What to do ?

[LANDM]

by 'community needs' do you mean 'developer wants'?

What NEED do two extra storeys and zero setbacks fulfil?

It can be either or a combination of both. There are countless examples of both. Attend council meetings or read a few years of minutes and you would see that.

It may be a WANT by the developer to increase profit or project viability or it may be a NEED if they have determined the project won’t go forward without certain changes. You are claiming these items are a NEED but that doesn’t necessarily make it so, unless you have access to their entire project files.

If anyone feels that developers do not take on significant risk or that their returns are only positive and high, you are living in a bubble and have not been much of an observer of history, whether that is here or elsewhere.

Questions are now fully answered in my two posts.

[dogspoiler]

If the developer cannot build anything viable according to existing conditions, maybe he should go somewhere else.

[Scrobins94]

If the developer cannot build anything viable according to existing conditions, maybe he should go somewhere else.

^Because what we need is less housing.

[LANDM]

If the developer cannot build anything viable according to existing conditions, maybe he should go somewhere else.

That happens all the time. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Developers flee areas, municipalities, and approving authorities all the time when they are treated in a manner that they feel is unfair. And, to be clear, unfair doesn’t necessarily mean just no granting OCP amendments. There are certain approving authorities that treat residents, developers, and, in general, *everyone* unfairly by anyone’s standards. That isn’t good, but it does exactly what you describe......people go elsewhere.

The point is that there are allowable mechanisms for change......whether that is subdivision, rezoning, variances, OCP amendments or other possibilities. All change carries risk so there must be a reward for that risk. Existing conditions are such that changes *may* occur.....not *shall* occur. If your view of "existing conditions" is that no change shall ever happen, then I don’t believe you will be satisfied....ever.
However, I assume that you have your own definition for existing conditions.....that may mean no rezoning or it may be no OCP amendments or a myriad of other possibilities. I don’t know and only you can answer that.

However, blaming a developer or a resident for asking for a change when such a request is allowable is silly. You should be lobbying council to disallow any future requests for changes that you don’t want. Whether it happens or such an effort makes sense is up to staff and council. Until then, such requests are both lawful and reasonable. Whether they are granted is an entirely different matter.

[dogspoiler]

So what do you think of the papers filed by the lawyer ?

[mexi cali]

by 'community needs' do you mean 'developer wants'?

What NEED do two extra storeys and zero setbacks fulfil?

View.

[LANDM]

So what do you think of the papers filed by the lawyer ?

I’m not sure if this was directed to me......if so, I don’t know what you are referring to. The lawyer for the group that is opposing?
I know little to nothing about this specific situation. My comments are general in nature and simply a response to questions or comments that were posed that were also general in nature.
However, such responses were accurate to that extent. Once you start asking about legal filings, I would have to see them to even consider commenting.
Just as the developer has the right to ask for an amendment, a citizen or group of citizens have the right to oppose it. Nothing earth shattering there. Staff makes recommendations and council will take that as input, along with other relevant data including public comment if it is a matter that requires a public hearing. All pretty standard.

Perhaps give a synopsis on this filing that you refer to and we can all be more up to date.

[WalterWhite]

^^Yes, a little info to put things in context would help. Is it safe to assume this is the development in question?

https://www.castanet.net/news/West-Kelo ... ed-in-suit

[Grandan]

Is it all about the money? It would be interesting to know what the difference in DCC CEC charges would be between a 3 storey proposal and the current 5 storey.

OCPs are wastes of money; they're lip service, and that is it. It's fairly obvious now that developers in the Okanagan control the bumpkins on council of the various Cities, not the people.

Ok, I’ll bite on answering your questions.
Yes. It is generally all about the money because these are business ventures.
The difference in DCC's would be simply the number of additional units multiplied by the multi family DCC per unit amount for that location.
OCP's never have and never should be thought of as being cast in stone and unchangeable. They are prepared for decades in the future and updated occasionally (at regular intervals). They are generalized and cannot capture every nuance about possibilities that could make more sense in the future.
Anyone can apply for a variance to or a change in the OCP. This is done regularly and it would be stupid if a municipality said that they would not consider a change in a generalized document that may not have been updated for a number of years.
It is not obvious at all that developers control council, nor is it obvious that council is comprised only of bumpkins. Everyone is entitled to run for council (subject to obvious restrictions) and it is a pretty thankless job.
It is also up to staff to fully comment on requests for variances and changes. It will never be solely determined by council.

If I can offer an example of where a variance would be applicable. I live on an acreage that is long in road frontage and short on depth. My garage could be converted to a carriage house except for the fact that it is slightly closer to the road than my house which is set back from the the road well in excess to the 20 ft minimum. The garage is set back from the road 25 ft but if you follow the bylaw, it could not be converted to a carriage house because of the rule that requires a carriage house to be behind the main house.
With a shortage of affordable housing, it does not make a lot of sense. Also because my property was swept into the ALR, I cannot do many other things with the property. It does not matter that my property has never been farmed or planted to any crop, that the land is too steep and narrow and small to farm or that prior to the introduction of the ALR it was extensively filled with subsoil clay and blast rock that is difficult to grow anything on.
The OCP in broad strokes says that this is agricultural land and puts the onus on the landowner to prove otherwise. As a consequence my taxes are the same for me as neighbours who have 10% of the land that I have.
The OCP also says that this area is outside the Permanent Growth Boundary so it can not have anything more than single family dwellings. This in the face of the fact that there are 10,000 vehicles per day past my door in addition to it being a bus route and it being within the AI core area with the lowest DCC's in the city.
It is policies such as these that has put a lid on the creation of 20 or more housing units that would be infill and not add sprawl to the surrounding mountain tops such as Wilden.
What does the COK planning dept say? This area is not ready for development and consequently nothing could happen without an appeal to council to agree with my assessment that this is not farmland.
In the meantime I will take my deeply discounted tax rate and enjoy my property to the full extent. If the city wants to be serious about affordable housing then they could begin removing some of the ridiculous obstacles that have placed in the OCP and stop pretending that the OCP is the be all and end all of the direction our city should be heading.

[LANDM]

Well Grandan, since you are obviously an evil developer who has Council in his back pocket, you should be able to handle this pretty easily.

[northglenmore2012]

Grandan I couldn't agree with you more. I too live in north glenmore , on land swept into the ALR in the early 70's. Not only is the OCP creating difficult hurdles but I assume you have read the NEW Agricultural Plan. One would have assumed the COK would have sent notices to the properties that were going to be affected by the NEW PLAN prior to city council approving it.

Section 1.1b stands out for me. The COK will not be extending any sewer lines into the areas within the ALR, areas it deems would put pressure on redevelopment of the said lands or area. My first thought was, I sure hope the COK isn't taking any our the areas tax monies and using it to maintain the existing sewer systems. From what I understand if you actually do get to improve your land or build a house etc. you still have to pay DCC.s which include charges for sewer. How can they charge for sewer if there are policies that they have no intention of extending the sewer system in those particular areas.

Furthermore, I was considering extensive renovation or building a new home (cost considerations), as the one I live in is 70 years old and is coming to the end of its life. I wanted to live in the existing home, build the new place further back from the road (10,000 cars a day) then demolish the old home. Oh, no no no, you can't do that, you have to build on the existing footprint of the original home. It just made no sense to me at all. The land I'm talking about has never been a farm and its a small holding. I checked the COK building bylaws, Bylaw 8000, text amendments and couldn't any of that information. Go figure, eh. Everybody can't live in the downtown core for crying out loud.
That's my rant

[Grandan]

Grandan I couldn't agree with you more. I too live in north glenmore , on land swept into the ALR in the early 70's. Not only is the OCP creating difficult hurdles but I assume you have read the NEW Agricultural Plan. One would have assumed the COK would have sent notices to the properties that were going to be affected by the NEW PLAN prior to city council approving it.

Section 1.1b stands out for me. The COK will not be extending any sewer lines into the areas within the ALR, areas it deems would put pressure on redevelopment of the said lands or area. My first thought was, I sure hope the COK isn't taking any our the areas tax monies and using it to maintain the existing sewer systems. From what I understand if you actually do get to improve your land or build a house etc. you still have to pay DCC.s which include charges for sewer. How can they charge for sewer if there are policies that they have no intention of extending the sewer system in those particular areas.

Furthermore, I was considering extensive renovation or building a new home (cost considerations), as the one I live in is 70 years old and is coming to the end of its life. I wanted to live in the existing home, build the new place further back from the road (10,000 cars a day) then demolish the old home. Oh, no no no, you can't do that, you have to build on the existing footprint of the original home. It just made no sense to me at all. The land I'm talking about has never been a farm and its a small holding. I checked the COK building bylaws, Bylaw 8000, text amendments and couldn't any of that information. Go figure, eh. Everybody can't live in the downtown core for crying out loud.
That's my rant

Looking at the agricultural plan recently released, one of the maps seems to suggest that the Valley Road N-Sexsmith community (VRNS) is somehow an agricultural community and that roads leading into it will somehow some negative affect on it.
News flash, the road system was here for 100 years and the housing along Sexsmith and feeder roads was here before the ALR came into effect. Many of the lots that are in the ALR are small residential lots and have had homes on them for 40 or more years. The road system through Valley Road N Sexsmith bisects the community along 3 axis's with access in 6 cardinal directions with 12 different movements and VRNS is at the centre of it. The city has denied that VRNS be welcomed into the Permanent Growth Boundary for reasons that frankly stink. I say someone is getting even but what do I know, I am way out of the loop.

[dogspoiler]

If anyone would like to know more about this issue there will be a public meeting on Thursday night at 7pm. The meeting will be at the little schoolhouse on Brandon ave. Just go down Beach ave. and turn down 4th st It's right behind the mail boxes.