Ending Land Use Contracts.....Castanet article today

[dle]

I read this article and maybe I haven't had enough tea yet but to me it really doesn't explain what the purpose of a "land-use contract" even is so if someone can explain that I'd be much obliged. It is described as "It's a special layer of zoning and development control on a property." If we break that down should we be concerned that perhaps the City has something up their sleeve for that area that this land-use contract is presently thwarting and that we probably aren't going to like the thing up the sleeve?

Is anyone up on their "city planning-speak"? The author of the article, Wayne Moore, seems to suggest that we might have been "shocked" by the 12 page agenda for this meeting. That leads me to ask what does this actually mean for the areas affected? I''m not shocked - I'm just in the dark. Are we perhaps to be shocked there is a 12 page agenda for the meeting, or the fact it is regarding ending land-use contracts, whatever the heck they are?




https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#264321

[LANDM]

I read this article and maybe I haven't had enough tea yet but to me it really doesn't explain what the purpose of a "land-use contract" even is so if someone can explain that I'd be much obliged. It is described as "It's a special layer of zoning and development control on a property." If we break that down should we be concerned that perhaps the City has something up their sleeve for that area that this land-use contract is presently thwarting and that we probably aren't going to like the thing up the sleeve?

Is anyone up on their "city planning-speak"? The author of the article, Wayne Moore, seems to suggest that we might have been "shocked" by the 12 page agenda for this meeting. That leads me to ask what does this actually mean for the areas affected? I''m not shocked - I'm just in the dark. Are we perhaps to be shocked there is a 12 page agenda for the meeting, or the fact it is regarding ending land-use contracts, whatever the heck they are?




https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#264321

The description in the article is pretty accurate, in general terms. It is just a way of modifying the land use outside of regular zoning. It’s interesting that the city is discharging a bunch of them as it shouldn’t be possible without consent of the landowner, but perhaps they have solicited consent.

[Brushy Bill]

Sounds like a layer in designation that the province wants cleaned up, wants to see proper actual zoning labels
possibly instead of subterfuge ? who knows

[dle]

Sounds like a layer in designation that the province wants cleaned up, wants to see proper actual zoning labels
possibly instead of subterfuge ? who knows

Yes it does but perhaps the City wants to get it out of their way for a 'reason' hence the "clean-up". If it's all zoned multi family over there we might think it won't change much if they get rid of it but......maybe there are height restrictions or ? that will interfere with their plans.

Unfortunately, with the current Mayor and Council I always get the feeling they are trying to do an end-run on us and by the time we twig or pay attention they have achieved their goal and we are going "hey wait a minute here..." Snooze ya lose with that crew - they somehow just go ahead and do whatever they want. Kind of like don't ask permission, just do it, then ask forgiveness after the fact. If none is forthcoming oh well, mission accomplished anyways.

I will be interested to see what if anything they do have planned for there because my spidey-sense tells me they are up to their sneaky eyeballs in an end-run with this. Maybe I'm just seeing a bear in every bush but it's a group that always seems to push through their own agenda one way or another.

[Terris]

Sounds like a layer in designation that the province wants cleaned up, wants to see proper actual zoning labels possibly instead of subterfuge ? who knows

Definite subterfuge and an obvious attempt to cover up all previous subterfuge with a deliberately vague news release ...

In the 70's this whole area was still largely orchard lands (mostly pears) and Burtch Rd. ended at the railway tracks. The Parkinson rec center was being built on a former cattle farm during this time.

This is evidence of and most likely the remnants of the old 70's style baffle gabbing subterfuge techniques, used by the Bennett era Socred cabalists, to bypass the strictures of ALR lands surrounding the new rec center and pass out development permits to their buddies without going through due process.

Somebody, for reasons of personal gain and profit, pressured the city council of the day to apply this designation to these properties and now they want to sweep up this inconvenience under an already bulging rug.

The very fact that Kelowna, for some reason, has more of these contracts than anywhere else in the province is itself, an indicator of some long forgotten subterfuge.



I suspect that these lands are still designated as ALR under the "land use contract" as either an expiring 50 year lease agreement (ending in 2022) or otherwise incomplete, or tampered with, or corrupted zoning process and this is affecting a sale or development application by the current property owners.

It would be interesting to see the names on the original contract agreements and who approved them in 1972, likely under the "Scotch in Corn Flakes" protocol widely prevalent here in the 70's...

[northglenmore2012]

From what I have been led to believe if your property has a LUC designation it is exempt from DCC's, development cost charges, height restrictions etc.That's why all those towers were built in that area. Huge savings for the developer. The city giveth, the city can taketh away but of course not until certain developer's built on their land which had that land designation in that area. Massive financial savings.

[northglenmore2012]

What the city is doing is the first step in eliminating all LUC in Kelowna. The provincial government is forcing all municipalities to eliminate LUC zoning by 2024. Why I don't know.

[LANDM]

Sounds like a layer in designation that the province wants cleaned up, wants to see proper actual zoning labels possibly instead of subterfuge ? who knows

Definite subterfuge and an obvious attempt to cover up all previous subterfuge with a deliberately vague news release ...

In the 70's this whole area was still largely orchard lands (mostly pears) and Burtch Rd. ended at the railway tracks. The Parkinson rec center was being built on a former cattle farm during this time.

This is evidence of and most likely the remnants of the old 70's style baffle gabbing subterfuge techniques, used by the Bennett era Socred cabalists, to bypass the strictures of ALR lands surrounding the new rec center and pass out development permits to their buddies without going through due process.

Somebody, for reasons of personal gain and profit, pressured the city council of the day to apply this designation to these properties and now they want to sweep up this inconvenience under an already bulging rug.

The very fact that Kelowna, for some reason, has more of these contracts than anywhere else in the province is itself, an indicator of some long forgotten subterfuge.



I suspect that these lands are still designated as ALR under the "land use contract" as either an expiring 50 year lease agreement (ending in 2022) or otherwise incomplete, or tampered with, or corrupted zoning process and this is affecting a sale or development application by the current property owners.

It would be interesting to see the names on the original contract agreements and who approved them in 1972, likely under the "Scotch in Corn Flakes" protocol widely prevalent here in the 70's...

Burtch rd *never* ended at railway tracks. Spall did. You’re getting sloppy and your ignorance is showing on your claims of subterfuge etc.
It was just a way that things were done to enforce what could and could not be done, rather than relying on zoning. And, your suspicion of ALR lands being involved is without merit. Don’t let your paranoia get in the way of accuracy.

[LANDM]

From what I have been led to believe if your property has a LUC designation it is exempt from DCC's, development cost charges, height restrictions etc.That's why all those towers were built in that area. Huge savings for the developer. The city giveth, the city can taketh away but of course not until certain developer's built on their land which had that land designation in that area. Massive financial savings.

That is not accurate, in general, or as far as I know, it is not accurate specifically either.

[northglenmore2012]

Check out "land use contracts "Young and Anderson" it explains there implementation and elimination" Google it. There are hundreds of them in kelowna as far as I can gather they all have different contracts on them but I do know those towers did not pay DCc's as per the contract they had with the city. Good bad or indifferent.

[northglenmore2012]

For crying out loud go to the COK web page and you can get the address of all the properties with the LUC designation. Geez

[Scrobins94]

DCC's can be quite substantial monies so this would be indeed a big deal to be able to collect these from future developments. I mean everyone else is paying them. The monies are used to develop infrastructure like roads, parkades, etc.

[alanjh595]

4.1 Background
The Province first experimented with contract zoning in 1971. The Land Use Contract was a tool that
entered into use in the 1970’s before it was eliminated on November 15th 1978. The purpose of the tool was
to allow local governments to arrive at agreements with specific developers to grant development rights
over and above what was allowed under current zoning. This was typically done in exchange for
commitments by developers to help finance the infrastructure costs of development.
However, issues have arisen, specifically with the continued application of land use contracts as they
supersede any subsequent bylaw dealing with land use and development including: Zoning Bylaws,
Development Cost Charge Bylaws, and Development Permits. From 1978 to 2014, municipalities or the
owners of the land could not unilaterally discharge, cancel, or modify the land use contract without the
other party’s consent.
The Local Government Act was amended in 2014 stating all land use contracts in the
province need to be terminated as of June 30th 2024. This provides property owners with ten years to
complete any development authorized by their land use contract unless the LUC is terminated prior to that
date.
By June 20th 2022, local governments must have appropriate zoning regulations in place to replace
land use contracts upon their termination. However, due to this requirement of the Local Government Act,
staff are recommending whenever a property owner applies to change land uses within an LUC, that staff
initiate the process to eliminate the whole LUC. This approach will help alleviate the future work load of
eliminating and rezoning all LUC’s at one time.
In addition, local governments must provide notice to each owner that the termination of land use contract
is occurring 1 year after adoption and must provide notice of what the new zoning regulations are that
apply to the land.

https://kelownapublishing.escribemeetin ... entId=8227

[Terris]

Awesome post Alanjh595...



The cabal's mechanism unravels....

One corrupted thread at a time...

Note the dates people; and note how the cabals scions monitor this development.

I see this as a fair (and likely legally required) warning from city council to those who were involved with the cabal during this time frame of pre ALR land grabbing, to get your legalities in order, cuz the money laundering police are coming for you...

Insider knowledge now for those who profited from insider knowledge then...

I love it...