Community Advisory Committee Meeting Electoral Area B Minutes February 19, 2013

Transcription

1 Community Advisory Committee Meeting Electoral Area B Minutes February 19, 2013 Agenda See attached Call to order Chairman Brian Mennell called to order the regular meeting of the Community Advisory Committee for the Electoral Area B Official Community Plan at 7:00 pm on February 19, 2013 at the Cawston Community Hall. Prior to the meeting each member received an updated version of the Draft Area B Cawston Official Community Plan document, Sections 8 & 15, via . Attendees The following persons were present: Chris Garrish RDOS Planner, George Bush RDOS Area B representative, Brian Mennell; Kevin Klippenstein; Andrea Turner; Lee McFadyen; George Hanson; Lesley Pendleton; Moses Brown; Al McCormick; Bob Bergen; Gurpreet Lidder; Paul Dhaliwal; George Bush; Pard Hogewiede; Sarah Martin. Brian welcomed observers to the meeting and reminded them that the meeting was a review process and not an Open House for citizens to comment. Approval of minutes from last meeting Brian reported that Recorder Colleen Christensen was unavailable to attend the meeting, and that Sarah Martin was present to record the minutes. The minutes of the previous meeting were not available; however a summary of relevant points discussed was reviewed and accepted by consensus. See attached. Business Arising Main Street Brian reminded the observers and participants that, while he understood that Main Street in Cawston is a contentious topic that many people are interested in discussing; the order of business for the current meeting is to review Sections: 8 Private Land Use & 15 Park Lands, of the Draft Plan and that these topics would be adhered to. Chris reviewed the consecutive agenda setting process for the Plan review, indicating that the topic of Main Street would be discussed under the Section 9, Residential Management. Section 15 review was logically included with Section 8 because of the large areas of Crown land that are designated as park.

2 A number of participants indicated that this topic is of significant concern to the community and feel that it is important to provide an opportunity for the public to present their comments and concerns before moving too far ahead with the review. George Bush reported that he is also acutely aware of the need for this, and that it is his intention to organize an Open House in the spring. Participants were reassured that this would be forthcoming and agreed to move on to the business at hand. New business a) Moses Brown requested to have a Statement entered into the minutes regarding concerns about working used in the Section 7 of the Draft Plan; see attached. b) Brian Mennell read a letter of resignation from David Cursons dated February 6, Brian reported that he met with Dave to conduct an exit interview regarding his departure from the committee. Dave expressed to Brian that he had lost interest in the process, that there seemed to be an energetic quorum in place that were representing his interested well, and noted to Brian that he felt more effective leadership to keep the meetings on track is necessary. c) Draft Area B Cawston Official Community Plan document Brian reviewed that the document included background, objectives, and policies that had been prepared by Chris, that the committee would review and discuss this information and that updates and changes would be finalized at the next meeting. Chris demonstrated a mapping tool on the overhead projector illustrating how to access map detail including the Draft OCP Designated Area, Indian Reserve, Park, Crown and privately owned lands, along with topography, noting that much of the Designated Area included steeply sloped terrain not conducive to residential development. Large parcels including the Elkink and Sparkford holdings were noted. Chris reviewed the analysis section of the document. Chris reminded those present that a zoning bylaw does not restrict the Province of BC or Crown lands with regards to logging, mining, etcetera; however, can prevent third party access to Crown resources. Chris confirmed that if an Official Community Plan existed for Area B and the Province has a contrary intention for land use, the OCP allows the community to have a say in the decision making. A request was made for more specific information regarding the use of and restrictions on land designated as protected, provincial and federal parks, and Crown lands to be available for the next meeting. Chris reviewed the document structure in Section 8, noting that the sections begin with background information, then state objectives followed by policies. Chris reminded everyone that the document was a first draft, and that he would make changes as advised by the committee. Topics of discussion regarding Section 8 include:

3 Water resources does the wording water resources encompass small streams and ponds, riparian areas, and intermittently dry waterways? After some discussion it was agreed that it was sufficiently inclusive. Does the Designated Area include the river? Chris clarified that the DA includes the land bordering the river, but that the river is governed by the Federal government. Watercourse development would be a RDOS permit issue Cawston was amended to read Electoral Area B A general discussion ensued regarding promoting and encouraging responsible land use and activities. Committee members are reluctant to promote excessive use of land, even for responsible activities. Promote was removed from the statement. Members would like to see wording allowing for land use limitations or restriction in response to pressure Upcoming meeting on biodiversity at Village Office in Keremeos on March 6, 2013 may result in concerns that should be added to this section. Members are encouraged to attend A general discussion around the word significant and the potential for ambiguous interpretation ensued. 3 Members were opposed to the use of this word; by general consensus it was agreed to leave it in Chris detailed that other community OCPs often specify parcel sizes; this area has large parcels that are not uniform; and that appropriate parcel sizes are not defined here but could be addressed later under zoning bylaws. A general discussion about parcel sizes ensued. It was agreed that members preferred large parcels to be defined as 60 hectares, but that lot size would be defined later A general discussion ensued. Chris detailed that all other RDOS OCPs included this policy. It was agreed that the LRMP is relevant Chris detailed the advantages to language around one use only industrial zones. Some members were uncomfortable with making allowances for industrial use throughout the DA. Chris discussed the process of one use applications to the RDOS and that the OCP would be considered before voting on the application. Members wanted more specific language around controls, time limits, site specifications. Chris amended this sub-section A question about enforcing this subsection was raised; Chris noted that the building permit process would check this against the OCP. d) Meeting Minutes Brian asked the members how much detail they would like to see included in the minutes. A general discussion ensued.

4 Moved, Bob Bergen, That the minutes of the meeting be a summary of the main points discussed and any conclusion or decision reached. Seconded by, Lee McFadyen. CARRIED e) Meeting Schedule Members indicated that they would like to complete this process by the end of the year; and examined a meeting schedule that would facilitate this. Brian and Chris will develop a schedule accordingly and provide to members. f) In response to the resignation of a member, the number of committee members was discussed; Brian will check on the number of members required to have an even quorum number of 7. By general consensus it was agreed that the group did not need to seek more members. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for March 18, 2013 at 7:00 pm. Chairman Brian Mennell closed the meeting at 9:25 pm. Minutes submitted by: Sarah Martin

5

6 TO: FROM: Electoral Area B OCP Advisory Committee Christopher Garrish, Planner DATE: February 19, 2013 RE: Draft Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw Section 8.0 (Resource Area Designation) Objectives & Policies Purpose: The purpose of this report is to consider proposed objectives and policies for lands to be designated as Resource Area (RA) under the Draft Official Community Plan (OCP), and to consider which lands may be appropriately designated RA. Background: As Section 8.0 (Resource Area) represents the first time that the Committee will be considering a section of the draft Plan that relates to a specific land use designation (i.e. RA), a brief review of Section 2.6 is provided for context: An OCP is a plan that describes the community s desires for the future. Therefore, the Plan does not, and should not always reflect the existing use of the land. In this regard, it is important to note the distinction between OCP land use designations and zoning. OCP land use designations denote the future intended land use for an area. Zoning is the land use that is currently permitted. The OCP is a policy that guides decisions. Zoning is a regulation. A Zoning Bylaw is intended to prevent anyone from building a structure or using land in a way that does not conform with the zoning regulations that apply to that property. In some cases, the OCP land use designation might be the same as the current zoning. In other cases, the OCP land use designation will be different from the zoning because the OCP is signaling that the community would like the land use to change in the future. This does not mean that the land use must change now or any time in the future. But it does mean that any future changes in zoning must be consistent with the OCP designation. For example, if an area is designated as Residential in the OCP, the Regional District cannot pass a zoning bylaw amendment that changes the zoning of that land to Industrial or Commercial, unless it changes the OCP designation first, because any change in zoning must be consistent with the OCP. In this particular instance, however, it is assumed that the RA designation will generally reflect the existing use of the land on which it is to be applied. When considering what lands may be appropriately designated as RA, the Committee will recall that the 2010 Resident Survey highlighted that the community considers the natural environment to be one of the top three attributes of the Cawston area. In addition, the Draft Vision Statement articulates a future in which natural resources have been managed in a way that enhances the quality of life while regenerating the ability of future generations to meet their needs and that development outside of [defined] areas has largely been avoided, as agriculture, resource use and conservation of biodiversity have become the top priority. In support of this, a Broad Goal is to preserve, protect, restore and enhance the natural environment, its ecosystems and biodiversity including watersheds, rivers, riparian areas, water quality, scenery and wildlife. Context Area: As a starting point for discussion, potential Resource Area designations have been mapped and applied as a layer on Google Earth (see below). Page 1 of 8

7 In selecting these areas, all surveyed and un-surveyed Crown lands in Electoral Area B have generally been designated as Resource Area. Protected Areas such as the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area (i.e. Mt. Kobau, Kilpoola, Chopaka East and Chopaka West) and the Snowy Protected Area were subsequently excluded (as it has been past practice of the Regional District to designate such areas as Park in other Electoral Areas). While First Nations Reserve lands fall outside the jurisdiction of the Regional District and cannot be designated or zoned and, similarly, have been excluded. As a result, the remaining areas of Crown land are generally found to be comprised within three large blocs (see Figure 1), representing: an approximately 2, ha area (1, ha Crown / ha private) bounded by the Electoral Area Boundary to the north and east, the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area to the south and the Blind Creek Indian Reserve No. 6 to the west; an approximately 3, ha area (2, ha Crown / 1,032.5 ha private) bounded by Highway 3 to the west and south, the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area to the north and the Electoral Area Boundary to the east; and an approximately 3, ha area (3, ha Crown / ha private) bounded by the Chopaka Indian Reserve Nos. 7 & 8 to the east, the Snowy Protected Area to the south and the Electoral Area Boundary to the west. 2, ha DRAFT RA DESIGNATION 3, ha 3, ha FIGURE 1 There also exist a number of isolated areas of Crown land generally comprising hillside areas situated between Protected Areas and the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Page 2 of 8

8 Committee members are asked to be aware that each of the three blocs shown shaded above also contain a number of privately held parcels, particularly in relation to the north-east area (Elkink Ranch) and the south-east area (Sparkford Estates Limited). These privately held lands are proposed for inclusion in the RA designation on the basis that they represent large land areas (i.e. District Lots) that are remotely located (i.e. access via forestry road), are known to comprise steep hillside (i.e. in excess of 30% slopes), and are generally used for extensive land uses such as agriculture (but are not in the ALR). The approximate split of Crown versus private lands proposed to be designated RA is 78.3% Crown vs. 21.6% private. A small part of the Crown land shaded in Figure 1 is also subject to the High Risk Electromagnetic Interference Area associated with the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory (DRAO) located at White Lake. See Attachment No. 3. All three areas have also been identified as comprising high and very high environmental sensitivity on mapping prepared by the South Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Program (SOSCP) in support of their Keeping Nature in our Future strategy. Finally, the Growth Management direction set by the Committee at its meeting of February 5, 2013, was also considered in the drafting of these areas, specifically: relying upon the incremental development of existing vacant parcels to meet the modest residential growth needs of the community over the next twenty years; and encouraging small-scale, medium residential development on Main Street. Analysis: The Resource Area designation is generally applied to areas of land comprising undeveloped Crown land which generally encompasses lands that are used for forestry, natural resource extraction and agriculture. These lands are also identified as providing important scenic viewscapes, wildlife habitat and opportunities for outdoor recreation all of which are generally seen to be integral to the high quality of life experienced by residents. Other Electoral Areas have sought to preserve these lands to the greatest extent possible for future generations by supporting land uses that seek to ensure long-term sustainability of the natural environment. Conversely, it is also accepted that the Province retains jurisdiction over much of the land base, and that certain matters such as forestry and other resource based activities are beyond the jurisdiction of the Regional District. The proposed objectives and policies for the RA designation speak to preserving these areas of land for continued resource, recreational and wildlife purposes. An RA Zone generally seeks to preserve large parcels through a large minimum parcel size requirement for subdivision (i.e. 60 ha in Electoral Area H ) and by limiting industrial and commercial uses to large-scale extractive activities such as agriculture, forestry, resource extraction and open land recreation (i.e. golf course, riding stable, paint ball sport, rifle range, fishing camp, guide camp; guest ranch or ski resort). For reference purposes, an example of the RA Zone from the Draft Electoral Area H Zoning Bylaw No is included at Attachment No. 2. A draft version of Schedule B will be provided to Committee members as a layer which can be loaded onto Google Earth, while a paper copy will also be supplied to each member at the meeting on the 19 th. The Okanagan Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan can be accessed at the following link: Page 3 of 8

9 Respectfully submitted: C. Garrish, Planner Attachments: No. 1 Draft Resource Area Objectives and Policies (Section 8.0) No. 2 Resource Area (RA) Zone Draft Electoral Area H Zoning Bylaw No No. 3 DRAO High Risk Electromagnetic Interference Area Map No. 4 Slope Analysis Map Electoral Area B (ATTACHED) No. 5 Draft Resource Area Designation Areas (Crown vs. Private land) (ATTACHED) Page 4 of 8

10 Attachment No. 1 Proposed Objectives and Policies (Section 8.0) 8.2 Objectives.1 To work collaboratively with the Province to minimize, where possible, conflicts between the land use policies set out in this plan and uses on Crown land..2 To recognize the importance of water resources and protect and improve the quality and quantity of those resources for future generations..3 To maintain the renewable natural resource land base and protect it from activities that may diminish resource value and potential..4 To plan for and protect wildlife corridors, habitat of threatened and endangered species and ecosystem connectivity..5 To encourage and promote responsible outdoor recreational opportunities..6 To preserve the scenic characteristics and viewscapes of Cawston which are, in large part, associated with the vast amounts of undeveloped resource based Crown land. 8.3 Policies The Regional Board:.1 Generally supports the use of the Resource Area lands identified on the Land Use Map in Schedule B for forestry, grazing, watershed conservation, and outdoor recreation, where the uses will not cause a significant visual or environmental disturbance..2 Continues to support lands designated as Resource Area being maintained as large land parcels (i.e. as unsurveyed Crown land, or as District Lots)..3 Strongly supports responsible land use practices on Resource Area lands, including provincial policies on protection and use of working forests and grass land, and discourages development that might conflict with forestry, livestock and grazing operations and management, protection of important habitat, or surface and ground water quality and quantity..4 Supports the Okanagan-Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as a means to ensure that local government concerns are addressed regarding visual, recreation, timber, range, important habitat and other resources in the Plan area..5 Supports the continuation of the Noxious Weed Control Program to help control the invasion and spread of noxious weeds in Electoral Area B..6 May permit industrial uses that have strong linkages to resource activities such as forestry or mining and that are primarily conducted outdoors; require a land area of one hectare or more; and may be incompatible with settlement uses or industry located within the Village of Keremeos, on a site specific rezoning basis in lands zoned as Resource Area..7 Supports the development of small scale commercial facilities for back country recreation, including campgrounds, public or commercial backcountry huts, and extensive recreation to be consistent with the Resource Area Zone..8 Supports communication with and participation by First Nation communities in the management and development of Crown resources. Page 5 of 8

11 Attachment No. 2 Resource Area (RA) Zone Draft Electoral Area H Zoning Bylaw No RESOURCE AREA ZONE (RA) Permitted Uses: Principal Uses: a) agriculture, subject to Section 7.20, 7.21 and 7.22; b) agriculture, intensive, subject to Section 7.20, 7.21 and 7.22; c) processing and retail sales of farm and off-farm products, subject to Section 7.22; d) forestry; e) forest based outdoor recreation; f) single detached dwellings, or manufactured homes, or recreational vehicles; g) resource extraction; h) open land recreation; i) meteorological towers, subject to Section 7.26; Accessory Uses: j) accessory dwellings, subject to Section 7.9; k) agri-tourist accommodation, subject to Section 7.14; l) home occupations in a principal dwelling or accessory building, subject to Section 7.15; m) home industries, subject to Section 7.16; n) bed and breakfast operations, subject to Section 7.17; o) kennel, subject to Section 7.20; and p) accessory buildings and structures, subject to Section Minimum Parcel Size: a) 60.0 ha Minimum Parcel Width: a) Not less than 25% of the parcel depth Maximum Number of Dwellings Permitted Per Parcel: a) the number of principal dwellings and the number of accessory dwellings permitted per parcel shall be as follows: Page 6 of 8

12 Parcel Size Maximum Number of Accessory Dwellings Maximum Number of Principal Dwellings Less than 3.5 ha ha to 7.9 ha ha to 11.9 ha ha to 15.9 ha ha or greater ha or greater Minimum Setbacks: a) Buildings and structures, subject to Section 7.20: i) Front parcel line 10.0 metres ii) Rear parcel line 9.0 metres iii) Interior side parcel line 4.5 metres iv) Exterior side parcel line 4.5 metres Maximum Height: a) No building or structure shall exceed a height of 10.0 metres Maximum Parcel Coverage: a) 5% Site Specific Resource Area (RAs) Regulations: a) Not applicable Page 7 of 8

13 Attachment No. 3 DRAO High Risk Electromagnetic Interference Area Mapping Electoral Area B Boundary High Risk Electromagnetic Interference Area Page 8 of 8

14 Rd elo rc Ba Rd elo rc Ba Rd elo rc Ba Rd Hw St i Ma y3 n St n y3 i Ma Hw St Hw y3 Hw y3 Hw y3 Hw y3 Hw y3 Hw y3 Hwy 3 y3 Hwy 3 Hw Hwy 3 Hwy 3 gh Ni k aw th Rd gh Ni k aw th Rd Nig wk ha ht Rd Nighthawk Rd Nighthawk Rd elo rc Ba in Ma Hwy 3 Rd y3 r Lowe Dr ch Hw > 40% D e w Lo ed w Lo Dr e ow rl Lowe Dr r pe y3 30% - 40% Slope Value e Av d ar th ul Co Lowe Dr Up Hw Legend n Be SIM IL KA M E EN R IV ER

15 0.05 Ha Ha 769 Ha Ha Ha Ha 0 Ha Ha 5.03 Ha Ha Ha 8.78 Ha 1.35 Ha Ha Ha 7.99 Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

16 TO: FROM: Electoral Area B OCP Advisory Committee Christopher Garrish, Planner DATE: February 19, 2013 RE: Draft Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw Section 15.0 (Parks and Natural Environment Designation) Objectives & Policies Purpose: The purpose of this report is to consider proposed objectives and policies for lands to be designated as Parks (PR) under the Draft Official Community Plan (OCP), and to consider which lands may be appropriately designated PR. Background: As discussed in the background report for Section 8.0 (Resource Area) of the OCP, those areas of Crown land comprised within the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area and Snowy Protected Area have been excluded from the proposed Resource Area (RA) designation. It has been the practice of the Regional District Board in the recent reviews of other Electoral Area OCPs to designate Provincial Parks and Protected Areas as PR, and it will be proposed that a similar practice be pursued in Electoral Area B should a Draft OCP be brought forward for consideration. Similar to the RA designation, the PR designation is not applied exclusively to Crown land and can be considered on other lands, such as those maintained by the Regional District for park purposes. In the context of Electoral Area B, this would include Kobau Park, which is an approximately 8.7 ha area of land that adjoins the Similkameen River at the south end of Coulthard Road. There is also the issue of regional trails, including the proposed Burlington Northern Rail Trail which seeks to utilise an approximately 13.3 km stretch of the abandoned Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway rail bed from the Red Bridge in Keremeos to Kobau Park in Cawston. Although the Regional District has obtained access rights as far as Coulthard Road, this right-of-way also runs south of the Townsite, including through First Nation Reserve land, to the International Boundary. The issue of trails in the Electoral Area is covered in the Regional District s Regional Trails Master Plan. The Regional District has also explored the feasibility of a trail adjacent the Similkameen River that would be constructed on the existing dyke, but would require the potential designation of privately held parcels which are also located within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Finally, there is the possibility of a National Park being created in the southern part of the Electoral Area. While it is unlikely that this National Park proposal would be reflected on Schedule B of the OCP, Committee members may wish to give consideration to the proposed policy statement and what, if anything else, could be included in this section and which would speak to this initiative. Context Area: As a starting point for discussion, potential Parks designations have been mapped and applied as a layer on Google Earth (see below). In selecting these areas, all existing Provincial Parks, Protected Areas, Reserves for the Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public (UREPs), Regional District Parks and proposed trails in Electoral Area B have been designated as Parks. The following three figures show the largest of these areas: Figure 1: that part of the Snowy Protected Area within Electoral Area B represents a land area of approximately 6, ha; Page 1 of 7

17 SNOWY PROTECTED AREA FIGURE 1 Figure 2: that part of the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area within Electoral Area B represents a land area of approximately 3, ha; and SOUTH OKANAGAN GRASSLANDS PROTECTED AREA FIGURE 2 Figure 3: Kobau Regional Park represent an approximately 8.7 ha. Kobau Regional Park FIGURE 3 Page 2 of 7

18 Analysis: Parks and open space are fundamental to the health and wellness of the residents in a community. Parks may function as passive recreation for such activities as hiking and walking, protection for wildlife habitat, sports fields, and children s playground or for transportation linkages. The need for additional community parks in the Plan area, however, is moderated by the extensive opportunities for outdoor recreation pursuits available on Crown land. In response, the Draft OCP objectives for lands designated as Parks speaks to maintaining existing opportunities and resources to use Crown land (i.e. backcountry ) and working towards the creation of an integrated trail and park system (i.e. connecting the Red Bridge to Kobau Park). The proposed policies are generally in support of these objectives, but also include specific references to the proposed South Okanagan Similkameen National Park and Parkland Dedication requirements under Section 941 of the Local Government Act, each of which are discussed in more detail below. National Park A significant portion of the Electoral Area has previously been included within the feasibility studies being conducted in relation to the creation of a National Park Reserve in the South Okanagan Lower Similkameen to represent the Interior Dry Plateau Natural Region. In 2003, the Governments of Canada and British Columbia signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing the two governments to examine the feasibility of creating such a park in the area. According to Parks Canada, the Interior Dry Plateau Natural Region is characterized by flat or rolling plains dissected by deep narrow valleys, gorges and long, narrow lakes. Vegetation ranges from parched "desert-like" conditions on valley bottoms, through moist sub-alpine forest to alpine tundra on mountain tops. This is one of the most ecologically diverse regions in Canada, and a significant portion of the region's biota is found nowhere else in the country. Previously, the Regional District Board resolved, at its meeting of February 20, 2003, to express their support for the designation of the South Okanagan Desert and Grassland Area as a candidate site to be considered as a National Park in Region 3 by the Canada Parks Agency. At its meeting of April 19, 2012, the Board resolved to request that: 1. The Province of BC re-engage in formal discussions with the Government of Canada re the proposed South Okanagan Similkameen National Park; 2. That the Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen be briefed on the results of the Feasibility Study Report that was submitted to the Province in December 2010 and that the Province release it to the public; and 3. That the Regional District Okanagan Similkameen be briefed during and at the completion of these formal talks re the National Park. Given the uncertainty surrounding the National Park initiative following the withdrawal of the Province from negotiations in 2012, it is being proposed that the only policy statement regarding the National Park to be included in the Plan be a reiteration of the Board s resolution of April 19, Namely, that the Regional Board: Encourages the Government of Canada and Government of British Columbia to re-engage in formal discussions regarding the proposed South Okanagan Similkameen National Park. Committee members are asked to consider if any additional policy statements regarding the proposed National Park and which are generally consistent with the previous positions adopted by the Regional District Board should be included within the Plan. Parkland Dedication Page 3 of 7

19 Under Section 941(2) of the Local Government Act, the Regional District must, at the time of subdivision obtain from the owner of land being subdivided a dedication in the amount of 5% parkland in a location acceptable to the Regional District, or a payment of 5% cash-in-lieu. The value of the 5% dedication is based upon the assessed value of the land at the time of subdivision, but is not applied to subdivisions in which: fewer than 3 additional lots would be created; the smallest lot being created is larger than 2 hectares (4.94 acres); or a consolidation of existing parcels is being undertaken. Importantly, the Regional District may only take cash-in-lieu where a Community Parks Service function exists. In the absence of such a function, the Regional District may only accept land. In the context of Electoral Area B, a Community Parks Service function was created by the Regional District Board at its meeting of December 18, 2003, following the adoption of Bylaw No. 2234, 2003, in order to provide for the operation and maintenance of Kobau Park, and other such community parks as may be established in Electoral Area B from time to time. Despite this, a Parkland Dedication Account has yet to be created for Electoral Area B, which would seem to imply that over the intervening ten year period the Regional District has not been required to collect a cash-in-lieu contribution as a result of subdivision. Nevertheless, should, in future, a cash-in-lieu contribution be collected, it would only be able to be expended on the purchase of land (and possibly capital for those lands), but not in relation to any operations. In the absence of an OCP, the Regional District s Park Land Dedication Policy becomes the default reference document for the acceptance of parkland or cash-in-lieu in Electoral Area B. Generally, this Policy seeks to ensure that lands intended for active parks (i.e. playing/sports fields) are situated on relatively flat lands (i.e. slopes less than 5%); that passive parks (i.e. walking trails) may have slopes greater than 5%, but must be accessible to the public; and that environmentally sensitive areas should generally not be included in parkland dedication calculations. The Draft OCP seeks to address this by providing a more comprehensive list of policies related to parkland dedication in Electoral Area B. Specifically, it proposes to formally designate the whole of the Electoral Area as having future park potential (in accordance with the Act); establish more detailed criteria governing the acceptance of land; discourage the contribution of inaccessible, un-useable or otherwise degraded areas of land; and outlining that any moneys collected can be used anywhere within the Electoral Area (i.e. monies collected from a subdivision in the Richter Pass area can be used to provide parkland within the Cawston Townsite). Parks and Recreation (PR) Zone The Parks and Recreation (PR) Zone generally seeks to limit the range of uses that can occur on lands designated as Park by permitting only low intensity uses such as parks, recreation services, outdoors (defined as meaning facilities that are available to the general public for sports and active recreation conducted outdoors. Typical uses include but are not limited to ball fields and athletic fields ) and cemeteries. For reference purposes, an example of the PR Zone from the Draft Electoral Area H Zoning Bylaw No is included at Attachment No. 2. Respectfully submitted: C. Garrish, Planner Attachments: No. 1 Draft Parks & Natural Environment Objectives and Policies (Section 15.0) No. 2 Parks and Recreation (PR) Zone Draft Area H Zoning Bylaw No Page 4 of 7

20 Attachment No. 1 Draft Parks & Natural Environment Objectives and Policies (Section 8.0) 15.2 Objectives.1 To promote recreational opportunities which meet local needs and complement the natural environment and existing resources..2 To improve and maintain public access to park and recreation resources..3 To promote the development of an integrated trail and park system..4 To identify and work to acquire parks and recreation sites to meet the present and future needs of residents Policies The Regional Board:.1 Encourages the Government of Canada and Government of British Columbia to reengage in formal discussions regarding the proposed South Okanagan Similkameen National Park..2 Recognises that the need for additional park land in Electoral Area 'B' is generally in relation to: i) linear walking trails; and ii) river access..3 Will explore opportunities to develop a non-motorized trail connecting Keremeos and Cawston, including utilisation of former railway right-of-ways as well as the dyke adjacent the Similkameen River..4 Encourages tenure holders to preserve trails where their land use activities may have a detrimental impact upon the integrity of the trail system..5 Encourages the Province to undertake a backcountry recreation planning process..6 Encourages relevant provincial agencies and tenure holders to manage public access to the backcountry..7 All trails proposed on agricultural lands, including those located within the Agricultural Land Reserve should be develop and used in accordance with the Ministry of Agriculture s publication titled A Guide to Using and Developing Trails in Farm and Ranch Areas. Parkland Dedication:.8 For the purposes of Section 941(2) of the Local Government Act, designates the entirety of the Electoral Area covered by this OCP as having future park potential..9 Recognises that Electoral Area B is generally rural in nature, and that when land is acquired it should be focused upon greenways, trails and public access to the Similkameen River..10 May determine, in accordance with Section 941 of the Local Government Act, at the time of a subdivision to which Section 941 applies, whether the owner of land being subdivided must: a) provide without compensation, park land in an amount equivalent to 5% of the land being proposed for subdivision and in a location acceptable to the Regional District; or Page 5 of 7

21 b) pay to the Regional District an amount that equals the market value of the land that may be required for park land purposes..11 Will consider, when determining a potential park land dedication under Section 941 of the Local Government Act, the following policies: a) proximity to settlement areas, other parks & trails, and bodies of water; b) distance from environmental hazard areas; c) average slope should be 20% or less; d) adequate accessibility: i) vehicular ingress and egress should meet or exceed Ministry of Transportation standards; ii) in the case of trails and pedestrian-access only parks, there should be various linkages to and from the trail or park, with at least one linkage wide enough to allow for maintenance vehicle access; e) cultural or natural features of significance, including beaches, waterfalls, watercourses, wetlands/marshes, viewscapes and heritage sites; f) potential for additional dedication of park land from subdivision applications of surrounding parcels; and g) potential for recreation (active park), conservation (passive park) or enhancement of public access..12 Considers that park land proposals must provide a benefit for the community and those lands with no benefit to the community should not be accepted..13 Strongly prefers that land being considered for park land be maintained in its natural state and should not be cleared. Cleared and disturbed lands should only be accepted where the proposed park land is to be used for recreational uses which require cleared lands, or can be reclaimed for other purposes..14 Encourages developers to dedicate greater than 5% park land in areas where park land is desired..15 Shall reserve cash in-lieu of parkland for park acquisition, development and maintenance in any suitable location in Electoral Area B. Page 6 of 7

22 Attachment No. 2 Parks and Recreation (PR) Zone Draft Electoral Area H Zoning Bylaw No PARKS AND RECREATION ZONE (PR) Permitted Uses: Principal Uses: a) parks; b) recreation services, outdoors; c) cemeteries; Accessory Uses: d) interpretation centres; e) community buildings and associated structures; f) carnivals, circuses and fairs; g) amusement establishments, indoor; h) recreation services, indoor; i) public moorage and marinas; j) one (1) accessory dwelling, subject to Section 7.09; k) accessory buildings and structures, subject to Section Minimum Parcel Size: a) Not applicable Minimum Parcel Width: a) Not applicable Minimum Setbacks: a) Buildings and structures: i) Front parcel line 7.5 metres ii) Rear parcel line 7.5 metres iii) Interior side parcel line 4.5 metres iv) Exterior side parcel line 4.5 metres Maximum Height: a) No building or structure shall exceed a height of 15.0 metres Maximum Parcel Coverage: a) 25% Site Specific Parks and Recreation (PRs) Regulations: a) Not applicable Page 7 of 7