Take back the foreshore

Fancy · Post by **Fancy** » Jan 4th, 2018, 10:13 am

It's all been discussed before and it's speculation as to whether the new docks are within someone's rights unless they are built glaringly different from what's allowed.

Gilchy · Post by **Gilchy** » Jan 4th, 2018, 10:13 am

dle wrote:So I guess the issue with a lot of the dock owners must have been whether they had that "general permission" or not. If not then it stands to reason that it needs to (a) not be rebuilt if it was damaged, or (b) removed even if it wasn't damaged.

It all goes back full circle how some people are allowed to "non-conform" and others are not....should it not be across the board? IMHO being "rich" should not grant you special circumstances to circumvent the "rules" - not in Hollywood, not in politics, nor in Kelowna!

The issue many dock owners have as the floods destroyed old ocks isn't the "permissions", it's the size. I don't know why this is so hard to understand: many older docks were legally permitted and built under the standing rules of the time, but those rules have changed. For instance, there is a much tighter width and size restriction than there used to be. These permitted docks were allowed to remain, as said above, but if they were modified at all, they had to abide by the new regulations.

Not all, but the vast majority of dock owners were afraid that there docks would not be able to be rebuilt as they were, as the new rules allow for smaller docks in many ways.

dle · Post by **dle** » Jan 4th, 2018, 10:22 am

Fancy wrote:It's all been discussed before and it's speculation as to whether the new docks are within someone's rights unless they are built glaringly different from what's allowed.

Something like that dock at the Rock House? I'd say that one is glaringly different!

Fancy · Post by **Fancy** » Jan 4th, 2018, 10:39 am

How so?

dle · Post by **dle** » Jan 4th, 2018, 10:49 am

Fancy wrote:How so?

Well, to me it looks like it is cement from the doorway of the house out into the lake - lots of them are cement or whatever the cement-looking stuff is a lot of docks are built of, but there is at least some sand in between the dock and the property, or some boardwalk, or something green bushes, or something natural about it.

Does it not look different to you in that respect?

Fancy · Post by **Fancy** » Jan 4th, 2018, 10:52 am

dle wrote:Well, to me it looks like it is cement from the doorway of the house out into the lake - lots of them are cement or whatever the cement-looking stuff is a lot of docks are built of, but there is at least some sand in between the dock and the property, or some boardwalk, or something green bushes, or something natural about it.

Does it not look different to you in that respect?

I said glaringly different from what's allowed. First one needs to know what is allowed. I can't remember off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure the information is available on here. Also don't know what their permit entitled them to, if there is damage to their dock and whether the exact dock could be rebuilt under the current rules at this time.

LANDM · Post by **LANDM** » Jan 4th, 2018, 9:16 pm

dle wrote:LandM said:

Well that’s a dramatic post.

While all has pretty well been said in the other thread, perhaps look up the differences between illegal and nonconforming. Or you can run around town demanding that "illegal" homes be torn down because they have nonconforming issues. And Kelowna collects taxes on those too.

Most (not all, but the vast majority...almost all) docks were built and licensed properly. The province then changed the rules and informed owners that their docks did not conform to the new rules. They were given "specific permission" to keep those docks but, in general, could not change anything without making them conform.
This is neither breaking a law nor is it a "crime of some sort". It is not a crime of any sort and there are no "proceeds of crime".
Perhaps look up the Criminal Code of Canada and try and find mention of nonconforming docks that are legally allowed to exist and report back on this horrible crime.

Or we can just repeat the entire discussion ad nauseum.

Sorry you don't like this post being on this thread - I didn't put it here but it wound up here - I posted it under another heading but it must not have been where the moderator wanted it to be so it was moved here.

Not sure I can see any "drama" in my post but to each their own. Annoyance? Yep. You see, the reason I quoted the beginning of the article before I made my post was that the article begins with the words "Legal or not...."which leads me to believe there are others, besides me, who believe there may be reasons to query whether they are in fact "illegal" not just "non-conforming".

In any event, I guess we are all entitled to our opinions and what we might think of a certain subject - which is why we are discussing them in the forums so thanks for your input. I do however question whether the vast majority were built with permits because when the flooding was in full roar I read that there were many who were afraid their docks would not be allowed to be rebuilt because of being, as you say "non-conforming" and were hoping to get "grand-fathered" as long as the property stayed in their family.

I guess you will just have to bear with all us "drama" queens or read other thread topics if this one is bothering you "ad naseum"

It would help if "drama queens" (your words, not mine) would actually take the time to learn something about this or, at least, take what is offered when it is accurate.

That is fine if you wish to have an opinion that is wrong.....just don’t be surprised or sensitive when you are called out on it. Or, actually, because this is an anonymous discussion forum, go right ahead and be sensitive....that is your right. Just as it is your right to be totally wrong in your "entitled opinion".

If you were to read what I said, there were Specific Permissions granted for non conforming docks. And this is a provincial matter, not municipal. I stated exactly what would happen in those circumstances. That is a very valid concern for a dockowner with such permission because they cannot rebuild the same way if their dock is destroyed. If it was ok, then it would be fine.

Read up on it yourself if you are unwilling to learn from others. Or, as noted, go on your merry way with with your wrong opinion and be continually corrected. Your choice.

I will correct you ad nauseum, so get used to it. It’s just not my preference.......but that is the cross I must bear. :up:

LANDM · Post by **LANDM** » Jan 4th, 2018, 9:21 pm

dle wrote:
Fancy wrote:Probably should be merged with this one:
https://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.p ... &start=810
There's been a lot of discussion about illegal and non-conforming. I'm not sure why you would mention proceeds of crime as it is not criminal to have a dock on the beach. Perhaps why "dramatic post" was mentioned. It seems to be a complicated issue for all concerned and it remains to be seen how it plays out. More than one government level is involved.

I hear you - my post was simplistic in that to me if something is not legal, then it would appear to be illegal. If something is illegal and you make money off it then would that gain not also be illegal?

So long story short it would be nice if someone (not just opining, but actually in a position to be able to speak accurately) could tell us if the "non-conforming" docks are illegal or not. I don't think I'm the only one who would like to know.....

I already told you. Ignoring it is your choice but it is there for you to read. Non conforming docks were, generally, given specific permission (different from General Permission). The province did a very accurate survey of the entire lake a relatively short time ago and they are very aware of what is out there. If someone has one of the Permissions, they are not illegal. Fact.....not opinion, whether you choose to believe it or not.

dle · Post by **dle** » Jan 5th, 2018, 5:48 am

LANDM said:

Re: Take back the foreshore

Postby LANDM » Yesterday, 9:21 pm

dle wrote:

Fancy wrote:
Probably should be merged with this one:
https://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.p ... &start=810
There's been a lot of discussion about illegal and non-conforming. I'm not sure why you would mention proceeds of crime as it is not criminal to have a dock on the beach. Perhaps why "dramatic post" was mentioned. It seems to be a complicated issue for all concerned and it remains to be seen how it plays out. More than one government level is involved.

I hear you - my post was simplistic in that to me if something is not legal, then it would appear to be illegal. If something is illegal and you make money off it then would that gain not also be illegal?

So long story short it would be nice if someone (not just opining, but actually in a position to be able to speak accurately) could tell us if the "non-conforming" docks are illegal or not. I don't think I'm the only one who would like to know.....

I already told you. Ignoring it is your choice but it is there for you to read. Non conforming docks were, generally, given specific permission (different from General Permission). The province did a very accurate survey of the entire lake a relatively short time ago and they are very aware of what is out there. If someone has one of the Permissions, they are not illegal. Fact.....not opinion, whether you choose to believe it or not.

60-YEARS-in-Ktown · Post by **60-YEARS-in-Ktown** » Jan 5th, 2018, 10:37 am

This weeks discussion is not about docks as much as it is a property that has completely covered the foreshore, the width of the property..with what appears to be concrete.
And it may or may not have been built same time as the dock.
In a time when driving a vehicle through a fish bearing stream is not allowed.. are we now allowed to cover the foreshore. ...?

dirtybiker · Post by **dirtybiker** » Jan 5th, 2018, 11:19 am

I do find it rather amusing that until the picture of Rock House was plastered
over the news feed for something other than what the discussion is.

That the vast majority of people posting and frothing at the mouth had zero
idea that the place even existed.

As far as the slab goes, not my cup''o' tea, guess the original owner/builder
didn't like sand betwixt the toes..

Temet Nosce · Post by **Temet Nosce** » Jan 5th, 2018, 6:34 pm

dle wrote:
Fancy wrote:How so?

Well, to me it looks like it is cement from the doorway of the house out into the lake - lots of them are cement or whatever the cement-looking stuff is a lot of docks are built of, but there is at least some sand in between the dock and the property, or some boardwalk, or something green bushes, or something natural about it.

Does it not look different to you in that respect?

It is concrete and may look different but dock is not 'illegal'.

LTD · Post by **LTD** » Jan 5th, 2018, 8:00 pm

its actually not concrete and also has steps on either side on the beach so the cry babies on here who have probably never even tried to walk the foreshore can get over it

Temet Nosce · Post by **Temet Nosce** » Jan 5th, 2018, 8:06 pm

It is concrete... take a spin by in the summer see for yourself.

Vacancyrate · Post by **Vacancyrate** » Dec 19th, 2019, 10:31 am

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... ock#272975

Why do rich guys think they can buy their way out of everything?

The Ministry said that the dock would damage salmon spawning grounds and the owner of the dock offered to make a “substantial donation” to help fish habitat elsewhere.

"I'll take a dump here and pay for a toilet to be built across town"

Bye Bye illegal dock.