/ Ongoing 

Servicing Bylaw required prior to zoning of land. Regulation 

Rural, Rural Residential & Residential – Residential Use 

5.3.1 No lots will be created less that 1.0 hectare unless Policy/ Ongoing 

connected to a community sewer system. 

Regulation 

5.3.2 Residential use on lots less than 1 ha encouraged Policy/ Ongoing 

to locate in urban areas such as Lumby. 

Regulation 

5.3.3 Consider Residential development in the 

Policy/ Ongoing 

“downtown” Cherryville area with appropriate 

servicing. 

Regulation 

Rural, Rural Residential & Residential – Affordable Housing 

5.4.1 Support secondary suites as a form of affordable Policy/ Ongoing 

housing. 

Regulation 

5.4.2 Manufactured Homes recognized as source of Policy/ Ongoing 

affordable housing and subject to standard siting 

requirements. 

Regulation 

5.4.3 Urban locations (e.g. Lumby) considered most Policy Ongoing 

suitable for affordable housing due to proximity to 

other services. 

5.4.4 Second dwelling for family members supported in Policy/ Ongoing 

some zones for affordable housing and to support 

aging in place. 

Regulation 

Rural, Rural Residential & Residential – Home Based Businesses / Home Occupations 

5.5.1 Support home occupations, ancillary to residential Policy/ Ongoing 

use. 

Regulation 

5.5.2 Recognize that large rural lots may attract 

Policy/ Ongoing 

agriculture and resource based home occupations. Regulation 

5.5.3 Support ancillary farm sales. Policy/ Short 

Regulation 

5.5.4 Size of home based business regulated through 

Zoning Bylaw. 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy 

Sec. 

Action 


Action 

Commercial 

6.2.1 Urban areas appropriate for major Retail and Policy 

Service Commercial uses. 

6.2.2 Neighbourhood Commercial uses supported to Policy 

serve local needs. 

6.2.3 Highway and Tourist Commercial, and Recreation 

Commercial uses supported at suitable locations. 

6.2.4 Commercial and Industrial Development Permit 

Area established for commercial lands. 

6.2.5 Support development of Recreation Commercial 

accommodation uses. 

6.2.6 Support new development proposals in Ecotourism 

and adventure tourism that address 

required conditions. 

6.2.7 Temporary Permits may be considered for a 

commercial use of a short-term duration. 

6.2.8 Supports the development of tourist-related 

agricultural businesses subject to ALR regulations. 

6.2.9 Considers developing a sustainability checklist for 

new commercial development applications. 

Industrial 

7.2.1 Minimum parcel size 1 ha without servicing. Policy/ 

7.2.2 Identifies appropriate land resources for industrial 

development. 

7.2.3 Set servicing requirements throught to Subdivision 

Servicing Bylaw. 

7.2.4 Encourages local resources and employ local 

people. 

7.2.5 Understand grants available to aid in servicing 

industrial land. 

7.2.6 New major industrial land developments require 

comprehensive planning. 

7.2.7 Emissions shall not adversely affect the land, water 

or air environment. 

7.2.8 Intensive agricultural use of ALR lands subject to 

relevant provincial regulations. 

7.2.9 Industrial land designated as part of the 

Commercial and Industrial Development Permit 

Area. 

7.2.10 Future industrial uses not be supported in areas 

subject to environmental hazards or where 

community is disrupted. 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy 

Regulation 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy 

Timing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Short 

Medium 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Medium/ 

Long 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 


Sec. 

Action 

Special Use Areas 

8.2.1 Special Public Uses that are intended to 

Policy Ongoing 

accommodate extraordinary public land uses are 

recognized. 

8.2.2 Comprehensive planning and impact analysis is Policy Ongoing 

required when considering Special Public Use, 

developments. 

Special Use Areas – Comprehensive Resort and Ecovillage Development 

8.4.1 Recognizes Comprehensive Resort or Ecovillage Policy Ongoing 

Developments through site specific OCP 

amendments. 

8.4.2 Comprehensive Resort or Ecovillage 


Developments must establish efficient, cost 

effective wastewater management systems. 

8.4.3 Comprehensive Resort and Ecovillage 


Developments need to protect the quality of surface 

and ground water sources.. 

8.4.4 Comprehensive Resort and Ecovillage 


developments may include limited commercial and 

personal services as part of resort experience. 

8.4.5 Comprehensive developments in or adjacent to Policy Ongoing 

agricultural land should be avoided or heavily 

buffered. 

8.4.6 Comprehensive developments shall be largely selfcontained. 


8.4.7 Comprehensive Resort or Ecovillage Development Policy/ Ongoing 

areas are designated as Development Permit 

Areas for the protection of the natural environment, 

protection from hazardous conditions, and matters 

concerning the form and character of commercial 

and industrial development. 

Regulation 

8.4.8 Respond to the natural environment with minimal Policy Ongoing 

visual impacts. 

8.4.9 May require a Traffic Impact Assessment. Policy Ongoing 

8.4.10 May an Environmental Impact Assessment. Policy Ongoing 

8.4.11 Consider and regulate non-traditional land tenure Policy/ Ongoing 

system. 

Regulation 

8.4.12 Requires developer to show how local services can Policy Ongoing 

be met (e.g. school buses). 

8.4.13 Encourages developments to implement water Policy Ongoing 

conservation and re-use strategies. 

8.4.14 Requires projects to demonstrate how water quality Policy Ongoing 

will be managed.. 

8.4.15 Requires the level of servicing appropriate to each 

proposal to be defined. 





Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy 

Sec. 

Action 


Action 

Quality of Life – Parks and Open Space 

9.2.1 Areas recognized as having value for public Policy 

recreation and protected natural areas are 

designated as Parks and Open Space. 

9.2.2 Recognize the policy direction provided by the Policy/ 

White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Co-operative 

Plan. 

9.2.3 Support a community planning process for Hanson Policy/ 

Park. 

Co-operative 

9.2.4 Encourage strategies to protect McIntyre Lake. Policy/ 

Co-operative 

9.2.5 Work with the relevant provincial agencies to Policy/ 

ensure that those key crown land holdings used for Co-operative 

recreation or with ecological values are secured. 

9.2.6 Concept of a recreation plan for the Shuswap River 

considered in the Shuswap River Watershed 

Sustainability Plan. 

9.2.7 Work with White Valley Parks and Recreation to 

develop an inventory of undeveloped public access 

points to the Shuswap River, Mabel Lake and 

Sugar Lake. 

9.2.8 Support a Trails Master Planning process, including 

an inventory of existing resources. 

9.2.9 Parks and recreational trails should recognize 

neighbouring agricultural lands. 

9.2.10 Consider a community process to determine the 

best use of the “Meadows” on Sugar Lake Road 

and the “gravel pits” on Highway 6. 

9.2.11 Continue to support joint development and use of 

school and park sites. 

9.2.12 Work with School District No. 22 to support multiuse 

options for schools. 

9.2.13 Where applicable, parkland, or money in lieu of 

parkland, shall be provided with development. 

9.2.14 Review The White Valley Parks and Recreation 

Development Cost Charge Bylaw 1390, 1996 to 

ensure relevance to the current planning 

objectives. 

9.2.15 Recognize regulations may support waiving 

Development Cost Charges under specified 

conditions. 

9.2.16 Waterfront properties with long range public access 

potential should be protected. 

9.2.17 Acquisition and development of open spaces, 

should consider quality of the recreation 

experience. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation/ 

Management 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Timing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Immediate 

Short 

Short 

Ongoing 

Medium 

Ongoing 

Short 

Ongoing 

Short 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy 

Sec. 

Action 


Action 

9.2.18 Address the need for trail connectivity and trail Policy/ 

extensions as part of the review process for new Co-operative 

subdivisions. 

9.2.19 Work with local organizations to support community Policy/ 

research, planning and management of parks, Co-operative/ 

stewardship projects and trails. 

Advocacy 

9.2.20 Encourage co-ordination of the efforts of different Policy/ 

levels of government who provide public outdoor Co-operative/ 

space. 

Advocacy 

9.2.21 Continue to recognize the role of local grass root Policy/ 

organizations in provision of sustainable cultural Co-operative/ 

and recreational services. 

Advocacy 

Quality of Life – Heritage and Conservation 

9.3.1 Recognizes the importance of heritage resources. Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

9.3.2 Appoint a Heritage Advisory Commission for all, or 

part of the Electoral Areas. 

9.3.3 Establish a Community Heritage Register for 

purposes of identifying heritage properties. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

9.3.4 Cooperate with property owners seeking heritage 

designation or other heritage recognition. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

9.3.5 Ensure the Chinese Diggings and miners’ cabins Policy/ 

along Cherry Creek are preserved. 

Co-operative 

9.3.6 Recognize and provide referrals on development Policy/ 

applications in the vicinity of heritage and cultural Co-operative 

resources. 

Quality of Life – School Facilities and Other Community Services 

9.4.1 Public service, assembly and civic uses such as Policy/ 

schools, community halls, health clinics, churches Regulation 

and fire halls are permitted in all areas and land 

use designations except in the Residential Single 

Family designations. 

9.4.2 Encourages joint use and development of school Policy/ 

sites in co-operation with School District. 

Co-operative 

9.4.3 Avoid siting new school facilities adjacent to Policy 

agricultural land. 

9.4.4 Work with School District to ensure students Policy/ 

experience safe, healthy environments. 

Co-operative 

Timing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Short 

Long 

Long 

Medium 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 

Sec. 

Quality of Life – Police and Fire Protection 

9.5.1 Recognize plan area as a rural area where 

residents acknowledge and accept servicing 

limitations. 

9.5.2 Supports and encourages the application of Fire 

Smart principles for existing and new development. 


Action 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Education/ 

Co-operative 

9.5.3 Supports and work closely with the RCMP. Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Quality of Life – Community Accessibility and Inclusion 

9.6.1 Support opportunities for balanced, active and Policy/ 

diverse lifestyles where housing, public services Co-operative/ 

and amenities are affordable, accessible and Advocacy 

inclusive. 

9.6.2 Encourages land use patterns, community activities 

and events that generate inter-generational and 

inter-cultural interest, participation and social 

integration. 

9.6.3 Establish a region-wide committee to provide 

feedback and direction to elected officials and staff 

on aging and disability issues. 

Quality of Life – Seniors and Special Needs 

9.7.1 Recognize essential role of pioneers, founding 

families, elders and other seniors in the settlement 

of this area. 

9.7.2 Support local strategies and partnerships to deliver 

seniors’ care, assisted living services and 

residential based services for persons with special 

needs. 

9.7.3 Access for persons with special needs should be 

considered in the design of public buildings and 

transportation facilities (including trails). 

9.7.4 Support local initiatives to become more involved in 

the Age-Friendly Communities Program. 

9.7.5 Apply an age-friendly lens to the review process for 

new development applications. 

Quality of Life – Community Engagement 

9.8.1 Support community participation in planning 

processes and encourage engagement in 

volunteer organizations including APC. 

Quality of Life – Arts and Culture 

9.9.1 Recognize role of region’s larger urban centres as 

the focal point for regional cultural expression and 

diversity while supporting local level initiatives. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Timing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Medium 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Medium 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 

Sec. 

Quality of Life – Community Health 

9.10.1 Recognize the role of open spaces, parks, cultural 

and artistic events and recreational opportunities in 

enhancing the quality of life. 

9.10.2 Support medical facilities that operate on smaller 

scales (e.g. palliative care homes) in rural 

residential land use designations. 

Transportation and Servicing – Transportation 

10.2.1 Support preparation of a Bicycle and Trail Network 

Plan. 

10.2.2 Recognize existing and proposed major roads as 

designated on Schedules. 

10.2.3 New roads and major improvements to existing 

roads shall minimize disruption to agricultural uses. 

10.2.4 Planning for future roads and subdivisions shall 

consider diverse demands on road networks. 

10.2.5 For developments in which road upgrading will be 

required, the development will not occur until roads 

adequate for the development are in place. 

10.2.6 Access to crown lands and water-bodies shall be 

provided wherever necessary under the appropriate 

subdivision regulations. 

10.2.7 Local roads shall have a minimum right of way 

width of 20 meters. 

10.2.8 Strip development along highways discouraged for 

safety, aesthetic and functional reasons. 

10.2.9 Concept of an all-weather road to link Lumby with 

Silver Star Village is supported. 

10.2.10 Proposed transportation routes should avoid 

wetlands and streams and consider the impacts of 

roads on sensitive natural ecosystems, if possible. 

10.2.11 Encourage the Ministry of Transportation and 

Infrastructure and Infrastructure (MoTI) to consider 

the needs of pedestrians and cyclists when 

approving new roads or upgrading existing roads. 

10.2.12 New roads shall be encouraged to connect into the 

existing road network plan. 

10.2.13 Transportation planning may be required as part of 

the development review process. 

10.2.14 Recognize the importance of accessibility for 

seniors and the mobility impaired. 


Action 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Regulation/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Regulation 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Timing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Short 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy 

Sec. 

Action 


Action 

Transportation and Servicing – Water 

10.3.1 Potable water shall be provided through community Policy/ 

water systems for comprehensive residential, Co-operative/ 

recreational, industrial and commercial 

Regulation 

developments. 

10.3.2 Development of land (where more than 1 additional Policy/ 

lot is created) will require information related to Co-operative/ 

water as regulated. 

Regulation 

10.3.3 Work with the provincial government to ensure data Policy/ 

collected through the development review process Co-operative 

contributes the understanding of water resources. 

10.3.4 Encourage water conservation for all land uses. Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

10.3.5 Encourage and support public education on water 

supply and a drop-off facility for water testing. 

Transportation and Servicing – Sewage Collection and Disposal 

10.4.1 Subsurface soil conditions shall be investigated to 

determine the best method of sewage treatment 

and disposal for new development (where more 

than 1 additional lot is created). 

10.4.2 Holding tanks shall not be permitted as a method of 

sewage disposal except for commercial and 

industrial uses. 

10.4.3 Sewage treatment facilities for commercial 

developments proposing direct discharge into 

watercourses or water bodies not supported. 

10.4.4 Recognize that new and innovative independent 

on-site system strategies continue to be developed 

and may have local application subject to relevant 

approvals. 

Transportation and Servicing – Drainage Collection and Disposal 

10.5.1 May request study of the drainage as part of 

development approval process. 

10.5.2 Adequate drainage works, shall be provided in 

conjunction with new development. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Timing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Short/ 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

10.5.3 Recognize that alternative stormwater 

management solutions may be both cost effective 

and environmentally sustainable manage all 

stormwater safety without offsite impacts to other 

properties. 

10.5.4 Encourages public acceptance of water 

conservation when designing homes. 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 

Sec. 

10.5.5 In rural areas, retain low areas, water bodies, and 

ditches as part of the rainwater and stormwater 

drainage system. 

10.5.6 Encourage measures to limit runoff to minimize the 

release of substances harmful to the environment. 

Transportation and Servicing – Solid Waste Disposal 

10.6.1 Diversion of a variety of materials from the waste 

stream is encouraged through recycling facilities 

and backyard composting with special attention 

paid to the 3R hierarchy of waste management: 

Reduce-Reuse-Recycle. 

10.6.2 Support implementation of the policies in the 

RDNO’s 2007 Solid Waste Management Plan. 

Transportation and Servicing – Other Utility Service 

10.71 Co-operation of the B. C. Hydro and Power 

Authority shall be solicited in improving the 

appearance of the structures and rights-of-way of 

their transmission lines. 

10.7.2 Zoning bylaw shall continue to allow the installation 

of servicing equipment in locations where it is 

required. 

10.7.3 When considering bonus density policies pursuant 

to Section 904 of the Local Government Act and, 

where an owner provides land associated with the 

provision of a local utility, the Regional District may 

consider this a kind of amenity. 

10.7.4 Encourage the provision and expansion of 

telecommunications coverage, and provision of 

natural gas service. 

10.7.5 Encourage new developments to consider 

generating some of their own energy with methods 

such as solar, wind or geothermal energy. 

10.7.6 Discourage the creation of lots straddling utility 

rights-of-ways. 

10.7.7 All land use designations (except Single Family 

Residential) permit facilities for Public Utilities and 

Services. 

10.7.8 Encourage initiatives to explore new sustainability 

practices that would lead to alternative servicing 

standards, recognizing that approvals for 

alternative practices may rest with other 

jurisdictions. 


Action 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Policy 

Policy/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Timing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 

Sec. 

Transportation and Servicing – Other Utility Service 

10.7.9 Infrastructure that supports local renewable energy 

(e.g. solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and hydro) 

is supported as a permitted use in all land use 

zones subject to the approval of standards in the 

Zoning By-law for such infrastructure as solar 

panels and wind turbines. 

Economy 

11.2.1 Recognize the importance of communication 

connectivity for businesses and families in rural 

areas and work with community groups to explore 

options for improving the level of communication 

services specifically cell phone coverage and high 

speed internet access. 

11.2.2 Support the innovative and sustainable use of local 

wood and consider adopting a Wood First Policy 

and supporting other Wood Products Initiatives to 

capitalize on the area’s natural assets. 

11.2.3 Supports initiatives that increase local food 

production and agricultural activities in the 

community. 

11.2.4 Support activities that promote local food 

production and provide opportunities for the sale of 

produce and other local food products. 

11.2.5 Participate in the multiparty efforts to address 

region-wide economic sustainability, economic 

diversification and adjustments, and issues 

associated with changes in the local forestry based 

economy. 

11.2.6 Recognize the role of new regional educational 

facilities, and encourage these institutions to 

consider research and educational opportunities to 

focus on regional issues. 

11.2.7 Work with other agencies and organizations to 

promote tourism development in Electoral Areas ‘D’ 

and ‘E’. 

11.2.8 Promote the region as a sustainable rural 

environment, where planning considers the 

environment, social and economic aspects of the 

community. 

11.2.9 Supports and encourage annual sporting and 

artistic events and festivals (e.g. Cherryville Days) 

as important economic benefits to the community. 


Action 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education/ 

Regulation 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Education/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Timing 

Ongoing 

Immediate 

Ongoing 

Ongoing/ 

Immediate 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 




Attachment 1 


Bylaw No. 2485, 2011 

Policy Action 

Sec. 

11.2.10 Recognize that the plan area contains significant 

cultural, business and recreational assets that 

contribute to the quality of life for local residents. 

The RDNO may have a role in assisting the region 

to better develop their tourism potential through 

various specifically focused tourism market 

research and planning initiatives. 


Action 

Policy/ 

Co-operative/ 

Advocacy 

Timing 

Ongoing 




" 




, , 

I' , 1 




• 

~ 

z ~ I" j.i 

I I 

z 

~ I~ 

~ , , i if 1 1 

0 , 

Hi I "i d ! 

z 

~ 

~ 

0 

z 

~H dliliil 

fi'! 

Dy ®®s"' I 

11 

• • I 

i j , I j 

11Hll'J"I'p 

_1l1 

II 1111 

J I h i 

Ul'] 

, 

! 

, 

I 

• 

, 

------------------------- 

. , 

i I 

. 

.. i 

,,- ~ 

I:· . 

..l 

l ) 

r--, 

~ 

- 

. ". 

, I, 




• 

< 

z -. 

« 

~~ ~r ; ~ 

~ 

:e j;j 

i'1lz 

I 

t i .



• 

. Oz 

e< 

2" 

"< 

~~ 

~o 



Attachment 2 

Referral Comments and Public Feedback, Electoral Area “D” & “E” Official Community Plan. 

# Policy/ 

Area of 

Interest 

Source of 

Comment 

Comment RDNO Response 

Agency 

Feedback 

Within the draft plan there were a number of 

grammatical errors, spelling errors, incorrect 

acronyms and sentences that needed re-wording 

to provide clarity to the statement. 

The consultant has made these corrections 

throughout the document and RDNO staff has 

reviewed these changes and can confirm that 

the edits have not changed the intent and or 

direction of the plan. All changes made to the 

document are highlighted in blue font. 

R-1 Sections 

4.2.2, 4.2.6, 

4.2.9, 8.4.5, 

10.2.1, 

10.2.2 

Agricultural 

Land 

Commission 

The draft OCP incorrectly references the “Land 

Reserve Commission”; all references to the Land 

Reserve Commission should be changed to the 

Agricultural Land Commission, as per its renaming 

in 2002 

All references to the “Land Reserve Commission 

are recommended to be changed to the 

Agricultural Land Commission. 

R-2 Section 

9.2.9 

Agricultural 

Land 

Commission 

Section 9.2.9 references buffering to protect 

agriculture from non-farm uses. It is suggested 

that fencing and signage also be referenced in the 

text. 

In order to address the ALC feedback staff and 

the consultant recommends Section 9.2.9 read 

as If practical, parks and recreational trails 

should not be situated in or adjacent to 

agricultural lands. If there are no alternative 

locations, these areas should be buffered to 

protect park users from agricultural activities 

and agriculture from park users and their 

pets. Fencing and signage should also be 

considered to reduce impacts on farming. 

R-3 Section 

10.2.2 

Agricultural 

Land 

Commission 

Section 10.2.2 references road improvements 

supported by ALC Resolution #1625/83. Given the 

lengthy passage of time since 1983, the 2002 

amendments to the ALC regulation pertaining to 

road right of way improvements, and the 

uncertainty as to what the resolution addresses, it 


the consultant recommends Section 10.2.2 read 

as The existing and proposed major roads 

designated on Schedules B, B1 and B2 are 

endorsed as the long term major routes for 

movement of traffic, and shall have a 

minimum width of 25 meters. The location of 






is suggested that the reference be deleted. proposed routes within the Agricultural Land 

Reserve is not to be construed as having the 

endorsement of the Agricultural Land 

Commission. The construction, upgrading, 

or dedication of these routes may not 

proceed without the approval of the 

Commission. 

R-4 Section 

10.2.10 

Agricultural 

Land 

Commission 

Section 10.2.10 indicates that proposed 

transportation routes should avoid wetlands and 

sensitive natural ecosystems. It is suggested that 

in addition, the following text be added: 

“Transportation 

routes should follow property 

boundaries and avoid bisecting productive 

agricultural lands”. 


the consultant recommends Section 10.2.10 

read as Proposed transportation routes 

should avoid wetlands and streams and 

consider the impacts of roads on sensitive 

natural ecosystems, if possible. 

Environmental Impact Assessments may be 

necessary, at the discretion of relevant 

government agencies. (see “Road Design 

considerations to minimize impacts on 

Watercourses for information only). 

Transportation routes should follow property 

boundaries and avoid bisecting productive 

agricultural lands. 

R-5 General 

comment 

Agricultural 

Land 

Commission 

Upon completion of the amendments noted above, 

the Commission would consider the draft OCP to 

be consistent with the purposes of the ALC Act, as 

per Section 46 of the Act. 

All of the recommendations brought forward by 

the ALC have been incorporated into the 

amended version of Bylaw No. 2485, 2011. 

R-6 Section 1.4 Area D APC Area D APC requested that both Principles 6 and 9 

be removed from the plan. 

Staff and the consultant recommend that both 

policies remain as they reflect some of the key 

theme and values that emerged from the 

research and consultation process of the 

development of this plan. 

R-7 Section 1.4 Area E APC Add to Principle 7 “Minimize the costs and 

development of housing and lot development”. 

Staff recommends the following text be added to 

Principle 7: Support a wide range of housing 

types and tenures that will help ensure that 

people of all ages, abilities, household types and 

incomes have a diversity of housing choices and 

those residents and their families can continue to 






live in the area. This can in part be achieved 

by minimizing the costs of developing new 

lots and housing. 

R-8 Section 1.5 Area E APC Under Section 1.5 the APC has raised concern 

with the statement “Adopt and enforce anti-sprawl 

land use”. They acknowledge that there is a desire 

to maintain “centralization” within the region 

however they feel that this does not fit into their 

community plan as “we need to have an open mind 

regarding business location and opportunity at this 

stage off our development”. 

Staff and the consultant recommends the 

wording be changed to Encourage anti-sprawl 

land use policies (Lumby is the nearest 

centre for higher order retail services, 

regional/urban cultural and recreation 

services and higher density residential 

development). It is important to acknowledge 

that the RDNO will continue to promote and 

adhere to sustainable planning practices which 

include reducing sprawl (urban scale 

development) in rural un-serviced areas. 

R-9 Section 1.6 Area E APC Under Section 1.5 “Work in harmony with the 

natural systems” the APC has raised issues with 

the “Understand groundwater and its capacity to 

support development (set clear conservative 

subdivision requirements for proof of water” 

Comment noted however the specifics for proof 

of water will be addressed through the review of 

the subdivision servicing bylaw. 

R-10 Section 1.5 Area E APC Under Section 1.5 “Work in harmony with the 

natural systems” the APC has raised issues with 

the statement of “Establish a Regional 

Sustainability Committee”. They wonder what this 

will do for Area E and how would it be paid for. 

They note that they are looking to reduce taxes to 

encourage young families to our area, not burden 

them with more debt. 

We think there has been a misunderstanding of 

what a Sustainability Committee is. Their 

purpose is to provide advice and support on the 

protection, enhancement, restoration and 

management of the local environment and to 

ensure that communities are planned to provide 

for environmental sustainability. This committee 

is made of volunteers who provide their expert 

advice on specific issues. 

R-11 Section 3.1 Area D APC The Area D APC raised concerns with the section 

on Camel’s Hump and public access. 

To provide clarity on access it is recommended 

that this section be revised to read as follows: 

Camel’s Hump is a prominent mountain east 

of Lumby which resembles a camel’s hump, 

and which is often climbed by hikers and 

climbers. Access to it is from Creighton 

Valley Road, and logging roads. There 

continues to be interest in public access to 






the top of this mountain. In the future, the 

RDNO may want to work with the province to 

pursue an adaptive management approach 

that can respond to potential user conflicts. 

R-12 Section 3.1 Area E APC The APC does not want to sacrifice Area E 

lifestyles to meet RDNO Greenhouse Gas 

reduction targets. 

R-13 Section 

3.2.1 

R-14 Section 

3.2.3 

Area E APC The community would like to be involved in the 

inventory for sensitive areas. 

Area E APC 

Area D APC 

The APC has taken issue with the requirement for 

an Environmental Review of environmentally 

sensitive areas. Anything that adds a “review” or 

“study” means an added cost and we are strongly 

looking to reduce costs, not add to them”. 

Required clarification if a QEP is needed. 

Originating out of the Green Communities Act 

(Bill 27, 2008), the Local Government Act 

(Section 877) now mandates that the scope of 

an Official Community Plan must include targets 

for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions together with supporting policies and 

actions for the local government to work towards 

achieving those targets. Additional clarity has 

been provided on how these targets can be 

achieved with the recommend following wording: 

Locally, based on pre-policy research, it was 

determined that Area D could achieve a 19% 

reduction and Area E a 23% reduction 

thereby supporting the 25% as conservative 

and achievable for this area. 

Staff and the consultant recommend the 

following text be added; The RDNO supports 

efforts to prepare a Sensitive Ecosystem 

Inventory (SEI) for the plan area and 

recognizes that the community wishes to be 

involved in this process. 

Staff recommends that in order to address Area 

E’s concerns with costs that at this stage the 

policy apply only to Commercial and Industrial 

developments. Additionally, since we currently 

do not have the mapping required to support a 

Development Permit Area for the protection of 

environmentally sensitive areas that policy 3.2.3 

read as follows: For Commercial and Industrial 

Development OCP Amendment Applications 

and/or Rezoning Applications, the RDNO may 

request a detailed Environmental Review of 

environmentally sensitive areas consistent 






R-15 Section 3.3 Area E & D 

APCs 

R-16 Section 

3.4.2 

R-17 Section 

3.4.4 

R-18 Section 

3.6.1 

The Area E & D APCs opposes any sale of water 

as a commodity. 

Area D APC The Area D APC feels policies 3.4.2 & 3.4.3 are 

redundant and that policy 3.4.1 covers off the intent 

of both policies. 

Area E APC The Area E APC has raised concerns with hunters 

shooting in populated areas. 

Area E APC The Area E APC has requested that some fuel 

management language be added to section 3.6.1; 

“The Regional District will encourage proactive 

stand treatments to reduce fire hazards on Crown 

land adjacent to rural interface areas”. 

with the regulations of the LGA 920.1(1) and 

as specified in a Development Approval 

Information Bylaw if adopted by the RDNO. 

The objective of the Environmental Review is 

to aid the RDNO when making decisions 

about the impacts of development on 

sensitive ecosystems. This policy will enable 

the RDNO to request a QEP report for 

development application on environmentally 

sensitive 

lands if a Development Approval 

Information Bylaw is adopted. 

To address this concern staff and the consultant 

recommend the following wording: To reinforce 

this objective, the community has indicated 

they are opposed to the sale of any water as 

a commodity, and oppose any inter-basin 

transfers of water. 

Staff and the consultant recommends these 

policies remain as they provide additional detail 

and direction on specific human and wildlife 

issues that were reported by the community 

during the consultation process. 


following policy be added. 3.4.4 Work with 

relevant agencies, including the Ministry of 

Environment and the RCMP to develop a “no 

shooting” strategy in population areas of 

Cherryville. 

Staff recommends the policy read as: The 

Regional District will, in co-operation with the 

appropriate agencies, continue to work towards 

developing strategies and procedures to prevent 

interface fires. The RDNO will encourage 

proactive stand treatments to reduce fire 

hazards on Crown land adjacent to rural 

interface areas. 






R-19 Section 

3.6.3 

R-20 Section 

4.2.3 

R-21 Section 

4.2.9 

R-22 Section 

4.2.11 

Area E APC The Area E & D APCs have requested that policy 

3.6.3 be scratched and they wonder who would 

enforce these policies. 

Area E APC The Area E & D APCs have asked for clarification 

on the 30.5 minimum parcel size for Agricultural 

lands as well as why this is included in the OCP. 

Area E APC The Area E APC has raised concerns with the 

recommendation that non agricultural lands provide 

a buffer strip protected by covenant when adjacent 

to agricultural lands to reduce land use conflicts. 

Area E APC The Area E APC has asked for clarification on 

policy 4.2.11. 

Staff recommends the policy remain. This policy 

is stating that the RDNO will work with the 

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource 

Operations in developing Wildfire Risk mapping 

at which time the RDNO could then consider 

requiring Wildfire Hazard Assessment Reports. 

This process would be enforced through the 

Development Approval Process. 

The minimum parcel size for Agricultural lands is 

recommended to be 30.5 ha. This is supported 

in the Zoning Bylaw and is in place to discourage 

parcelization of farm land. Larger tracks of land 

minimize the potential for land use conflicts and 

contribute to more viable farming lands. 

Staff recommends this policy stay but that the 

requirements for a covenant be eliminated: 

Where a non-Agricultural property is 

adjacent to a property which is in the ALR 

and a Subdivision or Development Permit 

application has been received for the non- 

Agricultural property, an appropriate buffer 

strip will be established on the non- 

Agricultural property following the 

“Landscape Buffer Specifications” published 

by the Agricultural Land Commission. 

This policy is outlining that the zoning bylaw can 

permit other lot sizes subject to ALC approval. 

R-23 Section 

4.2.12 

R-24 Section 

4.2.14 

Area E APC The Area E APC has asked for clarification on 

policy 4.2.12. 

Area E APC The Area E APC had some general questions 

about this policy in regards to what kind of fence 

would be required and whether a covenant is 

necessary. 

This 

policy is referencing the agri-tourism 

opportunities that the ALC currently allows and is 

speaking to the potential for amendment to the 

Zoning Bylaw that would allow all ALC permitted 

uses which would apply to all RDNO Electoral 

Areas. 

Staff would like to point out that this section is 

intended to improve conditions for agriculture 

and the emphasis is on conditions that would 

apply to new residential lands. 






R-25 Section 

4.2.19 

Area E APC The Area E APC wanted some language added 

that the community as a whole supports the 

production of organic agriculture farming practices. 

Staff recommends the addition of the following 

text: The community supports the production 

of organic agricultural farming practices. 

R-26 Section 

4.3.2 

R-27 Section 4.3 Staff & 

Consultant 

Area E APC The Area E APC is wondering why we would want 

to discourage the subdivision of Land designated 

for Resource Use. 

Upon review of the initial draft the consultant and 

staff felt the Resource Policies were lacking 

direction when it came to Development Permit 

Area requirements, specification of minimum parcel 

sizes and reference to the Land & Resource 

Management Plan. 

Staff recommends the following wording to 

provide clarity to the intent of the policy: 

Subdivision of these areas is discouraged to 

minimize rural sprawl and to avoid land use 

conflicts between aggregate or forestry and 

residential uses. 

Staff 

added: 

recommends the following policies be 

4.3.4 The minimum parcel size for Resource 

lands including lands for Forestry uses shall 

be 30.5 ha. Large parcel sizes and setbacks 

are encouraged to support large scale 

resource activities (e.g. rangeland, woodlots) 

and to minimize land use conflicts. Minimum 

parcel sizes are regulated through the Zoning 

By-law. 

R-28 Section 

4.4.3 

Area E APC Area E APC recommended that this policy be 

removed as a number of the specific initiatives 

were underway (water quality monitoring on Cherry 

and Ferry Creek). 

4.3.5 The Regional District recognizes that 

the OCP area falls within the Okanagan 

Shuswap Land & Resource Management Plan 

and that future crown land use decisions will 

follow the recommendations of the (LRMP). 

Staff recommends the policy remain in the OCP 

and that the wording be more general to 

encourage additional activities be undertaken by 

Stewardship Groups. 

Community Stewardship Groups are 

supported and potential action items for 

these groups include: 

a. Working with the province to develop 

water quality monitoring programs; 






b. Implementing an education program 

to raise awareness of the impacts of 

actions on water quality; 

c. Identifying riparian areas in need of 

protection; and 

d. Conducting a hydrological mapping 

exercise to identify potential impacts 

of logging on the water supply. 

R-29 Section 

4.4.4 

Staff Upon review of the draft plan it was determined 

that a “Wood First Policy” was created at the time 

this OCP review was underway. 

Staff recommends policy 4.4.4 “Promote a 

wood friendly culture” be removed as this 

policy has already been adopted by the board. 

R-30 Section 

4.4.10 

Staff Upon review of the draft plan it was determined 

that the minimum parcel size for the resource use 

designation is best located at the start of section 

4.3 

Staff recommends policy 4.4.10 be removed 

as policy 4.3.5 speaks to the minimum parcel 

size for resource use lands. 

R-31 Section 

4.4.12 

R-32 Section 

5.2.2 

R-33 Section 

5.2.10 

Area E APC The Area E APC has raised concerns with the 

resource use lands being a part of the Commercial 

and Industrial Permit Area. 

Area E APC The Area E APC would like H. “contains adequate 

water supplies” removed from the policy. The Area 

D APC wanted a definition of what “adequate 

water” is. 

Area E APC The Area E APC would like this policy removed. 

The Area D APC would again like a definition of 

what “adequate water supply” is. 

The intent of this policy was to ensure that the 

community could use the Commercial and 

Industrial Development Permit Area for new 

resource uses to manage development 

standards. Upon review staff recommends 

that this policy be removed as it may be too 

restrictive for Areas “D” & “E”. 

Staff recommends the wording be changed to 

“contains adequate water supplies as 

specified in the Subdivision Servicing Bylaw” 

as that is where the discussion and 

determination of proof of water is occurring. 

Staff recommends the policy be worded to state: 

Due to the importance of an adequate water 

supply in Rural Residential areas, and the 

uncertainty about water supply in some areas, 

assurances about water supply as specified in 

the Subdivision Service Bylaw shall be 

provided prior to the zoning of land for Rural 

Residential use. 






R-34 Section 

5.3.1 

R-35 Section 

6.2.9 

R-36 Section 

7.2.1 

R-37 Section 

9.2.14 

R-38 Section 

9.2.18 

Area E APC The Area E APC would like the wording of 

“encourage alternate septic systems” added to the 

last sentence of this policy. 

Area E APC The Area E APC would like this policy removed 

from the plan as they feel it is a catchall. 

Staff Upon review of the draft plan staff and the 

consultant determined that the minimum parcel 

size for industrial lands was not included in policy 

7.2.1 

Area E APC The Area E APC had concerns with development 

cost reviews and thinks that the rates should stay 

where they are at. 

Area E APC The Area E APC has acknowledged that the 

community is interested in pursuing a trail 

extension from the Community Park, to the 

Meadows. They would also like to apply to get a 

parcel of land reserved for Parks and Open Space, 

to be utilized as a community trail system for 

hiking, bicycles and cross country skiing. They are 

wondering if there is any funding available for this 

initiative out of the road and trails program. 

Staff has reviewed this policy and recommends 

that any reference to alternate septic systems 

remain in section 10.4 Sewage Collection and 

Disposal Policies. Policy 10.4.4 does address 

the potential for alternate septic systems. 

Staff recommends this policy remain as 

Sustainability Checklists are a great tool for 

informing and educating a homeowner / builder 

on alternatives for their building which would 

reduce water and electrical consumption making 

the building more efficient. 

Staff recommends the following additions: The 

minimum parcel size for industrial uses is 

regulated through the Zoning Bylaw and is 

not less than 1 ha where the lot is serviced 

with an on-site septic tank effluent disposal 

system. 

The policy to review the Parks & Recreation Plan 

is to see if revisions to the Development Cost 

Charge bylaw are necessary is a decision that 

would be made at the political level and staff 

recommends that this policy remain in the plan. 

Staff will look into this matter with the 

community. Designating private lands as park 

space requires a more detailed planning process 

as there are legislative requirements that outline 

municipal land acquisitions. 

R-39 Section 

9.4.4 

Area E APC The Area E APC would like a policy created that 

“Encourages a safe environment for children by: 

creating a pesticide free playground by reducing or 

eliminating herbicide applications on school fields 

or playgrounds and encourage “non-wi-fi” in 

schools because of harmful effects. Use lines or 

In order to address this feedback staff 

recommends the following policy be added to 

section 9.4: 9.4.4 The RDNO will continue to 

work with the School District to ensure 

students experience safe, healthy 

environments. 






hardwire Internet only, no towers or microwave in 

schools. 

R-40 Section 

9.8.1 

R-41 Section 

10.2.1 

R-42 Section 

10.3.2 

R-43 Section 

10.3.3 

Area E APC The Area E APC requested that a policy be added 

that encouraged community engagement in 

volunteer organizations including the Advisory 

Planning Committee. 

Area E APC The Area E APC felt that a review of the “Major 

Street Network Plan” is not necessary for their 

community. 

Area E APC The Area E APC thinks this policy should be 

removed as the subdivision servicing by-law is 

under review. 


following policy be added: To Support 

community participation in planning 

processes and encourage community 

engagement in a variety of volunteer 

organizations including the Advisory 

Planning Committee. 

Staff and the consultant recommends the 

wording of this policy be changed to: The 

Regional District supports the preparation of 

a Bicycle and Trail network Plan. The plan 

should consider crossovers between the 

road and trail network plans and 

opportunities for alternative transportation 

modes including: bicycle routes, trails, a 

Handidart community van, carpool and car 

co-operatives. 

Staff and the consultant recommends this 

policy remain within the plan but the wording 

be changed from shall to should which will 

allow planners some discretion when reviewing 

specific applications. 

Area E APC Area E APC would like this policy removed. Staff and the consultant recommends the policy 

remain but that the wording be changed to: The 

Regional District should work with the 

provincial government to ensure data 

collected through the development review 

process contributes to the understanding of 

water resources over the long term (e.g. can 

be integrated into the numerical flow models 

for aquifer characterization). Regional 

District policies may be reviewed to ensure 

consistency with the province’s updates to 

the Water Act. 






R-44 Section 

10.4.1 

R-45 Section 

10.4.4 

Area E APC The Area E APC has indicated that they feel the 

study of subsurface soil conditions should be 

carried out at the building stage and not prior to 

rezoning or subdivision. 

Area E APC The Area E APC has suggested the following 

policy be added to the plan: Encourage alternate 

and modernized methods of disposing of human 

waste, such as composting toilets or non-septic 

toilets and accept these methods as water 

conservation techniques. 

R-46 Section 12 Staff The Development Permit Area sections were 

reviewed by the Planning Department and 

amended to ensure clarity in Development Permit 

areas, conditions and exemptions. 

Staff and the consultant recommend the policy 

remain as is. This review is intended as a 

requirement for new development and should 

not be done at the building permit stage where 

there is no discretion. 


following 

policy be added: The Regional 

District recognizes that new and innovative 

independent on-site system strategies 

continue to be developed and may have 

application in the RDNO subject to approval 

from the relevant agencies. 


amendments made to Section 12 be 

approved to provide clarity to the 

Development Permit requirements/ process. 

R-47 Section 13 Staff & 

Consultant 

The consultant and staff have agreed that an 

Implementation table should be included in the 

plan to provide direction and clarity on the time 

frame and who is involved in implementing the 

OCP policies. 


addition of Section 13 be included in the 

amended Official Community Plan. 

R-48 

Section 1.4 

page 1-5 

Section 1.5 

Nicole 

Kohnert 

RDNO 

Manager of 

Regional 

Engineering 

Services 

Principle 9 refers to Sustainable land management 

practices; the question was raised “what are 

sustainable land management practices and will 

they have an impact on landfills?” 

In Section 1.5 reference is made that “Community 

services will be provided to a rural standard”; 

clarification has been requested as to what the 

Sustainable Land Management Practices is 

often defined as the use of land resources such 

as soils, water, animals and plants for the 

production of goods-to meet changing human 

needs- while assuring the long-term productive 

potential of these resources, and the 

maintenance of their environmental functions. In 

regards to landfills this statement would support 

the implementation of sustainable practices for 

landfill management that lessen their impact on 

the environment. 

The delivery of any community services whether 

it be urban or rural standards are based on 

population size and available funds / tax base for 

specific services. 






definition of a “rural standard” is. 

Section 

3.9.6 

Section 3.9.6 states “explore strategies to increase 

recycling options in areas not serviced by the blue 

bag”. It has been noted that options currently exist 

at the Cherryville and Lumby Recycling & Disposal 

Facilities. 

Comment noted. 

R-49 General 

Comments 

Columbia 

Shuswap 

Regional 

District 

The CSRD Board has no concerns with the 

proposed Official Community Plan Bylaw 2485, 

2011. However, upon staff’s review of the 

document they did note that because the OCP 

area does include the Shuswap River Watershed 

and because RDNO is a participant in the SLIPP 

Process, staff recommends that language related 

to SLIPP be in the OCP. 

In section 3.3 staff recommends the following 

addition of text to address the CSRD’s feedback: 

This Planning process will complement and 

integrate with the goals and objectives of the 

Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process 

(SLIPP). 

R-50 General 

Comments 

Interior Health Interior Health has raised no concerns with the 

proposed Official Community Plan Bylaw 2485, 

2011 and commends the Regional District for 

including sustainability, affordable housing and 

good security considerations into the plan. 

Comments noted. 

R-51 General 

Comments 

Ministry of 

Forests, 

Lands and 

Natural 

Resource 

Operations 

Ecosystems Section of MoNLRO have provided Comments noted. 

information on the potential use of the conservation 

framework for priority ecosystems (TEM data) for 

Environmentally Sensitive Development Permit 

Areas. 

They also note that the Riparian Area Regulation 

The Riparian Area Regulations are met in the 

must be met or beat in this jurisdiction. 

Development Permit Section. 

Water Allocation Section have noted that if there 

are any works in and about a stream, a proponent 

will be required to submit an application for 

approval under Section 9 of the Water Act to Front 

Counter BC. 

They have also noted that development of 

properties should be consistent with provincial 






“Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management 

Guidelines”. 

Planning Section of the Ministry of 

Environment has pointed out that there are 

several provincial protected areas that fall within 

the existing plan area. We would be appreciative if 

the OCP highlighted the importance of these 

provincial parks and ecological reserves in the text 

portions of the document. Mapping, as indicated 

on Schedule B would be enhanced if provincial 

parks and ecological reserves were visible ie, 

Denison Bonneau Park, Echo Lake Park, Vance 

Creek Ecological Reserve. 

Staff recommends that the mapping be 

amended to include the provincial parks and 

ecological reserves. 

They have noted that on page 9-4 there is 

reference regarding an initiative to have McIntyre 

Lake protected as a “BC Park”. They have no 

record of the importance of this site as a provincial 

park, nor is there any strategic land use direction / 

recommendations indicating this site is suitable for 

such a designation. They have suggested that we 

contact their section to discuss the specific of this 

site. 

They have also indicated that since the OCP area 

falls within the planning context of the Okanagan 

Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan 

they would like to ensure that the OCP, and any 

future land use decisions, follows the 

recommendations of the OSLRMP. 

Comments noted. 






Attachment 3 Land Use Designations 

Property Owner & 

Address 

John & Lorna 

Guild 

#49 Pine Rd. 

Cherryville 

BC 

Current 

Zoning 

None 

Urban 

OCP 

Designation 

Requested OCP 

Designation 

Non Urban Country 

Residential 

In 

the 

ALR 

Context Staff Recommendation 

No The subject property is currently 

designated Non Urban and is requested 

to be designated Country Residential. 

The property to the south of the subject 

site is in the ALR, designated 

Agriculture and zoned Large Holding. 

The surrounding properties to the east 

and west are zoned and designated 

Country Residential. The properties to 

the east and west of the subject site 

underwent a detailed planning analysis 

in 2008 and it was determined that the 

proposed OCP and zoning amendment 

complied with the OCP policies and the 

suitability of the land for the intended 

use seemed satisfactory. 

Based on the detailed planning 

analysis and public 

consultation that was carried 

out on the properties to the 

east and west of the subject 

site, Staff recommends that the 

lot legally described as Lot 3 

Sec 24 Twp 57 Plan 33142 be 

designated in the Official 

community Plan as Country 

Residential. This redesignation 

will provide consistency in land 

use along Pine Rd. 

See Figure 1: Map of Subject 

Property at #49 Pine Rd, 

Cherryville BC. 

Ginette 

Bouffard & 

Doug Becker 

#1022 Sugar 

Lake Rd. 

Cherryville 

BC 

Non 

Urban 


Residential 

No The subject property is currently zone 

Non Urban and is requested to be 

designated Country Residential. The 

property owners are looking to 

subdivide the subject site as they 

currently have a written contractual 

agreement specifying each party’s area 

of land. 

The subject site and proposed 

subdivision has not undergone 

analysis in relation to the Country 

Residential OCP policies and is 

best determined through the 

application process. Staff does 

not recommend that the subject 

site be redesignated through 

this OCP process. 


Property at 1022 Sugar Lake 

Rd. Cherryville BC. 







Address 

Mark Budgen 

(on behalf of 

the property 

owner) 

#423 Hwy 6 

Cherryville 

BC 

Current 

Zoning 

Crown 

land 

OCP 

Designation 

Requested OCP 

Designation 

In 

the 

ALR 


N/A Commercial No The area in question is the area located 

between highway #6 and Block A of the 

Northwest ¼ of Section 1 Township 57 

ODYD. This area is currently the 

subject of a crown land tenure 

acquisition with the Province of BC by 

the owners of the Gold Pan Café and 

Goldpanner Campground. This 

application is to rectify an existing and 

historical problem of the Gold Pan Café 

sitting on Crown Land. It is the 

applicants desire to have the 

commercial designation of the existing 

campground extended over the crown 

land to Highway #6. 

Staff recommends that the land 

located between highway #6 

and Block A of the Northwest ¼ 

of Section 1 Township 57 ODYD 

be designated as commercial to 

rectify the historical and 

existing land use designation 

inconsistencies. 


Property at #423 Hwy 6, 

Cherryville BC. 

Hank 

Cameron 

#92 Begbie 

Road 

Cherryville 

BC 

Three 

properties: 

#92 

Begbie 

Rd: Non 

Urban 

#100 

Begbie 

Rd: Non 

Urban & 

#95 

Begbie Rd 

(owner: 

Gail 

Thomas: 

Non 

Urban 


Residential 

No The subject properties are currently 

zoned Non Urban and a request has 

been made to designate them as 

Country Residential to reflect the 

property size and protect the interests 

of local residents. 

Staff does not recommend that 

the subject sites be 

redesignated through this OCP 

process as there are a number of 

additional properties in this area, 

of a similar size, that are zoned 

and designated Non Urban who 

may also want Country 

Residential designations. The 

Non Urban zoning and 

designation does not restrict any 

of the permitted uses that are 

outlined in the Country 

Residential zone other than 

eliminates the potential for 

subdivision. This request is best 

suited for an application process. 


Properties at #92, #95 & #100 

Begbie Rd. Cherryville BC. 







Address 

Vincenzo 

d”Errico 

2545 

Highway 6 

(Electoral 

Area D) 

Current 

Zoning 

Non 

Urban 

OCP 

Designation 

Requested OCP 

Designation 


Residential 

In 

the 

ALR 

Yes 


The subject property is located within 

the ALR. The applicant has previously 

tried to subdivide the property into five, 

seventeen acre parcels while remaining 

within the ALR. This application was 

turned down by the ALC as it was 

determined that the proposal would 

negatively impact agriculture and is 

inconsistent with the objective of the 

ALC Act to preserve agricultural land. 

Staff does not recommend that 

the subject site be 

redesignated through this OCP 

process as this subdivision 

proposal has already been 

submitted to the Agricultural Land 

Commission and was not 

supported. Additionally the 

Regional District does not 

redesignate lands in the ALR for 

uses other than agriculture. The 

subject proposal would need to be 

brought forward through an 

individual application. 


Property at #2545 Highway 6, 

(Electoral Area D). 

Sherry 

Kineshanko 

53 Birch Road 

& 262 Mable 

Lake Road 

(Electoral 

Area D) 

Two 

properties: 

53 Birch 

Rd: Non 

Urban 

262 Mable 

Lake Rd: 

Small 

Holdings 

53 Birch Rd: 

Non Urban 

262 Mable 

Lake Rd: 

Residential, 

Agricultural 

& Small 

Holdings 

Small 

Holdings 

Yes The subject properties are currently 

zoned NU and SH. The applicant would 

like to do a boundary realignment to 

add lands to the property at 53 Birch 

Road. A portion of the property located 

at 262 Mable Lake Rd is within the ALR. 

This application is beyond the 

scope of a simple land use 

change and requires careful 

analysis. This proposal is best 

suited for an application process. 

Additionally, since a portion of the 

subject lands are within the ALR 

staff would not redesignate these 

properties until the proposal has 

been submitted and approved by 

the ALC. 


Property at 53 Birch Road & 

262 Mable Lake Rd, (Electoral 

Area D). 






Figure 1: Map of Subject Property at #49 Pine Rd, Cherryville BC. 






Figure 2: Map of Subject Property at #1022 Sugar Lake Rd, Cherryville BC. 

~ 

~ 

~ 

z 

CI 

" 

~ 

9 - 

~ I 

. 

f; ~ 

:....I " 

.- ~ 

II 

~ 

\ 

.... 

.. 






Figure 3: Map of Subject Property at #423, Hwy 6, Cherryville BC. 






Figure 4: Map of Subject Properties 






Figure 5: Map of Subject Property at #2545 Highway 6, (Electoral Area D). 






Figure 6: Map of Subject Properties at 53 Birch Rd and 262 Mable Lake Rd, (Electoral Area D). 







MEMORANDUM 

File No. : 11-0682-E-WVR 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 


Planning Department 


Waiver of Lot Frontage Application for the property legally 

described as Lot 3, Sec 27, Twp 45, ODYD, Plan KAP91514 and 

located at 1404 Highway 6, Electoral Area "E" 

At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors on September 7, 2011 , the Board resolved that 

until Bylaw changes for delegation of Lot Frontage Waivers are adopted, Lot Frontage Waiver 

requests be forwarded directly to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for consideration 

without the need for a staff report provided the proposed subdivision complies with all other 

RDNO bylaws, no variances are needed and reasonable road frontage is provided. 

In keeping with this direction, the subject Lot Frontage Waiver Application is forwarded for 

consideration to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee. Attached is a Subdivision Information 

Report which outlines the conditions of the proposed subdivision as it relates to Regional District 

bylaws. To date, the applicant has not submitted documentation to demonstrate whether or not 

the proposed subdivision complies with all RDNO bylaws. 

The subject property contains a single family dwelling and a suitable building site has been 

identified on the proposed Lot A. Access to the existing single family dwelling and building site 

are proposed to be gained via driveways that would share the same access from Highway 6. 

The applicant has submitted the attached site plans which demonstrate that driveways could be 

constructed on the subject properties to comply with the private driveway access requirements 

of Section 310 of the Zoning Bylaw. 

The subject Lot Frontage Waiver Application requests that the Board of Directors waive the ten 

percent minimum lot frontage requirement of Section 803.7 of the Regional District of North 

Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 for the property legally described as Lot 3, Sec 27, 

Twp 45, ODYD, Plan KAP91514 and located at 1404 Highway 6, Electoral Area "E" by reducing 

the lot frontage of proposed Lot A from 174.47 metres to 132.88 metres as shown on the site 

plan attached to the Planning Department report dated November 16, 2011 . 

Submitted by: 

4~~ 

Deputy Plannin::ana: 

Approved by: 






File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

ELECTORAL AREA "E" 

SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP 

11-0205-E-SUB 

Linda Forslund clo J.R. Shortt 

1404 Highway 6 

4 • , 

z 

w 

::i: 

w 

CJ) 

US 

SHUSWAP 

PLAN 43687 

A 

PLAN 32676 

REM , S l/2 eXe, 

N. OF SHUSWAP River 

REM . NWl/4 

N. OFHWY 

8597 

PLAN 24879 

A 

KAP89595 

3 

2 

A 

KAP70547 

~7 

2 

P.20171 P.23387 

1 

PLA./IJ 2 

Subject Property 






PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

SUBDIVISION REFERRAL 

SUBDIVISION INFORMATION REPORT FORM 

File No.: 11-0205-E-SUB Date: August 23, 2011 

Applicant: 

Jason R. Shortt 

To: 

District Development Technician: Dave Solberg Your File: 2011-01919 

A.P.C. 'E' Chair: 

Clint Whitecotton 

Director: 

Eugene Foisy 

Proposed Subdivision of: 

Legal Description: 

Lot 3, Sec 27, Twp 45, ODYD, Plan KAP91514 

P.I.D.#: 028-364-015 

Civic Address: 1404 Highway 6 

Owner name: 

Linda Forslund 

Owner address: 1404 Highway 6, Lumby, BC V0E 2G1 

Agent: 

Jason R. Shortt 

Agent Address: 2801 – 32 nd Street, Vernon, BC V1T 5L8 

Existing Lots / New Lots Proposed: 

Potable Water: 

Parent Property Size: 

Present Zoning: 

Official Community Plan: 

1 lot / 1 lot plus remainder 

On-site wells 

26.4 ha 

Non-Urban (N.U) 

Controlled Access Highway / Non-Urban 

Affected by Agricultural Land Reserve: Yes X No N/A 

Approved by B.C. Land Commission: Yes No X N/A 

Affected by Controlled Access Highway: X Yes No N/A 

Affected by Major Road Network Plan: X Yes No N/A 



Subdivision Information Report Form 

File No.: 11-0205-E-SUB 

Development Permit Required: Yes X No 



Waiver of Lot Frontage Required: X Yes No 

Development Cost Charge to be paid: X Yes No Amount: $500.00 

Purpose: White Valley Parks and Recreation District Development Cost Charge 

Bylaw No. 1390, 1996 

Parkland or money-in-lieu required: Yes X No 

Application Fee: $650.00 

Fee Received [Date]: July 26, 2011 Receipt No.: 137759 

This office recommends that the proposed plan of subdivision not be approved as proposed Lot A would not 

comply with the minimum lot frontage standard of the Non-Urban (N.U) Zone of the Regional District of North 

Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003. Section 803.7 of the Zoning Bylaw requires that lots that are proposed 

to be subdivided within the N.U zone must have a lot frontage of not less than one-tenth of the perimeter of the lot. 

The subdivision layout would need to be revised in order to conform with the Zoning Bylaw or the proposed 

subdivision would require the approval of a lot frontage waiver request. To process such a request, the applicant 

would need to submit a letter to the Regional District along with the required $450.00 processing fee. 

Should the above requirement be satisfied, this office raises no objection to the proposed plan of subdivision 

subject to the following: 

1. The highways adjacent to the subject property must be dedicated pursuant to the requirements of Section 

401.3 of the Regional District of North Okanagan Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 726, 1986 and constructed 

to your Ministry’s standards. 

2. Proof of water quality, surface water supplies and/or groundwater supplies for all proposed lots pursuant to the 

requirements of Sections 402.1 and 402.3 to 402.6 of Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 726. In this regard, 

surface water and groundwater supplies must be tested by a professional hydrologist or a professional 

engineer specializing in groundwater hydrology or groundwater geology. Surface and subsurface water 

supplies must be proven to have water that is potable in accordance with Section 402.5. 

3. Approval of the Interior Health Environmental Health Officer with respect to the sewage disposal in accordance 

with Section 403 of Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 726. 

4. Proof of compliance with the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements of the Non-Urban 

(N.U.) Zone of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 for all proposed lots. 

5. Proof of compliance with the buildings per lot requirements of Section 803.2 of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888 for all 

proposed lots. 

6. Proof of compliance with the building setback requirements of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888 with respect to new 

lot lines and existing buildings. 

7. Proof of compliance with the building site and driveway access requirements of Section 310 of Zoning Bylaw 

No. 1888 for all proposed lots. 

8. Payment of a Development Cost Charge in the amount of $500.00 pursuant to the White Valley Parks and 

Recreation District Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 1390, 1996. 

9. Where the subdivision is subject to the Riparian Areas Regulation, receipt of notification from the Ministry of 

Environment that an assessment report has been received, demonstrating the proposed development 

meets the requirements of Section 4(2) or of Section 4(3) of the Riparian Areas Regulation. 

__________________________________ 

Greg Routley 

Deputy Planning Manager 






SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LOT 3, SEC 

TP 45, ODYD, PLAN KAP91514. 

Pursuant to Section 67 of the Land Title Act 

BCGS 

SCALE 

82 L.027 

1:2500 

27, 

Profiles 

scale 1: 1000 

Proposed Dri~o.y fOf Lot A 

Qn .so", lOCh! 150m 2IX'n 

Averooe Grad!! m IN 'MfJTH 1{ 

4J2JrJm IN HDGHr (c aiZe) trHEH F'LOTTfD AT A SCJI.£ OF ',2~ 

Proposed Driveway for Lot 8 

Awro;e Grade 

LEGENO 

tI£ARJNCS AR£ ~ 

NIl) 111£ ~ 

• DCNOTES srAHOMD IRON POSr FrJfJND 

o lJEIi(T(E;$ ST~ IIff»I PrI$T PVJ';£1) 

AI¥'I'fI:MD IJHD£R DE LAND Tm£ ACT 1HtS 

." 

D~ (.MM ~ FlM$U...:o 

_n. or 7Ij!' /ST.(7£ or 

.......:JIT JI)WI I'CIISWND. ~ 

~(~ ...-.) 

~I- 

""" 

....... 

11IOM Pf.AN ~1514. 

'" 

. """"''''''"'' 

APPROI'INC OFFICER FOR 1Ht 

I.IIN1!mI'( OF 11W6PORTATION 

.... 

fnlnl 

_ 

_ 

1144 

_ 7.15 :11: 

$!.R 

!fIg 

SEC / 2 7 

T P 4 5 

anti'll' 

373.'" 

.... _ 115e' 

....,1"9" - 14.3" 

" 

£HTEIJ BY THIS PlAN, AND 7H4T TH£ SlRIfl' AND PUN ARC 

CORR£Cr. THE I'I£LD SlIR\'EY lIltS ~ 

ON rue __ ." " 

ND'fDI8£R. 20'" 1H£ f'tAN WAS CO/JI't£Tf1> AND 0/fCl0;lD, AND T/£ 

CHCOaJSf fIEIJ UNDER 1 ___ "''''''__ ~'''' 

~20I'. 

"Ji:iCH1tSiiiiir,-7i:i::'Ci--'-'- 

RUC;C:;FI f N SHORIT 

N 1/ 2 S 1/2 SEC 27 

British Columbia Lqnd Survey-or 

2tJO, J2t>d ~ .......... ac. 

-.. 54$-MII ,-"" 54S-Z14/ 

".11. '2/1 p.J7 n. ~ 

.- 

LOT 2 

PLAN KAP91514 

1!9"3&'13· 

251,415






MEMORANDUM 

File No.: 11-0613-F-WVR 

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 


Planning Department 


Waiver of Lot Frontage Application for the properties legally 

described as Lots 1 and 3, Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan 

KAP74661 and located at 227 and 229 Glenmary Road 

At the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors on September 7, 2011, the Board resolved that 

until Bylaw changes for delegation of Lot Frontage Waivers are adopted, Lot Frontage Waiver 

requests be forwarded directly to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for consideration 

without the need for a staff report provided the proposed subdivision complies with all other 

RDNO bylaws, no variances are needed and reasonable road frontage is provided. 

In keeping with this direction, the subject Lot Frontage Waiver Application is forwarded for 

consideration to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee. Attached is a Subdivision Information 

Report which outlines the conditions of the proposed subdivision as it relates to Regional District 

bylaws. To date, the applicant has not submitted documentation to demonstrate whether or not 

the proposed subdivision complies with all RDNO bylaws. 

The subject properties each contain a single family dwelling. Access to each dwelling is gained 

via a driveway that crosses two properties to the south of the subject properties before 

connecting to Glenmary Road. Access easements are registered over the driveway in favour of 

the subject properties. The Regional District is not registered as a Transferee in the easements. 

The applicant has submitted the attached site plans which demonstrate that driveways could be 

constructed on the subject properties to comply with the private driveway access requirements 

of Section 310 of the Zoning Bylaw. 

The subject Lot Frontage Waiver Application requests that the Board of Directors waive the ten 

percent minimum lot frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of the Regional District of North 

Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 for the properties legally described as Lots 1 and 3, 

Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP74661 and located at 227 and 229 Glenmary Road , 

Electoral Area 'F' by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot 3 from 170.7 metres to 23.3 

metres and proposed Lot 1 from 94.07 metres to 84.32 metres as shown on the site plan 

attached to the Planning Department report dated November 16, 2011. 

Submitted by: 

!!.7J.~ 


Approved by: 

C~ 

RobSlT1aiieS,MCiP 





File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

ELECTORAL AREA "F" 

SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 


11-0237 -F-SUB 

Glen & Carrie Cullen clo Richard & Irene Montgomery 

227 & 229 Glenmary Road 

loS. 6 

C.T.227502-F 

KAP1I8962 

C.T. P9010-F 

4 

.# 

/ 

A 

PlAN 2'JI83 

3 

PlAN 38451 

loS. 1 

C.T. 227502-F 

PlAN 5258 

, 

""IU-,,: 

2 

PlAN 5256 

C.T. P9010·F 

Subject p ro~" 

~ 

, 




I I~of;13-f-.vJJrt II ~U,,; ?;rr'lS- ' 

J..6T 7 ,., SCI1L!E /: ;)0"0 

\ \ f { of -r.r& 56 ~ 

(\ 0))0 

,,10: 

ID% 

2.-3 ' I~'" @ _ Jro% 

13 - c. ' ~'" ~ .5.5'% 

l -1' "'In @ 101. 

¥-s ' "''{S-@.19 % 

5{" I,·S" e "i., % 

~ -" ~7'" @ ''I''l. 

7-'< ~ 'v. @ 1'/"/0 

f 

~-



>- - 

·,' i 

, ,I 

~,"'\I I 

~':~'" 

i 

/ 

/' 

o 

i 

'hS"S ~ -'J'1~ :?·21 ! 

'/.010 J.tt.'G = 'I; -1 i 

j,li 3\,j 3'>\/ "51 ljO ; 

~ 'd("''l '' lilj .!') I" L~ I )\3 """ 

! 

c.:, i 

, I 

)---. 1 

I 

} __ J 

;' I 

I": 

J 

10 

.. , 

oJ 

2 

o 

& It 'f1' 




-3. 

4 

ro/ rO\~r ,. r 

. . '// crt~ ... I. C ~.\ r\C 

I 

:: 

? 

110:1 A:.'(..p:/ /.~ v €P/ .. ~)~:. ~ ~% 

~ [£Nl""iAR'1 

'ReI'\) 

/' 

---I: 

--. -, -------q --r--- -..:.=--=--------., -:Sm l2- 

------------ I. = _:::.:.......... 

22-'1- 6 '.to t-~\I';ey 

Pm; 025 - 1:>2.2 - o=t-I 

L oT 3 SEc.. 3 T-P l~ 1







SUBDIVISION REFERRAL 

SUBDIVISION INFORMATION REPORT FORM 

File No.: 11-0237-F-SUB Date: August 23, 3011 

Applicant: 

Richard & Irene Montgomery 

District Development Technician: 

A.P.C. 'F' Chair: 

Director: 

Desiree Lantenhammer 

Keith Gray 

Herman Halvorson 

Your File: 2011-02110 

Proposed Subdivision of: 


P.I.D.#: 

Civic Address: 

Owner name(s): 

Owner address(es): 

Lot 1 and Lot 3, Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, W6M , KDYD, Plan KAP74661 

025-822-055 (F) I 025-822-071 

227 & 229 Glenmary Road 

Glen & Carrie Cullen 

227 Glenmary Road 

Enderby, BC VOE 1 V3 

Richard & Irene Montgomery 

229 Glenmary Road 

Enderby, BC VOE 1 V3 

Proposed Use: 

Lots Proposed: 

Potable Water: 

Property Size: 

Present Zoning: 

Community Plan: 

Rural Residential 

Two (2) lot boundary adjustment 

On-site wells 

2.04 & 10.5 ha 

Country Residential (C.R) 

Country Residential 

Affected by Agricultural Land Reserve: Yes X No 

Approved by B.C. Land Commission: Yes No 

N/A 

X N/A 

Page 1 0'2 




Subdivision Information Report Form 

File No.: 11-0237-F-SUB 

Affected by Controlled Access Highway: 

Yes 

X No 

N/A 

Affected by Major Road Network Plan: 

X Yes 

No 

N/A 

Development Permit Required: 

X Yes 

No 

Waiver of Lot Frontage Required: 

X Yes 

No 

Development Cost Charge to be paid: Yes X No 

Parkland or money-in-lieu required: Yes X No 

Application Fee: $650.00 

Fee Received [Date]: May 10, 2011 

Amount: $0.00 

Receipt No.: n/a 

Receipt No.: 134578 

This office recommends that the proposed plan of subdivision not be approved as proposed Lot 3 would not 

comply with the minimum lot frontage standard of the Country Residential (C.R) Zone of Regional District of North 

Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003. Section 802.7 of the Zoning Bylaw requires that lots that are proposed 

to be subdivided within the Country Residential (C.R) zone must have a lot frontage of not less than one-tenth of 

the perimeter of the lot. The subdivision layout would need to be revised in order to conform with the Zoning Bylaw 

or the proposed subdivision would require the approval of a lot frontage waiver request. To process such a 

request, the applicant would need to submit a letter to the Regional District along with the required $450.00 

processing fee. 

Should the above requirement be satisfied, this office raises no objection to the proposed plan of subdivision 

subject to the following : 

1. The highways adjacent to the subject property must .be dedicated pursuant to the requirements of Section 

401.3 of the Regional District of North Okanagan Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 726, 1986 and constructed 

to your Ministry's standards. 

2. Proof of water quality, surface water supplies and/or groundwater supplies for all proposed lots pursuant to the 

requirements of Sections 402.1 and 402.3 to 402.6 of Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 726. Surface and 

subsurface water supplies must be proven to have water that is potable in accordance with Section 402.5. 

3. Approval of the Interior Health Environmental Health Officer with respect to the sewage disposal in accordance 

with Section 403 of Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 726. 

4. Proof of provision of hydro service for all proposed lots in accordance with Section 409 of the Subdivision 

Servicing Bylaw No. 726. 

5. Proof of compliance with the minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage requirements of the Country 

Residential (C.R.) Zone of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 for all 


6. Proof of compliance with the building setback requirements of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888 with respect to new 

lot lines and existing buildings. 

7. Proof of compliance with the driveway access requirements of Section 310 of Zoning Bylaw No. 1888 for all 


8. The subject property is identified in the Electoral Area "F" Official Community Plan as being within a 

Development Permit Area for Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions (Wildfire Interface Area). 

Prior to final subdivision approval, issuance of a Development Permit in this regard is required. 

9. Where the subdivision is subject to the Riparian Areas Regulation, receipt of notification from the Ministry of 

Environment that an assessment report has been received , demonstrating the proposed development 

meets the requirements of Section 4(2) or of Section 4(3) of the Riparian Areas Regulation. 

Greg Routley 


Page 2 0(2 




:s 6f I'll'+- 

-4-- - 

CJ) 

, 

• 

~ 

~ 

.. 

... 0/) 

~ %: 

~ 

I- 

'" 

e 

0 

"- 

Q 

a:: 

"" '" 

~ 

-- 

~ 

~ 

~ 

-, 

~ 

 

"- 

h 

i;j 

0 

() 

'" 

'" 

It 

"" 't 

.~ 

>- 

... " It. 

0 

"" 

I, t: 

~ 







INFORMATION REPORT 

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 21(2) OF THE 

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT 

Date: September 21, 2011 

File No.: 

Applicant: 


11-0472-F-ALR 

Robert & Leslie Cooke 

The NE ¼ of Sec 26, Twp 18, R8, W6M, KDYD, Except Plans 

6432, B11041, 31145, H13556 and KAP45812 

P.I.D.# 013-777-611 



Servicing: 

69 Ashton Cooke Road 

21.46 ha (62.80 acres) 

Well water and on site septic disposal 

Soil Classification: Class 4 (Improvable to 70% Class 4 / 30% Class 3) 

Zoning: 

O.C.P. Designation: 

Proposed Use: 


Country Residential / Development Permit Area 

Subdivision within the ALR to create one lot plus remainder 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the application of Robert and Leslie 

Cooke under Section 21(2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to subdivide the property 

legally described as The NE ¼ of Sec 26, Twp 18, R8, W6M, KDYD, Except Plans 6432, 

B11041, 31145, H13556 and KAP45812, located at 69 Ashton Cooke Road, Electoral Area ‘F’ 

not be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land Commission pursuant to Section 25(3) 

of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. 

BACKGROUND: 

The subject application proposes to subdivide a portion of the 21.46 ha property located at 69 

Ashton Cooke Road for the purpose of creating a 2.023 ha Country Residential lot or the same 

sized parcel as a homesite lot under Section 946 of the Local Government Act. As the proposed 

F:\3000-3699 LAND ADMIN\3067 AREA F\3067 - APPLICATIONS\ALR\2011\11-0472-F-ALR - COOKE\11-0472-F-ALR - COOKE - 

ALR Info Sheet.docx 




Agricultural Land Commission Application 

11-0472-F-ALR (Robert & Leslie Cooke) Page 2 

lot is partially located in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), approval under Section 21(2) of 

the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Act is required. 

Site Context 

The subject property is located on the north side of Ashton Cooke Road and with the exception 

of a 1.26 ha triangular portion at the northwest corner, is entirely within the Agricultural Land 

Reserve. Upon review of the Land Commission’s mapping, the correct ALR boundary has been 

identified as being adjacent to the west property line as shown below: 

The property is zoned Country Residential (C.R) and designated in the OCP as Agricultural. The 

property was originally a full quarter section totalling160 acres that was subdivided 4 times over 

the years, creating 5 lots and dedication of Ashton Cooke Road. In 1954 the first lot divided off 

was a 1.259 ha parcel to the west. Adjacent to that parcel is a 3.059 ha lot created in 1980 that 

shares a west lot line with the subject parcel. To the south is a 3.956 ha parcel that was 

subdivided in 1991 under Section 996 of the Municipal Act (now Section 946 of the Local 

Government Act). Each of these properties that have been subdivided from the parent parcel lie 

outside of the Agriculture Land Reserve, are zoned Country Residential (C.R.) and designated 

in the OCP as Future Small Holdings. 

To the east is Ashton Creek Ranch, a beef cattle feed lot also primarily in the ALR, zoned Non 

Urban (N.U.) and designated Agricultural and Non Urban. To the north is a BC Hydro power 

substation created by subdivision in 1974. The 32.77 ha parcel is zoned and designated Non 

Urban (N.U.) Access to the substation is gained via a private road located near the west 

boundary of the subject property. A second Statutory Right of Way traverses the field in the 

center of the property for transmission lines. 

The attached plan shows a field leased out to a local farmer for alfalfa cultivation in the center of 

the property. To the east of the field is a single family dwelling constructed in 1995 by the 

current owners and an older barn both accessed by a driveway from Ashton Cooke Road. The 

original homestead is unused and located at the northwest edge of the field. Dense trees 

surround the field and homesite. The rear of the property is a steep hillside sloping up to the 

north. Edwin Stream enters the property at the southwest corner. Ashton Creek traverses the 

BC Hydro property to the north. 






The Proposal 

The purpose of the application to subdivide is to create a smaller homesite for Mr. and Mrs. 

Cooke and retain the remainder farm property for the Cooke’s children. The proposal is shown 

on the attached plan as a 2.023 ha parcel that includes the 1.26 ha non-ALR portion at the west 

end of the property. Mr. Cooke states that the proposed homesite has poor farming potential as 

approximately 1/3 of the area is a swamp around Edwin Stream, 1/3 of the area is a former 

gravel pit and 1/3 of the area is a steep hillside. Mr. Cooke suggests that the parcel size is 

similar to those in the area and would not impact the current use of the surrounding properties. 

As the current property owner Mr. Robert Cooke and his wife Leslie have also occupied the 

subject property as their principal place of residence since 1995. Mr. Cooke has also 

demonstrated that three members of the Cooke family have continuously owned the property 

since 1961 and states that the property has been in continuous ownership by the Cooke family 

since 1902. As the grandson of the original owner, Mr. Cooke has requested that the application 

be treated as either a homesite severance or as a Country Residential conventional subdivision 

proposal. Below is an ortho (air) photo of the property: 

Agricultural Capability of the Subject Property 

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. 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. 






The Inventory rates the subject property as Class 4 with an improved rating of 70% Class 4 and 

30% Class 3. Class 4 land is capable of a restricted range of crops. Soil and climate conditions 

require special management considerations. 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. The subclasses associated with the property are soil moisture deficiency, stoniness 

and topography. 

Area “F” Agricultural Land Reserve Boundary Review – 2008 

The 2005 Official Community Plan directed that a major review of the ALR be carried out for the 

entire plan area. The ALR boundary review was completed in 2009 with the Board of Directors 

endorsing no changes to the ALR boundary specific to the Ashton Cooke Road area. The 

consultant described reasoning for not recommending a boundary change as: the Ashton- 

Cooke Road traverses though a meaningful agricultural community with decent soils and 

topography to support agricultural activities. No change to the ALR boundary is recommended. 

Agricultural Land Commission Policy No. 11 – Homesite Severance on ALR Lands 

The ALC has adopted the following guidelines to provide a consistent approach to the 

consideration and approval of homesite severance applications: 

1. A once only severance may be permitted where the applicant submits documentary 

evidence that he or she has continuously owned and occupied the property as his or her 

principal place of residence since December 21, 1972. 

2. Where an application for a homesite severance has had a previous subdivision application 

approved by the ALC resulting in the creation of a separate parcel, the ALC may consider 

the previous approval as having fulfilled the objectives of the Homesite Severance Policy 

and may deny any further consideration under the Homesite Severance Policy. 

3. An application for a homesite severance will be considered only where the applicant submits 

documentary evidence showing a legitimate intention to sell the remainder of the property. 

4. There will be cases where the ALC considers that good land use criteria rule out any 

subdivision of the land because subdivision would compromise the agricultural integrity of 

the area, and the ALC must therefore exercise its discretion to refuse the homesite 

severance. Where the ALC decides to allow a homesite severance, there are two options: 

a) the existing homesite may be created as a separate parcel where it is of a minimum size 

compatible with the character of the property (plus a reasonable area, where required, 

for legal access purposes); or 

b) where the location of the existing homesite is such that the creation of a parcel 

encompassing the homesite would, in the ALC’s opinion, create potential difficulty for the 

agricultural operation or management of the remainder, the ALC may, as it deems 

appropriate, approve the creation of a parcel elsewhere on the subject property. 

5. The remainder of the subject property after severance of the homesite must be of a size and 

configuration that will, in the ALC’s opinion, constitute a suitable agricultural parcel. Where, 

in the ALC’s opinion, the remainder is of an unacceptable size or configuration from an 

agricultural perspective, there are three options: 

a) the ALC may deny the homesite severance; 

b) the ALC may require that the remainder be consolidated with an adjacent parcel; or 






c) the ALC may require the registration of a covenant against the title of the remainder and 

such a covenant may prohibit the construction of dwellings. 

6. A condition of every homesite severance approved by the ALC shall be an order stipulating 

that the homesite is not to be resold for five years except in the case of estate settlements. 

7. Where a homesite severance application has been approved by the ALC, local governments 

are encouraged to handle the application in the same manner as an application under Sec. 

946 of the Local Government Act insofar as compliance with local bylaws is concerned. 

Regional District of North Okanagan Policy No. LU012 – Homesite Severance Policy 

The above noted Policy states that homesite severance subdivision applications to the ALC 

should be considered on their own merits and the Regional Board may abandon or depart from 

the following established guidelines based on these merits: 

1. Section 946 subdivisions within an ALR should not be authorized unless the subject 

property has been owned by the applicant prior to the enactment of the ALC Act on 

December 21, 1972. Owners who purchased their land after the Act came into effect should 

not have any expectations of approval of any subdivision of their land. 

2. Section 946 subdivisions should not be authorized where the property is owned by a limited 

company unless the company is owned by a family that resides on the subject property. 

3. Section 946 subdivisions within an ALR should be located on land where soils have a lower 

capability rating for agricultural uses; near existing small lots within the vicinity of the 

proposed subdivision; and not near existing intensive agricultural operations in the area. 

4. The density provisions of the Regional District Zoning Bylaw should be respected whereby 

the remnant lot following a Section 946 subdivision should meet the minimum lot size 

standard of the zone in which the property is located and further, if the lot is classified as a 

farm for assessment and taxation purposes, the remnant lot should be at least 2 ha. 

5. The minimum lot size for a parcel being created should be 1 ha to reflect the minimum lot 

area requirement of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services applicable 

to lots serviced with on-site septic tank effluent disposal systems. 

6. Notwithstanding the minimum lot standard cited above, the maximum lot size for the parcel 

being created pursuant to Section 946 should be the smallest possible land area necessary 

to incorporate an existing residence; accessory residential buildings that are located in close 

proximity to the existing residence; and the access driveway, well and septic tank effluent 

disposal system servicing the existing residence. Larger, vacant lots may also be approved 

where necessary in order to provide a suitable building site meeting the setback, site 

coverage and site servicing requirements of the Regional District Zoning and Subdivision 

Servicing Bylaws in force from time to time. 

7. Road dedication for widening an existing public road should be required across the entire 

frontage of the subject property, but should be the smallest possible land area necessary to 

satisfy the Ministry of Transportation requirements. 

8. If an application is not authorized, the applicant should be allowed to make representations 

to the Regional Board or Committee respecting matters contained in the application and the 

applicant should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written 

submissions on matters contained in the application. 






OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN: 

The subject property is designated in the Electoral Area “F” Official Community Plan as Country 

Residential. The following Agricultural and Rural Residential Land Policies are to be considered 

when reviewing this application: 

Agricultural Policies 

1. All use 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. 

5. Where a rural zone provides for the construction of more than one single family dwelling per 

lot, or provides for the construction of two family dwellings, then new development may be 

permitted without the provision of a water supply system provided that a covenant is 

registered on the title of the subject property to: 

a) require that each additional dwelling unit be provided with it’s own complete and 

separate groundwater well meeting the requirements of the Regional District subdivision 

servicing bylaw in force from time to time, and the Drinking Water Protection Act and the 

Drinking Water Protection Regulation; or 

b) restrict development on any lot to only one single family dwelling unless and until a water 

supply system is constructed meeting the standards contained in the Drinking Water 

Protection Act and the Drinking Water Protection Regulation. 

Development Permit Areas 

The subject property is identified as being within a Development Permit Area for the Protection 

of the Natural Environment and for Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions 

(Ashton Creek Alluvial Fan and Wildfire Interface Area). Issuance of Development Permit(s) in 

this regard will be required prior to subdivision approval and the proposal must be in compliance 

with the Area “F” OCP. Issuance of such Permits has been delegated to staff, and therefore 

does not require approval of the Regional District Board of Directors. 






ZONING BYLAW: 

The subject property is zoned Country Residential (C.R). Uses permitted in the C.R zone include 

accessory farm sales, ancillary single family dwellings, bed and breakfast use, boarding house use, 

community care facilities (subject to provincial legislation), fruit and produce pickers' cabins and work 

force housing units on lots 4 ha or larger, home occupations use, intensive agricultural use, limited 

agricultural use, limited resource use, manufactured homes, packing houses, public parks and 

playgrounds, veterinary clinics, wineries and cideries, 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; and 

2. one additional single family dwelling on lots 4 ha or larger for lands located outside the ALR; 

and 

3. one ancillary single family dwelling on lands in and out of the ALR on lots 2 ha or larger in 

size. 

The minimum parcel size in the C.R. zone is 2.0 ha. A proposal for subdivision must meet 

minimum lot frontage, servicing, building site and private access driveway requirements. 

PLANNING ANALYSIS: 

Mr. Cooke states that the property has been in the Cooke family since 1902 when his 

grandfather William Cooke first purchased the property. In 1991 the property was passed on to 

Robert Cooke’s father, Edwin Cooke. In 1992 the title was transferred to Robert’s brother 

Gordon. In 1995 Robert Cooke and his wife Leslie purchased the property and have resided 

there ever since. 

Planning has concern that the length of ownership by Mr. Robert Cooke may not meet ALC 

policy since he has not continuously owned and occupied the property as his or her principal 

place of residence since December 21, 1972. Despite this, Planning suggests that the history of 

the Cooke family ownership be noted and duly considered by the Board of Directors. 

Further to this, a previous subdivision of the property was approved under Section 996 of the 

Municipal Act (which is now known as Section 946 of the Local Government Act). The 1991 

subdivision divided the parcel to the south of Ashton Cooke Road from the subject property 

under plan KAP45812. ALC policy suggests that a once only severance is allowed. Although the 

plan indicates a ‘residence for a relative’ subdivision, it does not appear that the ALC made a 

resolution on the matter, perhaps as the area is outside of the ALR boundary. 

Under Section 802.5 of the Zoning Bylaw the proposal can be considered as a conventional 

subdivision as the proposed lot sizes would meet the 2.0 ha minimum parcel size for the 

Country Residential zone. Nonetheless, the proposed subdivision still requires the approval of 

the ALC as all but 1.26 ha of the property is located in the ALR. 

The applicant has identified that Edwin Stream is a “swamp” area that cannot be drained and 

salvaged as it is the originating water source for four adjacent properties which have water 

rights to it. Planning suggests that development of that section of the property may be limited 






due to the wetland and the proximity to the stream. The applicant is aware that Riparian Area 

Regulations may need to be contemplated by a Professional. Planning further suggests that 

Edwin Stream acts as a buffering area between the neighbouring non-ALR lot and the subject 

properties current agricultural use. 

The Planning Department recommends that this application not be supported as it does not 

comply with the Agricultural Policies of the OCP which state that notwithstanding the minimum 

lot size standards cited in the Zoning Bylaw, the Regional Board may, after due consideration, 

not authorize an application to the ALC if the proposed subdivision would have a negative 

impact on agricultural land or the farming community. It is suggested that proposed subdivision 

would have such an impact as it may limit the agricultural capabilities of the subject property 

which in an unimproved state is rated as having the potential to support a restricted range of 

crops and in an improved state, is rated as having the potential to produce a fairly wide range of 

crops under good management practices. Overall, the size and soil characteristics of the 

property provide the potential for it to be used for limited agricultural purposes. 

Approval of the application could also set a precedent that would lead property owners to 

believe that agricultural parcels within the area can be subdivided, which in turn could lead to 

additional requests similar to the proposed application. Furthermore, the creation of smaller 

farm parcels in agricultural areas can affect the land values in the area by giving the impression 

that farm land can be used for speculative non-agricultural development. This results in artificial 

inflation of the value of agricultural land making it more difficult for farmers to purchase land. 

If the Board of Directors is of the opinion that the length of family ownership and other factors 

outweigh the potential consequences of the proposal, they may forward the application to the 

ALC for further consideration. 

SUMMARY: 

The subject application proposes to subdivide a 2.023 ha portion from the 21.46 ha property 

located at 69 Ashton Cooke Road for the purpose of creating either a homesite lot under 

Section 946 of the Local Government Act or a conventional Country Residential subdivision 

meeting the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw. Planning recommends that this application not 

be supported as does not comply with the Agricultural Policies of the Electoral Area “F” Official 

Community Plan, the Agricultural Land Commission Homesite Severance Policy and the 

Regional District Homesite Severance Policy. 

REFERRALS: 

The application has been referred to the following for their review and comment: 

1. Electoral Area ‘F’ Director 

2. Electoral Area ‘F’ Advisory Planning Commission 

3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

4. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 

We have no objections to the subject application and further comments would be provided 

when/if this proceeds to a subdivision proposal. 






5. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (Environment) 

Ecosystems Section: This application may be subject to the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) if 

a stream is present on the property (Edwin Stream). If there is a stream, the proponent should 

be advised that a RAR Assessment is required for subdivision as defined in Section 872 of the 

Local Government Act. The assessment defines the required Streamside protection and 

Enhancement Area (SPEA) setback, which must be determined prior to subdivision. RAR 

assessments must be completed b a qualified environmental professional (QEP) following the 

provincial RAR guidelines. For more information on RAR visit 

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habitat/fish_protection_act/riparian/riparian_areas.html. To ensure 

proposed activities are planned and carried out with minimal impacts to the environment and in 

compliance with all relevant legislation, the proponent and approving agency are advised to 

adhere to guidelines in the provincial best management practices document: Develop with Care: 

Environmental Guidelines for Urban & Rural Land Development 

(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/BMP/bmpintro.html). 

Water Allocation Section: If there is any work in and about a stream below the high water mark 

of any creeks in the area, the proponent will be required to submit an application for approval 

under Section 9 of the Water Act to Front Counter BC, and to obtain approval prior to 

undertaking works in about this stream. There are water licences located downstream of the 

proposed work therefore extra care must be taken to ensure no siltation or disturbances occur. 

Rights of all licences under the Water Act need to be protected. Please obtain a list of affected 

licences along with relevant information regarding the Water Allocation Section on 

www.eng.gov.bc.ca/wsd 

This area may be subject to flooding and erosion. Please contact your local government agency 

for their requirements. Development of the property should be consistent with provincial “Flood 

Hazard Area Land use Management Guidelines”. A copy of the guidelines is available on 

website: www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/public_safety/flood/pdgs_word/guidelines.pdf 

It is the proponent’s responsibility to ensure their activities are in compliance with all relevant 

legislation. 

6. Ministry of Agriculture 

The Ministry of Agriculture does not support this application to subdivide. Home site severance 

on ALR lands may only be considered by the Agricultural Land Commission where property 

under application has been the principal residence of the applicant as owner-occupant since 

December 21, 1972 and the applicant wishes to dispose of the parcel but retain a homesite on 

the land. The information provided in the land use application does not demonstrate fulfillment 

of the Agricultural Land Commissions policies, and cannot be supported by the Ministry of 

Agriculture. However, it should be noted that in the event the applicant is eligible for 

consideration the Agricultural Land Commission Act, Homesite Severence on ALR Lands Policy 

#11 (2003) does state: 

Persons making use of this policy should understand clearly that: 

a. No one has an automatic right to a “homesite severance”; 

b. the Commission shall be the final arbiter as to whether a particular “homesite severance” 

meets good land use criteria; 

c. a prime concern of the Commission will always be to ensure that the “remainder” will 

constitute a suitable agricultural parcel. 





11-0472-F-ALR (Robert & Leslie Cooke) 

Page 10 

Submitted by: 


Endorsed by: 






File: 

Applicant: 

Location: 

ELECTORAL AREA "F" 

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION APPLICATION 


11-0472-F-ALR 

Robert & Leslie Cooke 

69 Ashton Cooke Road 

JO 

O(lCh 

c 

ROJ\Q 

~ A 

U

29712 

; ,-::. . 




,r, ,C,:~,,, c.~b,l:Ju't.~t*{':-; oh. 

:ii::2" :~~Q/~~, :,,).p:i.f,:-_" .~P',~~. ": ,~~~;: ' ~',e':,:,,';':~:--: ':'.:~' ~ ":.-( 

f: F . 

... . 

c' " 

-A,L .. ~ . 'J~~.- t , ~ i.' --- v . 

'...,..,j.,. ~ 

. _,;,1--' , 'I,~"" , ~- - ' ...,... . " 

. ,...- ,0'.'). "'- -, .. . I' 

h .,'..- ,:"l, .' , 

, I P. p" .'" - ' .. ~ , ."\ \~ 

".. / "'.: .. ,)(t~~ :,:' · ~:;;";," ,, 1::11 ' 

;;;.J' . 'ffj/"; ' . ", ~ 'j" '." r U I, 

",.;:;{;;;B~\"'. •. ',.,"j " ," .11,,,',. " Iili 

:X/';', jk ... .. , JK} 

" /("'~' 4- 

' " .,: ,:iY. '~'J":""·i' i;." "'~ . r~.,.~/1 UIl 

, ' .,' , ' . "'i~j;:~;~?,:;;·:1t;;· :;~i 

",;. ~ ." " .' '. ,;' '., ", ',', '". '~. ".-" ';,',; ',',' .j 

, " ,,' qy" 10.2"" ,.,~~\ 'JIE' 1 

' , 

' ,., ' 

!CI _ '""1. j-~ 

, co I.. ',I 

. jJ ~ " 

. >:f ~ ' JlC" , 







INFORMATION REPORT 

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 20(3) OF THE 

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT 

Date: November 17, 2011 

File No.: 

Applicant: 

11-0507-C-ALR 

Arlene Wiffen 

Legal Description: Lot 16, Sec 36, Twp 9, ODYD, Plan 411 

P.I.D.# 002-002-914 



Servicing: 

1788 Francis Street 

3.88 ha 

Greater Vernon Water Utility and on-site septic sewage disposal 

Soil Classification: Class 4 and 5 

Zoning: 

O.C.P. Designation: 

Proposal: 


Agricultural 

Placement of fill to support farm uses on the property. 

PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: 

That the application to deposit fill under Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act 

on the property legally described as Lot 16, Sec 36, Twp 9, ODYD, Plan 411 and located at 

1788 Francis Street, Electoral Area ‘C’ be authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land 

Commission. 

BACKGROUND: 

This is an application under Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Act for the 

placement of fill on the property located at 1788 Francis Street. The owners of the subject 

property have placed fill over a 0.8 ha area of land on the subject property. The applicant has 

indicated that the fill has been deposited to increase the productivity of the land as it pertains to 

maintaining cattle. The subject property is located in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and 

as such, approval of the ALC is required. 

F:\3000-3699 LAND ADMIN\3063 AREA C\3063 - APPLICATIONS\ALR\2011\11-0507-C-ALR - WIFFEN\11-0507-C-ALR - WIFFEN 

- ALR Info Sheet.docx 





11-0507-C-ALR (Arlene Wiffen) Page 2 

Site Context 

The 3.88 ha subject property is located on the west side of Francis Street, just south of Hillview 

Elementary School and the Francis Street and Pottery Road intersection. The property is flat 

and has been cleared for agricultural use. The subject site is situated at a lower elevation, 

approximately one meter below the properties to the north (Hillview Elementary School) and 

west. The southerly portion of the subject property has been identified in the Sensitive 

Ecosystems Ranking as being part of a high value ecosystem corridor. A single family dwelling 

is located on the north east corner of the subject property. Access to the dwelling is gained 

from a driveway on the north east section of the property that connects to Francis Street. 

The subject and adjacent properties to the east and west are all located within the Agricultural 

Land Reserve (ALR), zoned Country Residential (C.R) and are designated in the Rural Vernon 

Official community Plan (OCP) as Agricultural. The property to the north of the subject site is 

currently zoned C.R, designated Public Institutional and is the current location of Hilllview 

Elementary School. The property to the south is located within the ALR, zoned Non-Urban 

(N.U) and designated as Agricultural. 

The following orthophoto (aerial photograph) of the subject and surrounding properties was 

taken in the year 2010. The area to the east of the hatched line is where the fill and topsoil 

have been spread and piled: 

The Proposal 

The applicant has deposited approximately 10,000 m 3 of sand, gravel, clay and topsoil over a 

portion of the property measuring 100 m by 80 m. The maximum depth of the fill is 2m. On 






October 6, 2010 an Agricultural Land Commission Inspector notified the applicant that the 

deposition of soil/fill materials on lands within the ALR is not permitted, unless authorized by the 

ALC. The applicant has subsequently submitted this application to rectify the situation and 

obtain permission to deposit and disperse the remaining soil/fill on the subject site. 

The applicant has indicated that due to the high water table it became too difficult to hay the 

property. The applicant has since purchased cattle and has been utilising the property as 

pasture. According to the applicant the forage quality is an issue on the subject site, in addition 

the excess surface moisture has created problems with the cow’s hooves. The applicant 

brought fill in to raise the ground above the water table to improve the quality of the land as it 

pertains to pasture and maintaining cattle. Prior to depositing the fill the original top soil was 

removed and piled, the fill was spread and levelled, and the top soil was replaced. Currently 

there are a number of piles of fill and topsoil that are still proposed to be spread on the subject 

site. 

Agricultural Capability of the Subject Property 

The BC Land Inventory rates the land on the north east half of the subject property as Class 4 

with an improved rating of Class 2. The subclasses associated with these ratings are soil 

moisture deficiency and undesirable soil structure. The south west half of the subject property 

is rated 70% Class 5 and 30% Class 4 with an improved rating of Class 3. The subclasses 

associated with these ratings are soil moisture deficiency, excess water and low fertility. 

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. 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. 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 either has no or only very slight limitations that restrict its use for the production of 

common agricultural crops. Class 2 land is capable of producing a wide range of crops. Minor 

restrictions of soil or climate may reduce capability but post 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 

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 soil bound agriculture or 

sustained natural grazing. 






AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSSION ACT: 

Section 20(1) of the ALC Act states that a person must not use agricultural land for a non-farm 

use unless permitted by the Act or the regulations. Section 20(2) of the Act states that the 

removal of soil and the placement of fill are non-farm uses, except as provided in the 

regulations. The regulation permits the placement of fill for the purpose of constructing 

greenhouses, farm buildings, aquaculture facilities, composting facilities and turf farms. 

RDNO staff contacted the ALC to determine the necessity for this application and it was 

confirmed that a Board resolution is required. In this case, the Board is not required to provide 

a recommendation of support or non-support, and simply should just resolve to forward the 

application to the ALC. ALC staff have indicated the placement of fill on ALR lands is the 

number one enforcement and compliance issue dealt with in the Fraser Valley, but the RDNO 

rarely receives these types of applications. As such, the RDNO does not currently have a 

service under Sections 723 and 797 of the Local Government Act to regulate the deposit and 

removal of soil. Even though the RDNO does not have authority in this matter, it is our 

responsibility to follow ALC protocol and process the application. 

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN: 

The Rural Vernon Official Community Plan (OCP) designates the subject property as 

Agricultural. The following relevant policies apply to this application: 

1. Lands designated as Agricultural are intended to be used for agricultural purposes and 

associated uses as allowed by the Agricultural Land Commission and the Regional District. 

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

Land Commission Act” regulations thereto or Orders and Policies of the Commission. 

3. Notwithstanding the minimum lot size standards and land use policies cited in this Plan or 

the Zoning Bylaw 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. 

ZONING BYLAW: 

The subject property is zoned Country Residential (C.R). Uses permitted in the C.R zone 

include accessory farm sales, ancillary single family dwellings, bed and breakfast use, boarding 

house use, community care facilities, fruit and produce pickers' cabins and work force housing 

units on lots 4 ha or larger, home occupations use, intensive agricultural use, limited resource 

use, manufactured homes, packing houses, public parks and playgrounds, veterinary clinics, 

wineries and cideries, single and two family dwellings, and accessory buildings and structures. 

PLANNING ANALYSIS: 

The applicant has indicated the fill and topsoil have been deposited to improve the agricultural 

capability of the subject property. Based on the information submitted by the applicant the 

proposal is consistent with the Agricultural Policies of the Rural Vernon Official Community Plan 

and it appears that it would not have a negative impact on the agricultural use of the subject or 

surrounding properties. However, in discussions with ALC, staff noted that the Regional District 






does not currently have the ability to request hydrology assessments as it pertains to the impact 

of fill on the subject and surrounding properties and or an agrologist report to determine the fill’s 

soil composition. The ALC has indicated that they may require these reports in their review of 

the application. If approved by the ALC, the proposal would also be consistent with the OCP 

Policy which states that lands designated as Agricultural are intended to be used for agricultural 

purposes and associated uses as allowed by the Agricultural Land Commission. The applicant 

has indicated that in areas where fill is still required the topsoil would be removed and stockpiled 

prior to placement; this would help to preserve the integrity of the soil. The Planning 

Department raises no objections to this application and recommends that it be forwarded to the 

ALC for their consideration. 

SUMMARY: 

This application requests permission from the ALC to place fill on the property located at 1788 

Francis Street. In an effort to improve the agricultural capability of the property the owners have 

placed fill and topsoil over a 0.8 ha area of land. It is recommended that the application be 

authorized for submission to the Agricultural Land Commission as the proposed use of the 

property is consistent with the Agricultural Policies of the Rural Vernon Official Community Plan. 

REFERRALS: 

The application has been referred to the following for their review and comment: 

1. Electoral Area ‘C’ Director 

2. Electoral Area ‘C’ Advisory Planning Commission 

3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee 

4. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 

No comments received 

5. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands 

No comments received 

6. Ministry of Environment/ Ministry of Natural Resource Operations 

To ensure proposed activities are planned and carried out with minimal impacts tot he 

environment and in compliance with all relevant legislation, the proponent and approving 

agency are advised to adhere to guidelines in the provincial best management practices 

(BMP’s) document: Develop with Care: Environmental Guidelines for Urban & Rural 

Land Development. It is the proponent’s responsibility to ensure their activities are in 

compliance with all relevant legislation. 

____________________________________________________________________________ 





11-0507-C-ALR (Arlene Wiffen) 

Page 6 

Submitted by: 

~~~ 

Laura Frank, MA (Plan) 

Sustainability Coordinator 


Endorsed by: 

~ 




ELECTORAL AREA "c" 



AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION APPLICATION 


File: 11-0507 -C-ALR 

Applicant: Arlene Wiffen 

Location: 14788 Francis Street 

25TH AVENUE 

, 

PlAN 411 

36 

, 

1 87398 

~ PLAN 411 

10143 

• • 

W198FT ,,~ 

PT 19 

"ro 

F!EM20 ... 

PLAN 291 

., PLAN 

A 

PLAN 33375 P20 

, 

B 

16596 

,_ . 

... 0 PlAN 21 2 50 

>- 

w 

~ 

"' 

"'" 

z 

'" 

'" 

~ 

~ 

• 

... 

• 

~ 

,om 

2 

S160.38'OF2 

, 

, , 

PlAN 101301 

, 

, 

~ 

10553 

, 

, 

PlAN 14S~1 

" , 

• 

POTTERY ROAD 

•• 

7 • 

28 

11 

PLAN 12038 

Subject Property r-----, 

29 

2 

KAP58531 

PlAN 11619 

, 

• 

OECO;MOS ROAD 

2 ~ 10 i" 

z 9 :'! B 

~ ;;p~c 

.• 

" , 

MOUNTVIEW ROAD 

, 

! PLAN 1\427 

• 

, 

, 

0 , 

< 

0 

~ 

~ 

• 

• 

3 21655 002005601" 

Z 

0 , 

Z 

~" 

• 

,~ 

W 

> e 21655 

~ 

m 

~ 

~ • ," 

, 

.VIEW 

)LF 

)RSE 

28 

PLAN 677 

27 

PLAN 677 

26 

PLAN 677 

~~, 







REPORT 

File No.: 3046.01.04 

TO: 

FROM: 


Anna Page 

DATE: November 21 2011 

SUBJECT: Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan 


That the report dated November 21, 2011 from the Sustainability Coordinator regarding the Shuswap 

River Watershed Sustainability Plan be received for information; and further 

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability 

Plan Preliminary Issue Identification Paper be endorsed to inform Phase II of the planning process. 

DISCUSSION: 

Background 

The RDNO is coordinating the development of the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan 

(SRWSP). In 2010 the Board of Directors endorsed the Terms of Reference for the development of 

the SRWSP and for its development to be funded from the Community Works Fund. 

The Terms of Reference outlines three phases for developing the SRWSP; 

 

 

 

Phase I – Visioning and Issue Identification 

Phase II – Plan Development 

Phase II – Implementation and Monitoring 

Phase I of the planning process began in late 2010 with a stakeholder workshop held in December 

and continued with public workshops held in June 2011. Phase I is now coming to conclusion and 

Phase II will begin with the community workshop – Sharing Our Experiences. 

Visioning and Issue Identification 

As discussed in the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan report to the EAAC dated 

September 13, 2011, staff has reviewed and analyzed the input received from the stakeholder and 

community workshops and developed a draft vision statement and an Issues Identification Paper. 

The following draft vision statement for the SRWSP will be presented at the Sharing Our Experiences 

workshop: 

Working together to sustain a healthy, resilient watershed where ecosystems are 

protected and restored and environmental and cultural values are respected. Through 





Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – November 21 2011 Page 2 

the management of human activities, impacts on the watershed will be minimized, 

ensuring that wildlife, habitat and people thrive. 

The attached Preliminary Issue Identification Paper organizes the comments and input received from 

workshop participants into three broad themes: 

1. Protection of the Natural Environment; 

2. Recreation; and 

3. Process and Governance 

These themes will provide topic areas to shape policy and action development within the planning 

process. 

Sharing Our Experiences – Community Workshop 

The Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Planning process has now moved into Phase II – Plan 

Development. To kick-start Phase II a community workshop titled Sharing Our Experiences is being 

held in Ashton Creek on November 26 th , 2011. This workshop is being used to; 

 

 

 

Share the results of Phase I - visioning and issue identification, including presentations on the 

Shuswap River Technical Assessment and the Lower Shuswap River and Mabel Lake 

Foreshore Mapping and Inventory 

Learn about the activities of groups already active within the watershed. 

Begin plan development through establishing guiding principles and working groups 

Working Groups 

Volunteers are being sought for working groups that will address the issue themes and comments that 

evolved from Phase I and provide recommendations on policy that will form the foundation of the 

SRWSP. 

As requested at the October 19 th , 2011 meeting of the Board of Directors staff has reviewed the cost 

of covering mileage and meal costs for working group members. Based on a “highest-cost” scenario 

the cost could be up to $20,000.00. The highest costs scenario includes 150km per person per 

meeting, 36 working group members and each working group meeting 5 times. These variables are 

all at the very high end of what is expected. Based on this cost estimate working group members will 

be provided with mileage reimbursement and meals for working group meetings. 

Table 1 shows expenditure on the SRWSP as of November 2011 including estimates of expenditure 

for the Sharing Our Experiences workshop. Expenditure to date is $122,937.93 which includes staff 

time, just under 50% of the total budget. 

When the Board of Directors approved the use of Community Works Funds for the development of the 

SRWSP in November 2010 the resolution was as follows; 

That the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan be funded from the Community Works 

Fund at a cost of $250,000.00 with the potential for an additional $50,000.00 being sought 

after phase one is complete; 

Phase I is now complete and given that expenditure to date accounts for almost half of the budget it is 

likely that the additional $50,000.00 will be required for the completion of Phase II, Plan Development 

and Phase III Implementation and Monitoring. These phases will include significant staff time, costs 

associated with the working groups and potentially external contracts to address information gaps 





Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – November 21 2011 Page 3 

indentified in the Technical Assessment and through the working groups. Staff will regularly review 

expenditure on the SRWSP and reassess whether the additional $50,000.00 is required by end of 

second quarter, 2012. 

SRWSP Budget and Expenditure 2011 

Mileage $69.44 

Meeting/workshop costs $1,249.33 

Logo development $722.40 

Advertising $1,800.00 

Expenses $45.90 

Contract Services $61,597.00 

Lower Shuswap River WQ Monitoring $17,848.00 

TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TO DATE $83,332.07 

Staff Time $39,605.86 

Community Works Fund Tier 2 $250,000.00 

TOTAL EXPENDITURE TO DATE $122,937.93 

TOTAL GRANT AMOUNT REMAINING FOR SRWSP $127,062.07 

Table 1. SRWSP Budget Expenditure 

Technical Assessment 

The Shuswap River Technical Assessment is currently in draft form and has been referred to 

members of the Technical Advisory Committee for review. Once comments from this committee 

have been received and integrated into the document the Technical Assessment will be presented to 

the EAAC. This will likely occur in the early New Year. 

SUMMARY 

Phase I of the development of the SRWSP is now complete and Phase II will be kicked-off at the 

Sharing Our Experiences Community Workshop on November 26 th , 2011 Phase II, Plan 

Development, will be driven by working groups addressing the issues identified in Phase I and 

outlined in the Preliminary Issue Identification paper attached for endorsement. Expenditure to date 

is approximately 50% of the budget. It is likely that the additional $50,000.00 identified in the original 

Board of Directors resolution to fund the SRWSP will be required to complete the planning process. 





Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee - November 21 2011 Page 4 

Submitted by: 

Anna Page:8uslainabilily Coo~ 


Endorsed by: 

Rob Smailes. MCIP 






Preliminary Issue Identification Paper 

The Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO) has committed to facilitate the development of a 

watershed sustainability plan for the Shuswap River. The decision to undertake such a planning 

process was prompted by the recognition that the current convergence of uses, values and pressures, 

on the Shuswap River could compromise the integrity of the watershed. Residents in local communities 

are conscious of this situation and have expressed concerns to the Board of Directors, the City of 

Enderby and regional planning staff with regard to a range of issues along the Shuswap River including 

impacts of recreational use, impacts of adjacent land uses, water quality concerns and ecosystem 

health. 

The purpose of the Shuswap River watershed sustainability planning process is to: 

1) Create a common long-term vision for the management of the Shuswap River Watershed 

(which includes its tributaries) that all stakeholders and community members agree to and 

strive to achieve. 

2) Create a comprehensive plan that will guide agencies and the community in decision 

making with regard to land and water planning within the Shuswap River Watershed. 

Phase I of the process to develop the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan (SRWSP) has 

focused on developing a vision for the Shuswap River Watershed, identification of issues to be 

addressed during the planning process and determining the current condition of the watershed. 

Visioning and issue identification has been undertaken through stakeholder and public engagement 

during a stakeholder workshop held in December 2010 and two public workshops held in June 2011. 

Surveys were also distributed at the public workshops and have been available on-line. 

The condition of the Shuswap River Watershed has been assessed through two technical exercises, 

the Shuswap River Technical Assessment undertaken by Golder Associates with an emphasis on water 

quality, water quantity and riparian health, and the Lower Shuswap River and Mabel Lake Inventory, 

Mapping and Aquatic Habitat Index undertaken by Ecoscape Environmental Consultants Ltd. Both of 

these exercises have contributed to the issue identification process and will inform how issues are 

addressed in Phase II of the planning process – Plan Development. 

Stakeholder and Public Engagement 

27 organizations were represented at the December 2010 Stakeholders workshop including 

environmental groups, community associations, federal, provincial and local government and first 

nations. 




The June 2011 public workshops were held in Ashton Creek in the northern part of the watershed and 

in Lumby in the south. Over 76 people attended the two workshops and surveys and written 

comments have been received from 16 individuals. 

Draft Vision Statement 

A vision statement for the SRWSP describes the collective desired future state of the Shuswap River 

Watershed. It provides guidance for all components of the planning process and the plan itself. The 

development of the vision statement is an on-going process and to date has been informed through the 

public and stakeholder engagement process. An initial vision statement was developed after the 

stakeholders’ workshop in December, 2010 based on the feedback received during a visioning 

exercise. This draft statement was presented at the public workshops and in the survey and 

participants were asked to indicate if they felt it required changes and/or additions. The feedback 

received during this part of the process was then used to edit the original version and generate the 

following vision statement for the SRWSP. 

Working together to sustain a healthy, resilient watershed where ecosystems are 

protected and restored and environmental and cultural values are respected. Through 

the management of human activities, impacts on the watershed will be minimized, 

ensuring that wildlife, habitat and people thrive. 

Review and endorsement of this version will be sought during the initial stage of Phase II of the 

planning process. 

Issue Identification 

Exercises undertaken at the workshops were designed to inform the issue identification process. In all 

three workshops and within the survey, comments were sought in two categories; 

1. Identification of areas of interest and importance 

2. Identification of areas of concern 

Over 150 comments were received specifically addressing these categories. The issues identified were 

broad in range but they can be grouped into three general themes; 

1. The natural environment 

2. Recreation 

3. Process and governance 

Each of these themes can then be organized into a number of sub-themes as shown in figure 1. 

The comments received have been organized into themes to provide topic areas to shape policy and 

action development within the planning process. It is recognized that the issues are frequently 

interconnected, and therefore will need to be addressed in an integrated manner within the planning 

process. There is also a geographic element to the issues with some being specific to certain parts of 

the watershed and others applying watershed wide. Policy development will need to account for 

geographic scope to reflect the nature of the issues identified. 

SRWSP Preliminary Issue Identification Paper 2 | P age 




Ecosystem 

Natural 

Environment 

Habitat 

Watershed Management 

Salmon 

Riparian 

Water Quality 

Recreation 

Impacts 

Management 

Process and 

Governance 

Plan development and 

implementation 

Engagement and 

participation of various 

levels of government 

Figure 1: SRWSP Issue Themes as Emerged from the Stakeholder and Public Workshops 

During the workshops participants were asked to identify areas of importance and specific geographic 

concerns on large maps of the Shuswap River watershed. This exercise has provided a geographic 

reference for a number of the issues raised. All the maps from the workshops have been 

amalgamated into two master maps, one for the stakeholder workshop and one for the public 

workshops (Appendix 1). The comments generally fall into the natural environment and recreation 

themes and provide specific locations where issues are known to be evident. 

In the discussion of the issue themes that follow relevant results from the Shuswap River Technical 

Assessment and the Lower Shuswap and Mabel Lake Inventory and Mapping work will be included 

where appropriate. 

The Natural Environment 

Analysis of the comments received during the issue identification phase indicates that protection and 

restoration of the natural environment within the Shuswap River Watershed is of paramount concern. 

Concerns were raised regarding degradation of habitat, protection of overall watershed health and 

impacts on water quality. The majority of the comments relate to the impacts that land and water uses 

are having on the watershed and that management of these activities needs to give priority to 

protecting the integrity of the natural environment. 





Habitat 

Maintenance of ecosystem health and prioritizing it above all other considerations in management 

decisions was a strong theme within the comments. Participants were concerned about impacts on 

wildlife habitat throughout the watershed from upland areas being impacted by logging practices to 

aquatic habitats being compromised due to adjoining land use practices and activities on the river itself. 

The significance of the Shuswap River Watershed as a salmon fishery was illustrated through the 

comments of many participants. Comments referenced the value of salmon to the entire ecosystem as 

well as concerns regarding damage to spawning habitat and the impediment to fish passage at Wilsey 

Dam. Actions to protect and restore salmon spawning habitat were identified as critical in the on-going 

management of the watershed. 

Protection and restoration of riparian areas, the areas bordering streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands 

that link water to land, was another strong theme within the comments received. Concern was 

expressed relating to loss of vegetation and bank damage in riparian areas due to development on 

adjoining lands, cattle access and erosion caused by motorized boat traffic. 

Riparian health and identification of sites for restoration was a key component of the two technical 

assessments that have been undertaken within the watershed. Orthophoto interpretation of the state 

of riparian areas was conducted on the Upper and Middle Shuswap River by Golder as a part of the 

Shuswap River Technical Assessment and a very detailed inventory of riparian areas was undertaken 

on the Lower Shuswap River and Mabel Lake by Ecoscape. These two assessments have provided a 

list of priority sites for restoration in the case of the Lower Shuswap River, and a list of sites to be 

ground-truthed in the Middle and Upper Shuswap River. The assessments have found that the 

condition of riparian areas of the Shuswap River varies in level and source of impact between the 

upper, middle, and lower sections of the river. 

The health of riparian areas is strongly linked to the quality of salmon habitat. Vegetated riparian areas 

play a significant role in maintaining water temperature, providing large woody debris and ensuring river 

banks remain intact, all of which are important for salmon spawning habitat. Loss of vegetation in 

riparian areas increases the vulnerability of banks to erosion which in turn can lead to sedimentation, 

affecting water quality and the condition of spawning areas. Areas of high value spawning habitat were 

identified on the watershed maps by workshop participants as were areas with compromised riparian 

zones and significant bank erosion. The Lower Shuswap was repetitively identified as having significant 

bank erosion and riparian damage. 

Watershed Management 

The comments made in relation to watershed management were general in nature identifying 

watershed wide concerns with regard to the environmental impacts of land uses, lack of appropriate 

management and controls and identifying the Shuswap River as the “ecological heart” of the region. 

The need to manage the watershed in a sustainable manner was imbedded in this theme. It is the 

purpose of the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability planning process to do just that, to provide a 

policy framework within which to implement sustainable management of the watershed. 

Water Quality 

Water quality in the Shuswap River and its tributaries featured significantly in the comments received. 

Comments referred to the need to protect water quality in general as well as identifying particular 

activities and point sources of concern. These included emergency dumping of sewerage, pesticides, 

manure management, failure of septic systems, pharmaceuticals and toxins, storm water run-off and 

sedimentation caused by erosion to river and stream banks. Land use activities within the catchment 

including logging, agriculture and industrial businesses were also connected to water quality concerns. 

Specific point sources of potential water pollution were identified on the watershed maps (Appendix 1). 





Gaining an understanding of the current quality of the water throughout the Shuswap River watershed 

is a detailed and potentially costly process. However, some information already exists and on-going 

monitoring is being undertaken at a number of points within the system by community groups and 

government agencies. The Shuswap River Technical Assessment included a high level review of 

existing water quality data based on data presented in historical monitoring reports. The review 

identified that the overall water quality of the Shuswap River Watershed is considered “good,” however 

water quality impacts have been observed for nutrients and microbial parameters predominantly 

attributed to human activities. 

A preliminary risk assessment was also conducted for the Shuswap River Watershed as a part of the 

Technical Assessment. As a result potential areas of concern were identified and mapped, largely 

related to intensive agriculture, waste management and wastewater treatment, and industry found 

within the Middle and Lower Shuswap River Watersheds. 

Water Quantity 

Linked to the theme of protection of the natural environment is water quantity. Although water 

quantity was not directly raised within the comments received from the workshops and survey it relates 

directly to in-stream habitat and water quality. Water quantity was one of the three focus areas of the 

Shuswap River Technical Assessment. 

It was concluded within the Shuswap River Technical Assessment that overall surface water use does 

not appear to be an issue relative to flow; however, summer use is up to 2.5 times higher than the 

annual use due to agricultural and domestic irrigation, and summer flows are much lower. As such, 

water use in late summer and early fall has the ability to significantly reduce in-stream flows especially 

in some tributary streams of the Shuswap River Watershed. This is further compounded by a trend of 

lower summer flows over the last 30 years attributed to climate change. 

Recreation 

Recreation was a very strong theme within the comments which included concerns regarding the 

impacts recreational activities are having on the natural environment, conflict between different users, 

maintenance of access and recommendations for management. 

Impacts of Recreation 

Concern was expressed primarily with respect to use of motorized vehicles within the watershed, 

including boats, personal water crafts, ATVs and snowmobiles and the impacts they can have on 

riparian areas, wetlands and in-stream habitats. Damage is connected to driving directly on or in 

sensitive areas or through associated impacts such as erosion of river banks caused by wave action 

from motor boat wakes. 

The erosive effect that boat wakes may be having on riparian areas was identified as a concern in both 

the Shuswap River Technical Assessment and the Inventory and Mapping report primarily where there 

was already a loss of vegetation. 

Conflict between different recreational uses was identified as a concern specifically between motor 

boats and swimmers, tubers, canoeists and kayakers. There is concern that collisions between 

motorized and non-motorized users are imminent given the speed at which some boats are being 

driven and the number of other users of the river. 

Observations from residents within the watershed would suggest that recreational use of the Shuswap 

River has increased in recent years especially in terms of number of motorized boats and people 

“tubing” on the lower stretches of the river. The increase in numbers of recreational users increases 





any impacts they cause on the natural environment and the potential for conflict between different 

users. 

The themes identified regarding recreation within the watershed link into the themes discussed earlier 

with respect to the natural environment, illustrating the interconnected nature of the issues. 

Recreational activities are perceived to be having an impact on the natural environment especially with 

regard to habitat degradation and water quality. Loss of vegetation in riparian areas due to land use 

activities renders river banks vulnerable to erosion caused by wave action from motor boat wakes, 

undermining banks and potentially leading to more loss of vegetation. Erosion caused by motorized 

vehicles, be it in riparian or upland areas, leads to an increase in sediment in the system which can 

smother fish spawning habitat and aquatic vegetation and decrease water quality. Nutrients and 

pollutants can be transported into the waterway attached to the sediment particles, also having a 

negative impact on water quality. 

Recreation Management 

Policy development will need to reflect the relationship between human activities, including recreation, 

and the natural environment. This was reflected in the sub-theme of recreational management. 

Comments included both a desire for restrictions on activities to reduce or eliminate impacts on the 

environment and potential conflicts between users, and an interest in maintaining access for 

recreational activities within the catchment. These two themes speak to the balance that policy will 

need to achieve, protecting the natural environment and the safety of users while still providing for 

recreational opportunities. 

Process and Governance 

The third general theme that comments fell into was process and governance. Participants expressed 

significant frustration at the perceived lack of coordination between government agencies with regard to 

management of the Shuswap Watershed and lack of understanding of each other’s roles. This 

sentiment is emphasized by the absence of a lead agency or single authority with regard to 

management of the river. Participation by all relevant agencies in the planning process for the SRWSP 

was identified as critical to the success of the project but participants exhibited a general lack of 

confidence in the ability of RDNO to facilitate such participation. It was also suggested that the 

planning process appeared to be very bureaucratic and that there needed to be more involvement of 

the community at a grass roots level. 

It is intended that the SRWSP will be an integrated plan with involvement from the community, relevant 

agencies, community groups and first nations in its development and implementation. The intent and 

design of the process to develop the SRWSP is to allow for a bottom up, not top down approach to plan 

development. The process has been designed in a manner to facilitate this with opportunity for 

involvement from the community and stakeholders in the identification of issues, the development of 

policy and in implementation. Phase 1 – Issue Identification, has primarily been informed by the 

stakeholder and public workshops. The outcomes of the technical assessment and the mapping work 

currently being undertaken will add to and reinforce the outputs of the workshops and inform policy 

development. 

Stakeholder and community involvement will continue in Phase II of the planning process – Plan 

Development. The development of policy and short and long-term objectives and strategies will be 

informed by working groups populated by interested volunteers from the community and stakeholder 

representatives. The outputs of the working groups will be open for review and input by the community 

and stakeholders. Phase III of the plan development – Implementation will likely involve multiple 

agencies, community groups and individuals. 





Priority Setting 

At the public workshops participants were given stickers to place against issues that they felt were a 

priority for the SRWSP to address. This exercise will not exclusively drive which issues will be given 

highest priority, but does provide some guidance to the issues of greatest concern. The ten comments 

that received the most stickers were as follows: 

Issue 

# Stickers 

Impacts from house boats and speed boats 32 

Agricultural practices (pesticide use and manure management and impacts of 

run-off) 

32 

Preserve and protect water quality 18 

Maintaining good water quality and clarity 18 

Spawning areas/habitat 17 

Sustainability of watershed 14 

Erosion 11 

Intensification of water based recreation activities (Lower Shuswap) 11 

Failure of septic systems 10 

Critical spawning habitat 10 

These ten comments speak primarily to concerns regarding the impacts human activities are having on 

the natural environment and a desire to manage the watershed in a sustainable manner. 

Next Steps 

The results of Phase I of the planning process Visioning and Issue Identification will be presented to the 

community at the Sharing Our Experiences workshop in November 2011 along with the results of the 

Shuswap River Technical Assessment and the Lower Shuswap River and Mabel Lake Inventory, 

Mapping and Aquatic Habitat Index. All three pieces of work will inform Phase II – Plan Development 

and establish themes for the working groups to address through policy development. 





Appendix 1 

SRWSP Workshop Watershed Maps 



SRWSP Public Workshops 

June 21st and 22nd 2011 

Mapping Exercise Master 



Mara Lake power boats, 

pollution (noise and environmental), 

development, houseboats 

Trailer Court 

Bank erosion 

Cattle in river 

Dock is a hazard to 

navigation at corner. 

The lake type design is not 

suitable for the river environment 

River Hygene!!! 

Erosion from 

cattle in river 

North Enderby timber 

mill - pipe coming from 

mill property comes out of 

bank, run out goes directly 

into river. 

- Valleywide meats abatoir waste - making its way onto 

neighbourhood properties - is it going into river as 

well? Whole area is a flood plain - proposed offal 

incenerator again on floodplain. 

- Livestock getting loose (e.g. fallow deer) 

and interacting with native deer and possibility 

of disease (same as invasive weeds but worse). 

- Riverbend slaughter valley wide meats. 

Close Enderby 

boat launch 

- Enderby sewer inflow 

- Enderby sewer partially 

treated sewer output Old dumpsite @ 

- Population of Enderby 200m past Brash 

Allen Road needs 

soil testing 

- Untreated sewerage 

into creek 

- Lumby sewer needs huge upgrade 

to spray irrigation away from watershed 

(east of Lumby) 

- Lumby sewerage “emergency” 

dumps into bassette creek 

VSB Lumby 

Bank by BC Hydro 

lines eroding badly 

Concern of number of 

and speed of speed boats 

No boats 

Spawning 

habitat 

Provincial park 

(extra protection 

required) 

Max setbacks 90m? on 

sensitive habitat zones 

i.e. spawning/holding/rearing 

Too many 

floaters Septic field on Bank erosion 

flood plain 

Lack of riparian vegetation 

Boating through spawning 

between farms and animals 

ground and tributaries 

and river 

Fish habitat 

Park mountain community 

watershed , NORD commision 

No jet boats 

No fishing through 

private land 

Agriculture 

pollution 

USB for 

Mabel Lake Hall 

Min water 

flows Bassette Creek 

low flows/aggradation 

between Horner and Whitevale 

- Wilsey Dam 

fish passage 

- No fish ladder 

- Fish ladder needed 

Creighton Creek low flows 

Creighton Creek 

excessive bedload causes 

flood of our fields 

Overuse of 

fresh water 

Houseboat 

effluent 

Septic systems of 

Kingfisher cabins 

South Mabel Lake 

Community Watershed 

Logging 

Biggs Creek Bears and other wildlife 

coyotes 

Bats 

Grizzly 

Protect spawning habitat 

Wildlife habitat 

Rubber boa, eagles, 

hawks, frogs, clams 

Cattle at river 

Pristine river 

Screech owl 

Creighton Valley community watershed 

as a NORD commision of local residents 

Water samples failed 

our private test in 2010 

Restrict size 

of development 

Vegetated sand beds 

- No woodlot above to remediate shoreline 

Biggs Creek 

pollution. Affects salmon 

- A wood lot above Biggs Creek, Why? 

Flood control 

- Resort sewerage system 

- Treatment plant effluent 

Ryder creek serious 

washout - clay 

land erosion 

Creek very unstable - 

indescriminate logging 

- debris 

Flood control 

Spallumcheen River 

Community watershed 

potatoe ridge 

Water monitoring 

Controls watertable 

for domestic wells 

Cattle 

Needs boat and motor 

size restrictiond. ATV 

activity in spring very bad. 

Province needs more staff on 

the ground 

Flood 

control 

Diversion from 

McAuley and tribs 

during peak irrigation 

Source: Working maps from tables at public workshops 


SRWSP Stakeholders Workshop 

December 2nd 2010 

Mapping Exercise Master 



ATV damage - Rosemund Lake 

Fortune Creek 

low flow/high 

temp 

Rich wildlife area 

in the river delta 

- Noise and pollution and river bank 

FN 

erosion due to power boat use 

Grad parties 

- Boat stream bank erosion lower 

Shuswap River 

No objective basis for describing river health 

- Environment concern 

Boats and speed of 

Erosion - ATVs, jet boats/speed boats 

Development 

mud boggers. Need restrictions on use 

Grindrod intake 

Private lots 

Streams have lost riparian values 

Mabel Lake 

Archeologically 

- cows with access to streams 

intake 

significant sites 

Lack of riparian vegetation and agriculture 

Agric. run-off, cattle 

Recreation 

Lease land for ag. 

Agricultural practices - pest etc 

Fishing/Hunting 

Erosion, boating speed, tubing (high use) Kingsfisher Interpretive 

Erosion of BC Hydro Erosion of BC 

Centre 

High power boat usage 

1 m missing 

Hydro crossings 

DW intake 

Erosion problems 

Tubing from Trinity 

(high use) 

Houseboats 

Intensification of agriculture 

along river particularly dairy 

farming - pesticides, fertilizers, manure 

Car bodies 

High value spawning habitat 

Septic systems? 

Trinity Creek 

Extractions - 

low flow/high temps 

Recreational vehicles in 

higher watershed areas 

Critical spawning 

habitat 

Forestry concerns - Environment such as 

pine beetle effects, land erosion etc. 

Quads 

Snowmobiles 

Monashee Powder 

Prevent further 

development on whole lake 

Good wq 

and clarity 

Protection of the source 

(and all lower sources 

tributaties/creeks on river) 

Cows 

Cows 

Pristine 

Headwaters lost Salmon (?) 

Private lots 

Septic systems? 

Development 

Boating Issues 

- riparian damage 

with the larger boats 

Fishing 

Silver Star 

* 

- Sewerage going down 

creeks into Shuswap River 

- Silver Star pollution 

- Septic System 

- Sewerage treatment plant discharge (?) 

Bassette Creek 

- Effluent adding nutrients 

Septics 

Cattle 

Cattle 

Motor boats harming 

shore habitat, wildlife 

Cattle 

Critical spawning 

habitat 

Wilsey Dam (fish ladder) 

Fish barrier 

boats and helicopters 

damaging salmon 

spawning grounds 

Hydro (selling?) 

Development 

Hydro (selling?) 

Development Sugar Lake 

Development 

Dam 

Sewerage from sugar 

Brenda Falls lake development 

Fish ladder 

Cattle 

Cattle 

Septics? 

Tubers - tubists? 

throwing garbage - cans - palstics 

Bassette and Creighton Creeks 

extractions exceed supply 

McCauley Creek 

Duteau Creek 

Unnatural hydrograph 

Source: Working maps from tables at stakeholders workshop 







REPORT 

File No.: 3010.08 

TO: 

FROM: 


Rob Smailes, General Manager, Planning and Building 


SUBJECT: Building Department Review Project Discussion Paper 

A. INTRODUCTION: 

This discussion paper outlines some problems, solutions and alternatives regarding the finances of 

the Building Department. A review was undertaken in 2010 which goes into details and lists many 

recommendations for improving revenues and operations and controlling costs. The Building 

Department Review Project Report is attached and is confidential as it contains legal and personnel 

information. The intent of this report is to begin a dialogue regarding possible solutions to financial 

problems, that being finding ways of matching revenues with expenses for building services. 

B. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: 

The RDNO Building Department provides Building Inspection Services to the five electoral areas and 

4 municipalities (City of Armstrong, City of Enderby, Village of Lumby and Township of 

Spallumcheen). These services are provided under Authority from RDNO Bylaw 842. The Service 

Establishment Bylaw does include provisions to allow the RDNO to levy taxes to fund the service, 

although it has historically been completely funded by Building Permit revenue. The majority of the 

costs are wage and benefit related and over the last 10 years the Department has generally consisted 

of 3-4 Building Inspectors, a Chief Building Inspector and one clerical staff. 

In 2010, a consultant was retained to review the Building Inspection Service: 

“The purpose was to examine the business of building permits and inspections to ensure that it 

is meeting the mandate and terms and conditions of the service establishment bylaw and that 

the function is effective and efficient, consistent and fair in its application and transparent to all 

parties. It was also intended to ensure that the structure, administration and operation of the 

department are consistent with the new realities of the RDNO and the new organizational 

model of empowerment and accountability.” 1 

The Review Project, which will be circulated on the In-Camera Agenda as it currently includes legal 

and personnel matters, contains several significant recommendations relating to the operation, 

authority and financing of the Building Department. The most important and timely issue at the 

forefront is the discussion regarding the use of taxation along with building permit fees to fund the 


1 Building Department Review Project, April 27, 2011, page 1 




Building Department Review Recommendations 


C. PROBLEM DEFINITION 

There are several factors relating to Building Department revenue and expenses that make long term 

financial sustainability challenging. These issues include the dependence on and cyclical nature of 

building permit fee revenues; non cyclical nature of Building Department work loads; the skill set of 

staff; the costs and non cyclical nature of enforcement and compliance; and the significant amount of 

outstanding and yet to be completed building permit files that have consumed resources years after 

the fees have been collected (for example, there are approximately 5,000 outstanding permits as 

outlined in Appendix 1 of the Building Department Review Project Report). Sustainability can only be 

achieved through a combination of changes to revenue generation and cost control. 

1. Revenue 

Revenue exclusively from permit fees is one of the fundamental issues addressed in the 

Building Department Review. Permit fees collected can amount less than expenses in any 

given year depending on building activity levels. The Building Inspection Service annual 

budget in 2011 is $812,000 however approximately $400,000 in permit fee revenue was 

collected in 2011. There are a number of issues related to the nature of this source that make 

long term sustainability of the service a challenge. The shortfall has to be made up by use of 

reserves from previous years. 

a. Cyclical nature of revenue 

During slower economic times, construction activity continues but generally at a lower 

value. There are less high value, large projects and new homes, and more renovations 

and modest additions/alterations. However, there is still a requirement to undertake 

important elements of the service. It is estimated that small value permits still require 

70-80% of the effort but generate only about 20%-30% of the revenue of large value 

permits. 

During good economic times permit values are high and it is possible to build a surplus, 

as was the case between 2001 and 2008 where combined revenues were over 

$500,000 greater than expenses. However, when building activity is high, due to 

resource limitations, enforcement and the level of attention put towards outstanding 

permits (final inspections/occupancy permits) generally tend to be less. Thus revenues 

cycle sharply with the business cycle where as work and expenses do not. 

b. Funding equity 

The Building Department Review project identified several recommendations for 

addressing the revenue problem, including introduction of taxation to partially fund the 

department to reduce the fluctuation in revenues. When considering the use of taxation 

for Building Service, it is important to note this is a public service provided by the 

regional district that provides broad public benefits by ensuring safer buildings and 

neighbourhoods and by maintaining the integrity of the tax roll for tax purposes. It is 

common in many other Regional Districts in British Columbia to use taxation to fund a 

portion of the Building Department budget to align public benefit with public funding but 

the proportion varies region to region (see Page 18 of the Building Department Review 

Report). 

Another equity matter relates to the fact that a significant amount of work is required for 

achieving compliance with and enforcement of the Building and Zoning Bylaws. There 

are no financial incentives to comply and the permit holders that follow the rules pay 

the same permit fees as those who choose not to. 






c. Jurisdiction service fee of 20% 

Another revenue problem is that the participants (Electoral Areas Services and the four 

municipalities) in this service retain 20% of Building Permit fees. This is taken right off 

the top and is not represented in any way in the Building Department annual budget. 

This practice was established many years ago without any rationalization of the value 

or level of effort provided by the participants towards the service. As there are limits on 

the amount that can be charged for building permit fees (it is based on a rate of $11 

per $1000 of construction value), this retention of 20% of the total fees significantly 

effects the bottom line. The service provided by the participants has little or no effect 

on the demands on the building department however a significant portion of revenue is 

not available for operation and management of the department. 2 The amount of 

building permit fees retained by the participants should be rationalized to the service 

each provides. 

2. Cost Control 

a. Staff reductions 

In 2011 several cost cutting measures have occurred in an attempt to offset the 

reduced Building Permit Revenue. One Building Inspector position was vacated in 

September; which represents a reduction of over 20% in inspection staff. In addition a 

portion of another Inspection position is being utilized for technical assistance in the 

Planning Department (mostly subdivision application related). Further reductions of 

staffing levels through a combination of re-assignment to other functional areas 

(Engineering – Cross-Connection Control) and by a reduction in work hours (to part 

time) are possible. 

However, if the Department is to provide consistent service and remain sustainable, it 

is not possible to increase and decrease staffing levels to exactly match the economic 

cycles. One of the main reasons is that it is difficult to attract and retain professional 

qualified building inspection staff unless some stability can be provided during 

moderate economic downturns. During times when building activity is high and staff are 

needed it is difficult to attract qualified staff due to the many other opportunities. 

Significant permit and inspection delays then occur resulting in complaints from 

builders and owners. 

“The key is to provide a balance by having a core level of professionally qualified 

staff that are retained regardless of the economic cycle and supplementing staffing 

levels during the active building periods.” 3 

b. Overhead reductions 

Also during 2011, cost savings were realized as a result of reduced training, reduced 

legal expenses, unused contingency and delaying the purchases of field use 

computers and software. In addition, some synergies were gained by using Planning 

staff to provide counter coverage for Building staff to allow more time for inspectors in 

the field and reduce the need to return to the office to provide counter coverage. Also, 

as there is a reduced amount of actual expenses from the budget, the overhead 

charges for Finance and Corporate and Administration Departments will be reduced for 








further savings. The total costs savings from 2011 should amount to around $75,000 

and therefore reduce the 2011 budget from $812,000 to approximately $735,000. 

In addition, the RDNO was successful in a legal matter that resulted in a settlement 

payment of approximately $25,000 being paid to the RDNO which offset a portion of 

legal expenses from previous years and added a small amount of revenue in 2011. 

D. SOLUTIONS 

Staff have investigated alternative solutions to the financial sustainability issues of the Building 

Department. The following describes proposals for both the revenue and expense side of the financial 

equation: 

1. Revenue Side 

a. Taxation 

The Building Department is currently funded completely by building permit fee revenue. 

During the Building Department Review, other Regional Districts (RDs) were consulted 

regarding this practice and it appears that most RDs use some taxation to fund this 

public service. The amount varies from a low of 7% in the Sunshine Coast RD to a 

high of 66% in the Bulkley Nechako RD. Additional details are included on page 18 of 

the Building Department Review Project Report. Staff are recommending that the 

Board of Directors move towards taxation for the 2012 year to fund a portion of the 

costs. It is recommended that for 2012 this should be about $200,000. This represents 

from a high of $13.82 and a low of $7.52 per average participant household (see the 

attached chart). This amount should be revisited in one year after the outcome of other 

revenue and cost control actions are known. 

b. Notice on Title fees 

Contained in the Building Department Review Project is a financial argument to 

introduce fees that more accurately reflect the actual costs of achieving enforcement 

and compliance. This focuses on the problems of construction without permits; 

construction contrary to the Zoning Bylaw or construction that does not meet the 

building code or Building Bylaw. The Building Department tries to work with builders 

and owners in a cooperative manner to achieve compliance and not move to 

enforcement unless absolutely necessary. This approach, while helpful to the 

builders/owners and provides somewhat of an educational role of the service, can 

become very time consuming with the costs being covered by all the permit holders 

including those that do follow the rules. 

In order to introduce some equity and to provide for incentives to be compliant, it is 

recommended that the fees to remove Notice on Title be amended to reflect the true 

costs incurred by the RDNO to place Notice. Currently, the fee to remove the Notice on 

Title after compliance is achieved is $157.50 which only covers a very small portion of 

the cost incurred by staff. Currently, the Department spends approximately 30% of staff 

time trying to achieve compliance and enforce the Building and Zoning Bylaw 

regulations relating to construction. This can amount to over $150,000 per year in 

wages alone and when the costs of legal involvement and staff time from other RDNO 

Departments (Planning, Administration, etc.) is factored in, it is clear this is a significant 

budgetary amount. Again, these actions are paid for by all permit holders, the majority 

of which follow the rules. 






Moving in the direction to amend the fees will entail staff keeping accurate records of 

time spent in compliance and enforcement actions in cases where the Notice on Title is 

used. Management will develop a cost per hour similar to that in the Planning 

Department for dealing with legal document amendments (currently $78 per hour) and 

that amount should be invoiced when owners are ready to comply and request to have 

the Notice removed from title. 

c. Refundable deposit 

The Building Department Review Project makes recommendations for implementing a 

refundable deposit to cover costs for matters such as re-inspection and minor noncompliance. 

This deposit would act as a bond to ensure that the owner/builder 

complies with the terms and conditions of the building bylaws. It would be completely 

refundable upon issuance of the occupancy permit if all bylaw terms and conditions are 

met and no other charges are assessed against the permit holder. This could improve 

efficiency as the owner/builder will have incentive to get the deposit back and therefore 

should improve compliance rates thus reducing administrative costs. More details can 

be found starting on page 3 of the Building Department Review Project. 

2. Expenses 

a. Lower service levels (reduced staffing) until activity levels increase 

It is recommended that the 2012 Budget reflect reduction in building staff levels by 20% 

over 2011 to save approximately $110,000 in wages, benefits and overhead charges 

over the next year. If activity levels increase dramatically during the building season, it 

will be difficult to add qualified Inspection staff and service levels may in fact be lower 

than industry standard and result in complaints regarding wait times for permits and 

inspections. This matter will require active monitoring and management through the 

year to determine if staffing levels are required to increase, even if only on a temporary 

basis during the busy part of the year. 

E. ALTERNATIVES 

b. Spend less resources on enforcement/compliance in 2012 

The vacated position in the Building Department was 75% committed to enforcement 

and compliance. The majority of the efforts from this position were used to “cleanup” 

older files that were still active. In most cases this effort was utilized to undertake final 

inspections files active since 1999. Appendix 1 of the Building Department Review 

Project outlines the magnitude of the open and active files that have required additional 

efforts to complete. 

About 30% of the total time departmental staff spent in any given year is dedicated to 

enforcement and compliance. It might be possible to re-focus effort and use incentives 

to achieve a level of compliance for 2012 and closely monitor time spent in this area 

moving forward. When coupled with a cost recovery approach to Notice on Title and 

the refundable deposit, the cost of enforcement should decrease, but the actual 

savings are unknown at this time. 

1. Taxation versus user pay (permit fees) 

Significant changes are required to the financial aspects of the Building Department if it is to: 

continue providing an acceptable level of professional service to the participants; to align those 

whole pay for service with those who benefit; and to reconcile the problem of highly cyclical 

revenues paying for relatively noncyclical costs. The recommendations introduce a component 






of taxation reflect the timely change in direction for improvements to the financial sustainability 

of the Building Inspection Service (the extent of these changes are outlined in the table below). 

Requisition Amount $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 

Tax per Average Home 

Avg House 

City of Armstrong $5.16 $7.75 $10.33 $309,868 

City of Enderby $4.54 $6.82 $9.09 $253,284 

Township of Spallumcheen $3.89 $5.83 $7.77 $267,818 

Village of Lumby $4.56 $6.83 $9.11 $250,408 

Electoral Area "B" $5.20 $7.80 $10.40 $299,549 

Electoral Area "C" $6.91 $10.36 $13.82 $397,951 

Electoral Area "D" $4.73 $7.09 $9.46 $272,270 

Electoral Area "E" $3.76 $5.64 $7.52 $216,628 

Electoral Area "F" $5.52 $8.28 $11.04 $318,038 

2. Reduce service levels further 

The participants could agree to reduce service levels further and accept the consequences of 

longer wait times to issue permits and perform inspections. This will result in frustration and 

complaints from builders/owners and will likely cause some to begin construction without 

permits thus increasing the need for enforcement. Also, if the economy improves quickly, it 

may be difficult to attract qualified Building Inspections staff in a timely fashion, thus 

exacerbating the problem. 

3. Discontinue or reduce fee retention by participants 

One of the recommendations for consideration during the 2012 year is to examine and 

rationalize the 20% fee retention by the participants. This fee is not included in the Building 

Department budget and is taken off the top by the municipalities and Electoral Area Services. 

This can equate to a significant amount of money depending on building activity levels, based 

on the 2011 budget, $125,000 was removed from the revenue stream that could have been 

used to fund operations and management of the Building Inspection Service. This monetary 

amount is less than last several years because of lower activity levels. Coincidentally, this is 

close to the amount staff are recommending for taxation in the 2012 budget year. Also of note 

is that during times of high activity there have been additional transfers to the participating 

municipalities of money from surplus, for example in the 2007 budget year, over $108,000 was 

transferred above the 20% value already taken. 

4. Reduce service areas 

This entails allowing participating jurisdictions to negotiate their way out of the Building 

Service. As there are potential costs associated with this, participants should expect to be 

required to pay their share for exiting the service. 

This alternative would require the participants to determine if they wish to continue providing 

building inspection in their communities (it is not mandated service) and if they do, who 

besides the RDNO is going to provide it. There could be significant community consequences 

to this action and staff would recommend the participants consider such a decision carefully. 





Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee - November 28, 201 1 Page 7 

F. SUMMARY: 

If the participants desire to continue to provide the Building Inspection Service, then they must make 

some decisions relating to the operation , financing and authority to ensure it is sustainable in the long 

term . Staff have recommended that the participants move forward with a number of actions outlined in 

the Building Department review Project, with a focus on the financial aspects as a priority for 2012. 

There are several other cost control measures that are outlined in the Building Department Review 

Project. Some of these will be brought forward in the form of recommendations to the Board of 

Directors. Others will be dealt with administratively. A future report will focus on opportunities to 

increase efficiencies. Staff consider these a priority while the remainder outlined in the Review Project 

should be considered during the 2012 year depending on number of factors including activity levels, 

new fee structures, and possible changes to the participants of the Building Inspection Service. 

G. RECOMMENDATIONS: 

The following are staff recommendations for resolution of the Building Department funding problem: 

1. That taxation be used to fund a portion of the Building Department budget to a maximum of 

$200,000 in 2012; and further, 

2. That a refundable surcharge be implemented as part of the fee schedule within the Building 

Bylaw; and further, 

3. That the Notice on Title fee be increased to reflect the full cost of the Notice on Title process 

and further, 

4. That the remainder of the recommendations from the Building Department Review Project 

Report dated April 27, 2011 be considered in 2012 for effectiveness and cost efficiency of the 



Submitted/Endorsed by: 

Rob Smailes, MC/P 





MEMBER RELEASE 

October 26, 2011 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

Mayor & Council | Chair & Board | Senior Staff 

UBCM Secretariat 

NATURAL RESOURCE ROADS 

Purpose 

This communication is being forwarded to inform local governments about a 

proposal by the provincial government to introduce a Natural Resource Road 

Act in the fall of 2012. 

The Province has developed a discussion paper entitled the “Natural Resource 

Road Act Project” which outlines the general intent of the new legislation and it 

is looking for local government feedback on the proposed policy by December 

15, 2011. The Natural Resource Road Project website is located at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/index.htm 

Background 

The provincial government has looked at the issue of how to operate and 

manage rural resource roads on a number of occasions. In 2008 the provincial 

government introduced Bill 30 – Resource Road Act. The Act was intended to 

establish a new framework for the operation and maintenance of resource roads. 

The legislation was met with a mixed response from industry, environmental 

groups and other users. The provincial government removed Bill 30 from the 

legislative agenda following first reading. 

In 2009 the provincial government indicated that it intended to take a further 

look at the resource roads issue based on concerns raised by local government. 

A number of local governments indicated that the use and future access to 

resource roads was a growing concern around the province. A 

UBCM/Provincial Joint Committee was created to look at the issue and a report 

was produced in 2010 entitled “Resource Roads and Communities: Issues and 

Recommendations” and was discussed at a clinic at the 2010 UBCM Convention. 

The report on resource roads can be located on the UBCM website at: 

http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/main/resolutions/policy-papers/convention-policypapers-2000-present.html 




Natural Resource Road Act Project 

The Province has developed a discussion paper entitled the “Natural Resource 

Road Act Project” and is looking for stakeholder input into the process. 

The discussion paper outlines a number of different issues that the Province is 

attempting to address in the legislation. The first set of issues is around the 

approval and use of the roads. The paper outlines the following suggestions: 

• consolidate resource road legislation into a single act and provide a onewindow 

approach to the approval of resource roads; 

• ensure that resource roads are built and maintained with due 

consideration to environmental impacts; 

• ensure that roads are open to everyone except as required to protect the 

road, to mitigate unacceptable environmental impacts and to provide for the 

safety of road users; 

• reflect a “use at your own risk” approach when accessing resource roads. 

Liability to third parties will be limited to instances of misfeasance on the part of 

the designated maintainer. Unless a designated maintainer or government has 

intentionally or negligently created a hazard that causes another user injury or 

vehicle damage, there will be no recourse to compensation; 

A second set of issues that the Province is investigating is the operation and 

management of rural resource roads. The paper makes the following 

suggestions: 

• require that the provincial government identify one designated maintainer 

for each resource road, the provincial government may assign any user of the 

road as a designated maintainer. However, there will be only one designated 

maintainer for each road or section of road at a time. The designated maintainer 

is responsible for maintaining and repairing the road and will in the majority of 

cases be assigned to the party who is considered the primary user of the road 

(whether industrial, commercial or other). Where multiple parties use roads for 

industrial or some commercial (yet to be defined) purposes, they will be 

obligated to contribute fairly to the cost of maintenance incurred by the 

maintainer; 

• require that government decision-makers determine when a resource road 

can be closed and require that the provincial government consider the future 

value of the road to the public good when setting relief conditions. An 

underlying objective is to support non-industrial maintainers taking on 

responsibility for roads no longer required by industry, thereby retaining more 

roads for longer periods of time; 

• require that any road lacking a designated maintainer may be subject to 

deactivation. One of the key principles behind the proposed legislation is that 

every resource road will need to have a person responsible for carrying out 

maintenance. Someone will need to be identified as responsible for mitigating 

the environmental risks associated with operating the road - maintaining the 

bridges and stream culverts, which will eventually fail if not maintained - or the 

road will be closed. 




Next Steps 

The provincial government is looking for local government feedback on the 

future direction and operation of resource roads. They would like to know what 

role local government feels it should play in this process and how local 

governments would like to see resource roads managed and operated in the 

future. 

The deadline for feedback is December 15, 2011. The Natural Resource Road 

Project website is located at: 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/mof/nrra/index.htm 

UBCM Contact 

UBCM would request that you forward a copy to us of your local government’s 

response to the Natural Resource Road Project. 

If your local government has any questions regarding this communication, 

please contact Ken Vance, Senior Policy Advisor Email: kvance@ubcm.ca; 

Tel: 604-270-8226 ext. 114. 

1110-40: mr-nrr-oct/2011 




From: Dale Danallanko 

Subject: Illegal Dumping 

There are two separate issues here. 

The first is the Ministry of Forests policy with respect to provision of garbage services at the Sugar Lake 

Recreation Sites. I have to assume that the caretaker/operator at these facilities is following the direction 

give to him by his superior. This “No Trace Camping” policy has downstream effects. Some of the 

people leaving these facilities illegally dump their garbage. I will assume (hope) that this is a very small 

percentage of the total number of people using these facilities. In order for this situation to change, the 

Ministry of Forests will have to change this policy and provide garbage services at facilities such as these 

throughout the province. In my opinion, the best way to do that is for members of the RDNO Board of 

Directors to be m ade aware of the issue and f or the RDNO Board to lobby the Ministry of Forests to 

change this policy. If the Board were to direct staff to do s ome research on t his issue and make 

recommendations, I would be happy to do that, but I believe it would be inappropriate for me as a staff 

member to lobby a provincial ministry without direction from the Board to do so. Pressure on the Ministry 

from the public through the MLA could be effective. 

The second issue is the broader question of responsibility for illegal dumping. There is a small amount in 

the RDNO Solid Waste Management Operating Budget under “Illegal Dumping”. What is not clear is to 

what purpose this money is to be directed. To the best of my knowledge, the RDNO does not have an 

illegal dumping policy or illegal dumping strategy. We recently did an update of the RDNO Solid Waste 

Management Plan, which included a public consultation component. The issue of illegal dumping did not 

come up during the review process. Again, I believe this is a policy issue that should be addressed by 

the Board of Directors. If the Board wants to deal with illegal dumping, the RDNOs role and 

responsibilities need to be clear. Under what circumstances would the RDNO get involved in an illegal 

dump cleanup? Who would do the clean up? How would it be funded? I believe these are questions that 

need to be addressed at a Board level. Once again, if the Board were to direct staff to do some research 

on this issue and make recommendations, I would be happy to do that. 

This is a complicated issue, with no easy solutions. If the RDNO were to take an active role in cleaning 

up illegal dumps, would this have the unintended consequence of increasing the magnitude of the 

problem as people would be less hesitant to illegally dump if they knew it was going to be cleaned up? I 

don’t know. People throw their empty popcorn boxes on t he floor at the movie theater knowing that 

somebody is going to come and clean it up. If no such service was provided, I believe that most people 

would be more likely to take responsibility for their own empty container and place it in the garbage can. 

Some people are responsible and do that anyway, some people would still leave it even if there was 

nobody to clean it up and would expect somebody else to clean up their mess. A poor analogy perhaps, 

but illegal dumping is not an easy issue. In a perfect world, people would take responsibility for their own 

waste, but we know that not likely to happen anytime soon. 

Thanks. 

Dale Danallanko, B.A.Sc. | Recycling and Disposal Facilities Operations Manager | Regional District 

of North Okanagan | 9848 Aberdeen Road Coldstream BC V1B 2K9 | 

P 250.550.3744 | F 250.550.3701 | E dale.danallanko@rdno.ca | W www.rdno.ca 







REPORT 

File No.: 7170.01 

TO: 

FROM: 


Community Protective Services 


SUBJECT: 

North Okanagan Jaws of Life Coordination Understanding 


That it be recommended to the Board that staff be authorized to sign the Memorandum of 

Understanding referred to as North Okanagan Jaws of Life Coordination Understanding. 

BACKGROUND: 

Jaws (120) Dissolution of Service, Bylaw 2517 was given first three readings at the September 

26, 2011 Board Meeting and was subsequently referred to partiCipants. 

Fundamental to support of Bylaw 2517 is agreement amongst participants that a region wide 

Jaws of Life service be maintained through individual fire departments after January 1, 2012. 

ACTIONS: 

Each jurisdiction has been provided with information necessary to register with Emergency 

Management BC to ensure eligibility for cost recovery when responding to Jaws incidents 

outside fire protection areas. 

The subject MOU sets out the terms of understanding necessary to define response areas 

covered by each individual fire department which in aggregate will provide region wide Jaws 

response effective January 1, 2012, 

This information will be provided to Fire Dispatchers in order to provide timely and accurate 

dispatch of Jaws calls. 

Submitted by: 

Approved for inclusion: 

Attachment: 




NOILeD 2012 

Memorandum of Understanding 

North Okanagan Jaws of Life Coordination Understanding 

This Memorandum of Understanding is an arrangement between local governments (the "parties") 

identified by their signatories for purposes of providing coordinated and region wide response to 

vehicle and equipment incidents requiring Jaws of Life service in the North Okanagan. 

I. MISSION 

The North Okanagan Jaws of Life Coordination Understanding (NOJLCU) is an arrangement 

between local governments for the provision of Jaws of Life response outside fire protection areas 

in the Regional District of North Okanagan. 

The patties wish to enter into this NOJLCU to define response areas assigned to each fire 

department. 

Nothing in this NOJLCU shall prevent another fire department(s) from responding, if so requested 

by the fire department assigned to respond pursuant to this arrangement or when requested by the 

Provincial Authority responsible for road rescue services. 

II. 

PURPOSE AND SCOPE 

The purpose of the NOJLCU is to create a framework of cooperation and shared understanding 

between the parties as to Jaws of Life response to vehicle and equipment incidents throughout the 

North Okanagan. This is not an agreement to provide services to each other but rather an 

understanding of who will respond where and when tasked to do so by P.E.P., in areas outside of 

fire protection in order to avoid duplication of service or confusion for the 911 system. 

The parties shall in addition to providing Jaws of Life service within its own fire protection area, 

provide response to areas outside its fire protection area pursuant to terms of this NOJLCU. 

III. 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

Each party will appoint a person to serve as the official contact and coordinate the activities of each 

organization in carrying out this NOJLCU. 

The participants agree to the following tasks: 

o Respond to motor vehicle or equipment incidents involving known or suspected 

entrapment of victims within assigned areas (attached as Addendum A) providing a task 

number has been issued by the Provincial Authority responsible for road rescue 

serVIces. 

o Each organization shall be responsible for completing and submitting its own claim 

forms as applicable for cost recovery from the Provincial Authority. 




NOjLeU 2012 

Signature of (Local Government) Representative: ____________ Date: ______ _ 

Printed Name: _________________ Title: ___________ _ 

Local Government: --------------------------------------------------------- 

Fire Department: _______________________________ __ 


Printed Name: 

Title: 

----------------- ------------ 


Fire Department: _______________________________ __ 



Local Government: -------------------------------- 

Fire Department: _______________________________ _ 











December 8, 2011 - Item F.12a 

Vernon/North Okanagan RCMP 

Regional Crime Prevention Programs Coordinator 

Report to the Regional District North Okanagan 

Board of Directors 

Date: November 28th 2011. 

. 

• Coordinator attended the BC Crime Prevention Association Training Symposium 

in Burnaby for 4 days in the month of November. 

• Coordinator attended the November’s North Okanagan Seniors Action Network 

meeting at the Peoples Place, Vernon regarding senior’s issues. 

• Coordinator has attended Excel part 1 / 2, training course this month provided by 

the City of Vernon over 2 days at the Water Reclamation depot, Vernon. 

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

regarding the 5 Electoral Areas. 

• Coordinator prepares Drug Awareness talks at Community Policing office. 

• Coordinator prepares Fraud, Cons and Scams presentation. 

• Coordinator met with Christine Silver Area representative for ICBC regarding 

future program involvement in the area. 

• Speed reader board from ICBC Representative Road Safety Coordinator being 

used in the RDNO Electoral areas by Coordinator. 

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

and businesses regarding safety / crime concerns in their community. 

• Coordinator attended Kal Secondary School for information on school Lock Down 

• Bi weekly email sent to Block watch contacts with updates and Crime tips. 

• Coordinator has taken 1 Annual days leave holiday in November. 

• Coordinator has taken 1 Bank Holiday in November, Remembrance Day. 




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

• Speed Watch program performed on 2 occasions during November on Silver 

Star Road by BX Elementary School by Coordinator. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 1 occasion during November on Pleasant 

Valley Road by Coordinator, driver speed awareness / education 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 COP program. 

• Citizens on Patrol are regularly checking the Community Gardens in Area B 

during Thursday, Friday and Saturday evening patrols due to community 

concerns during November. 

• Coordinator visited Keddleston Road and spoke with residents regarding issues 

and to refresh Block Watch contact list 

• Maintaining regular contact with the 4 Block Watch programs in the area, which 

gives Coordinator access to over 149 households / family members by the e-mail 

system and BlockWatch Captains set up. 

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

• Speed Watch program performed on 1 occasion this month in Cherryville, on 

North Fork road, close to Elementary School, during school zone. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 1 occasion in Cherryville on Highway 6E, 

located near Frank’s store junction. 

• Speed Watch program performed 1 occasion on Mabel Lake Road, outside of 

Lumby, close to JW Inglis Elementary school, this month during school zone. 

• Coordinator attended Lumby Seniors Wellness drop in centre and gave 

presentation on Fraud Cons and Scams to community members. 

• Attended Cherryville Elementary school delivered WITS anti bullying program to 

Kindergarten / Grade 1 students. 

• Attended Cherryville Elementary school delivered Drug Awareness presentation 

to Grade 6/7 students. 

• Coordinator visited Whitevale Road and spoke with residents regarding issues 

and to refresh Block Watch contact list. 

• Maintaining regular contact with the 1 Block Watch program in area which gives 

Coordinator access to 25 households / family members by the e-mail system and 

Block Watch Captain set up. 




RDNO Area F (Enderby Rural) 

• WITS (anti bullying) program at Grindrod Elementary school to K / Grade 1 and 

Grade 2 / 3 commenced this term, have attended twice in the month of November. 

• Drug Awareness talks at Grindrod Elementary school to Grade 4 / 5 and Grade 6 / 

7 commenced this term, have attended twice in the month of November. 

• Coordinator attended, prepared and presented a Block Watch information session 

at Grindrod Hall for the community, 8 people in attendance. 

• Lockout Auto crime operation performed at Rivermouth Marina, 16 motor vehicles 

checked and crime prevention notices displayed on window screen. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 2 occasions in Grindrod Highway 97, during 

November, monitoring traffic over bridge and through community, 50k zone. 

• Speed Watch program performed on 1 occasion in Ashton Creek during 

November, monitoring traffic close to the Elementary school during school zone. 

• Maintaining regular contact with the 4 Block Watch programs in area which gives 

the Coordinator access to over 70 households / family members by the email 

system and the Block Watch Captain set up. 

I submit my November report, Block Watch report and the attached November Speed 

Watch report for your information and consideration, 

Kind regards, 

Roy Morgan. 

Regional District of North Okanagan. 

Crime Prevention Program Coordinator. 

. 

Office 250 550 7845 or Cell 250 938 2260 



December 8, 2011 - Item F.12b 

SPEED WATCH MONTHLY REPORT FOR November 2011 

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 33 1 

Silver Star Rd, BX school C 2 357 1 

Upper Hartnell Road C 0 0 0 

Mabel Lake Road, near JW 

1 44 0 

Inglis Elementary. Lumby D 

Cherryville North Fork Road, 

1 12 0 

near Elementary school. E 

Highway 6E, near Franks 

1 35 1 

store, Cherryville E 

Highway 97N, Mara, near 

0 0 0 

Putula Recreation park. F 

Mabel Lake Road, Ashton 

1 32 0 

Creek school, Enderby F 

Grindrod, Highway 97S F 2 47 0 

Mabel Lake Road, Kingfisher F 0 0 0 

Other location(s) 

# of 

deployments 

with police 

presence 

(2 or 3 strikes) 

# of 

tickets 

issued 

TOTALS 

9 560 3 

Total visibility hours 

9 

# of Warning Letters issued 

0 

Total admin hours 

1.0 

# of Active Volunteers 

0 

TOTAL HOURS 

10.5 

# of Seat Belt Surveys 

0 

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

Please email to: kari.monteiro@icbc.com 

Phone: (250) 729-3505/Fax: (250) 729-3547 



December 8, 2011 - Item F.12c 

Date: November 28 th 2011. 

Vernon/North Okanagan RCMP 

Regional Crime Prevention Programs Coordinator 

Report to the Regional District North Okanagan 

Board of Directors 

Details of the Block Watch programs I oversee in the Electoral Areas. 

As requested by Electoral Area C Director Mike Macnabb. 

Area B: Spalding Road includes Cunningham Road, Sutton Road, Norquay Road, 

Macdonald Road, Alain Road and Rimer Road 

36 Households. 

Area C: Dixon Dam Road includes Deer Park Road. 


Mountview Road includes East Vernon Road, Decosmos and Downie Road. 


Hartnell Road includes Upper Hartnell Road, Neil Road, Day Road, 

Lynx Road and Kingsview Road 


Keddleston Road includes Wilson Jackson Road and Deerwood Road. 


Area D: Whitevale Road. 


Area F: Grindrod includes 2 nd Avenue, 3 rd Avenue, 4 th Avenue and Davey Street. 


Hamley Road includes Edgar Road, Grandview Bench, Violet Road. 


Watershed Road includes Rosoman Road and Mabel Lake Road 


I submit this Block Watch report, detailing the 271 Households for your information, 

Kind regards 

Roy

REGULAR AGENDA - Regional District of North Okanagan

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?