regular agenda · regular agenda . a. approval of agenda . 1. regular agenda – july 7, 2011...

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, July 7, 2011 10:30 am

REGULAR AGENDA

A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

1. Regular Agenda – July 7, 2011

(Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items)

RECOMMENDATION 1 That the Agenda of the July 7, 2011 Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting be approved as presented.

B. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

1. Electoral Area Advisory Committee – June 2, 2011

RECOMMENDATION 2 That the minutes of the June 2, 2011 Electoral Area Advisory Committee Meeting be adopted as circulated.

C. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

1. Vernon / North Okanagan Safe Communities Unit - Report dated June 27, 2011

- June SpeedWatch Form

RECOMMENDATION 3 Page 6 That the June 27, 2011 Vernon / North Okanagan Detachment – Safe Communities Unit report be received for information.

2. Development Variance Permit Application and Lot Frontage Waiver Request

Saunders & Woolliams c/o Monashee Surveying (See item F.1) 3. Development Permit Application

Tracey (See item F.2)

4. Waiver of Lot Frontage Request

Jackson c/o M.E. Maddox (See item F.3)

5. Waiver of Lot Frontage Request Ayotte (See item F.4)

Electoral Area Advisory Committee Agenda – Regular - 2 - July 7, 2011 D. REPORTS

1. Advisory Planning Commission Meetings

RECOMMENDATION 4 Page 10 That the minutes of the following Advisory Planning Commission meetings be received for information:

a. Electoral Area “B” – Meeting of July 4, 2011 (to be distributed at meeting) b. Electoral Area “C” – Meeting of June 29, 2011 (to be distributed at meeting) c. Electoral Area "D" – Meeting of June 30, 2011 (to be distributed at meeting) d. Electoral Area "F" – Meeting of June 20, 2011

2. Sustainability Program Report

- Staff report dated June 17, 2011 RECOMMENDATION 5 Page 12 That the Sustainability Report dated June 17, 2011 be received for information.

3. 2011 Regionally Significant Projects (RSP) Working Group Terms of Reference

and Proposed Projects - Staff report dated March 23, 2011 RECOMMENDATION 6 Page 14 That the report dated March 23, 2011 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding Regionally Significant Projects Working Group Terms of References and Proposed Projects be received for information.

4. Public Address (PA) System Use Request in Electoral Area “D” – Wild Salmon

Music Festival - Staff report dated June 23, 2011 RECOMMENDATION 7 Page 32 That the report from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer dated June 23, 2011 regarding approval for use of a PA sound amplification system at 249 Lumby Mabel Lake Road within Electoral Area “D” be received for information.

Electoral Area Advisory Committee Agenda – Regular - 3 - July 7, 2011

5. 2011 Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative Report - Staff report dated June 20, 2011 - B.C. Wildland Fire Management Strategy Executive Summary - Ministry of Forests and Range Press Release, September 23, 2010 - UBCM Member Release, April 8, 2011 - UBCM Member Release, June 14, 2011

RECOMMENDATION 8 4 That the 2011 Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative Report be received for information; and further That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be authorized to apply for Operational Fuel Treatment funding for Keddleston Park, Silver Star Mountain and Cherryville Community Forest projects and in so doing agree to provide overall grant management for those projects following successful award.

E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

F. NEW BUSINESS

1. Development Variance Permit Application and Lot Frontage Waiver Request Saunders & Woolliams c/o Monashee Surveying [File No. 11-0239-C-DVP / 11-0002-C-WVR] - Staff report dated May 31, 2011

RECOMMENDATION 9 Page 41 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that, upon consideration of input from adjacent landowners, a Development Variance Permit be issued for the properties legally described as Lot A, Sec. 36, Twp. 9, ODYD, Plan KAP46684 and Lot 4, Sec 36, Twp 9, ODYD, Plan 29670, except Plan KAP46684 to vary Section 310 of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 by waiving the driveway access requirements related to a proposed boundary adjustment subdivision of the subject properties as shown on the attached sketch plan attached to the Development Services Report dated May 31, 2011.

RECOMMENDATION 10 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a Lot Frontage Waiver be granted for the property legally described as Lot A, Sec. 36, Twp. 9, ODYD, Plan KAP46684 to waive Section 802.7 of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 by reducing the lot frontage requirement related to the boundary adjustment subdivision of the property from 63.16 metres to 12.6 metres as shown on the attached sketch plan attached to the Development Services Report dated May 31, 2011.


2. Development Permit Application Tracey [File No. 11-0070-B-DP] - Staff report dated June 15, 2011

RECOMMENDATION 11 8 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that an exemption to Section 1701.3.b.iii of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be approved for the property legally described as Lot 53, DL 1272, ODYD, Plan 8686 and located at 5927 Cosens Bay Road, Electoral Area ‘B’ to permit the floodplain setback of an addition to a seasonal single family dwelling to be reduced from 15 metres to 11.98 metres as shown on the sketch plan attached to the Planning Department Report dated June 15, 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 it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a Development Permit be issued for the property legally described as Lot 53, DL 1272, ODYD, Plan 8686 and located at 5927 Cosens Bay Road, Electoral Area ‘B’ subject to the following: 1. The dimensions and siting of the building addition to be constructed on the land

be in general accordance with the sketch plan attached to the Planning Department Report dated June 15, 2011;

2. Land within 15 m of the natural boundary of Kalamalka Lake 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 lake, and associated habitats

3. A stormwater management system be installed to control runoff from parking areas, internal roadways and buildings whereby culverted stormwater outlet facilities may not be installed directly into Kalamalka Lake, drainage ditch or gully except where a stormwater renovation system is being implemented; and further

That issuance of the Development Permit be withheld until the Regional District of North Okanagan receives notification from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and/or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada that the proposed development meets the requirements of the Riparian Areas Regulation.

3. Waiver of Lot Frontage Request Jackson c/o M.E. Maddox [File No. 11-0098-F-WVR] - Staff report dated June 3, 2011

RECOMMENDATION 12 Page 60 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the ten percent minimum frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be waived for the property legally described as Lot 2, Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP58263, Except Plan KAP88652 and located at 80 Mat Road, Electoral Area ‘F’ by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot 1 from 119.37 metres to 11.10 metres as shown on the subdivision plan attached to the Development Services Information Report dated June 3, 2011.


4. Waiver of Lot Frontage Request

Ayotte [File No. 11-0077-F-WVR] - Staff report dated June 6, 2011 RECOMMENDATION 13 Page 66 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the ten percent minimum frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be waived for the property legally described as The Fractional Southwest ¼ of Sec 6, Twp 20, R8, W6M, KDYD, located at 180 Larch Hills Forest Service Road (FSR), Electoral Area ‘F’ by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Bareland Strata Lots 1, 2 and 3 from 196.1 metres, 141.4 metres, and 159.05 metres to the frontage of the Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road for each lot as shown on the subdivision plan attached to the Development Services Information Report dated June 6, 2011.

5. Community Works Fund Tier 1 Budget

- Staff report dated June 9, 2011

RECOMMENDATION 14 Page 73 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Community Works Fund Tier 1 Project budget be increased to $90,000.00 for 2011.

6. Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study - Staff report dated May 25, 2011

RECOMMENDATION 15 Page 76 That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that, if the Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study: Phase I proceeds, Reserves (030) be used to fund the project; and further, That the Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study Terms of Reference be reviewed and revised based upon the outcome of Phase I: Review Existing Conditions, if the Board of Directors choose to proceed with the project.

7. Genetically Modified Organisms / GMO Free RDNO

- Summary of Ms. Allen’s presentation - Reference links for GMO/GF Websites - Sample resolution for the Board’s consideration - Powerpoint presentation notes

FOR DISCUSSION Page 79


8. Meat Inspection System Review - BC Abattoir Inspection System Review Consultation Document - Letter dated June 24, 2011

INPUT REQUESTED Page 92 To provide input into the review of the meat inspection system being conducted by the Steering Committee (July 15, 2011 deadline).

9. UBCM Member Release: RCMP Contract Renewal Negotiations Management Committee – Terms of Reference - Letter dated May 3, 2011

INPUT REQUESTED Page 106 To provide input into the Terms of Reference for a provincial and local government RCMP Contract Management Committee (July 7, 2011 deadline).

G. ADJOURNMENT

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the ELECTORAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE held in the Board Room at the Regional District Office on Thursday, June 2, 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” Director H. Halvorson Electoral Area “F” Staff: T. Hall Administrator D. Sewell General Manager, Finance L. Mellott General Manager, Electoral Area Administration R. Baker Community / Protective Services Manager J. Friesen Bylaw Enforcement Officer G. Routley Deputy Planning Manager C. Malden Legislative Services Coordinator (Interim)

A. Page Sustainability Coordinator L. Schrauwen Clerk, Electoral Area Administration / Human

Resources (taking minutes) Others: R. Morgan Regional Crime Prevention Coordinator, City of

Vernon Public CALL MEETING TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved and seconded by Directors Halvorson and Foisy That the Agenda of the June 2, 2011 Electoral Area Advisory Committee meeting be approved with the following amendments:

Addition of Item C.3 – Huguette Allen – Correctional Facility Addition of Item F.6 – Public Address (PA) System Use at Silver Star (Rarearth Festival) Addition of Item F.7 – Lagerquist Subdivision Addition of Item F.8 - Actions Arising from Delegations

CARRIED ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved and seconded by Directors Gavinchuk and Macnabb That the minutes of the May 2, 2011 Electoral Area Advisory Committee Meeting be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item B1

Page 1 of 109

Electoral Area Advisory Committee Agenda – Regular - 2 - June 2, 2011

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS Vernon / North Okanagan Safe Communities Unit Discussion took place regarding the Speed Watch Program and the need for a police presence, particularly now that the busy tourist season is approaching. The Safe Communities Coordinator was requested to clarify the legal speed limit near Hartnell Road. Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Foisy That the May 25, 2011 Vernon / North Okanagan Detachment – Safe Communities Unit report be received for information.

CARRIED Waiver of Lot Frontage Request [File No. 11-0085-C-WVR] Fox, Edward and Margaret c/o J.R. Shortt Jason Shortt spoke in support of the application. Correctional Facility Huguette Allen presented information on how the residents of Electoral Area “D” would be negatively impacted by a correctional facility in the Village of Lumby. She requested that letters be written to Minister Shirley Bond and Mayor Kevin Acton requesting that the bid for a correctional facility in Lumby be withdrawn. REPORTS Advisory Planning Commission Meetings Moved and seconded by Directors Foisy and Halvorson That the minutes of the following Advisory Planning Commission meetings be received for information:

- Electoral Area "C" – Meeting of May 25, 2011 - Electoral Area "D" – Meeting of April 28, 2011

Sustainability Program Report Moved and seconded by Directors Halvorson and Macnabb That the Sustainability Report dated May 20, 2011 be received for information.

CARRIED NEW BUSINESS UBCM Member Release: RCMP Contract Renewal Negotiations The General Manager, Electoral Area Administration was requested to obtain information regarding the RCMP Contract Management Committee and distribute to the Electoral Area Directors.


Page 2 of 109


Waiver of Lot Frontage Request Fox, Edward and Margaret c/o J.R. Shortt [File No. 11-0085-C-WVR] Moved and seconded by Directors Foisy and Macnabb That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the ten percent minimum frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be waived for the property legally described as Lot A, Sec 30 Twp 5, ODYD, Plan 41544, located at 7991 Keddleston Road, Electoral Area „C‟ by reducing the lot frontage of the Remainder Lot A from 101.98 metres to 20.00 metres as shown on the subdivision plan attached to the Development Services Information Report dated April 26, 2011.

CARRIED City of Vernon – Annexation Referrals Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Gavinchuk That the annexation referral packages dated April 28, 2011 from the City of Vernon in combination with Regional Board Policy LU047 regarding municipal annexations be received for information; and further, That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the proposed annexation of 4403 Mutrie Road, 4815 Silver Star Road and 5241 and 5277 Silver Star Road are not supported in accordance with Regional District of North Okanagan Board Policy LU047; and further, That the City of Vernon be requested to consider an amendment to their policies to allow non-residents to connect to the City of Vernon sewer system without having to be annexed.

CARRIED Meeting Pay – Conferences Discussion took place regarding the application of Regional Board Remuneration and Expense Bylaw No. 2360 with respect to attendance at conferences. It was generally agreed that:

Directors receive one meeting pay for each day of attendance at a conference Meeting pay not be pro-rated for conferences of less than a full day

Discussion took place regarding per diem. Moved and seconded by Directors Halvorson and Macnabb That discussion regarding application of Regional Board Remuneration and Expense Bylaw No. 2360 be postponed to allow time for the Administrator to discuss this matter with staff.

CARRIED


Page 3 of 109


Bylaw 2493 – BX-Swan Lake Fire Protection Area Amendment Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Halvorson That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that BX – Swan Lake Fire Protection and Control Local Service Amendment Bylaw No. 2493, 2011 be given First, Second and Third readings; and further That BX-Swan Lake Fire Protection and Control Local Service Amendment Bylaw No. 2493, 2011 be referred to all service participants for consent and then to the Inspector of Municipalities for statutory approval.

CARRIED Public Address (PA) System Use at Silver Star – Rarearth Festival Moved and seconded by Directors Gavinchuck and Foisy That the report from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer dated May 16, 2011 regarding approval for use of a PA sound amplification system at Silver Star Recreation Area, Electoral Area “C”, be received for information.

CARRIED Director Macnabb requested a followup report regarding feedback on the impact of the Rarearth Festival. He advised that he would discuss this matter with the Silver Star Property Owners Association as well. Lagerquist Sudivision Moved and seconded by Directors Foisy and Gavinchuk That the letter dated May 19, 2011 from Sam Lagerquist be received for information.

CARRIED The Deputy Planning Manager advised that the request to waive the requirement for a hydrologist‟s report would have to be made through a Development Variance Permit application. He further advised that staff will review the file to determine if there are any other options available to waive this requirement. Actions Arising from Delegation – Correctional Facility Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Macnabb That Regional District of North Okanagan staff be assigned to ensure that actions taken to move the correctional facility proposal forward be reviewed and the use of appropriate Impact Assessment Methodologies for evaluating the potential environmental, economic and social effects associated with the proposal be subjected to due diligence.

DEFEATED Opposed: Directors Gavinchuk, Macnabb and Halvorson

Director Fairbairn advised that he would be sending letters to the Honourable Shirley Bond, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and to Village of Lumby Mayor Kevin Acton.


Page 4 of 109


IN CAMERA Moved and seconded by Directors Halvorson and Macnabb 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.

CARRIED The regular meeting of the Electoral Area Advisory Committee adjourned to meet In Camera at 12:35 p.m. The regular meeting of the Electoral Area Advisory Committee reconvened at 12:50 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m. Certified Correct: __________________________________ Chair Corporate Officer


Page 5 of 109

Vernon/North Okanagan RCMP Regional Crime Prevention Programs Coordinator

Report to the Regional District North Okanagan

Board of Directors Date: June 27th 2011.

• Attended the monthly North Okanagan Seniors Action Network meeting at the Peoples Place, in Vernon.

• Visited the 8 locations of River Watch signage on Shuswap at boat launches. • Coordinator gets daily crime updates from reading the RCMP occurrence logs. • Speed reader board from ICBC Representative Road Safety Coordinator being

used in the RDNO Electoral areas. • 3 Home Security inspections completed. • 2 Home Security inspections arranged. • Coordinator met with Sergeant Josh Lockwood Conservation Officer Service to

discuss upcoming River Watch program. • Coordinator met with Jesse Jones Conservation Officer Service, North Okanagan

Zone to discuss upcoming River Watch program. • Coordinator met with Chris Marrie Transport Canada Boating Safety advisor to

discuss upcoming River Watch program. • Coordinator in discussions with Dave Solberg M.O.T regarding safety signs. • Coordinator met with Dave Swales M.O.T regarding road safety signs. • Thursday 16th June, Coordinator involved in Scooter Safety event at Schubert

centre, Safe Communities Unit commitment. • Bi weekly email sent to Block watch contacts with updates and Crime tips.

.

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item C1a.

Page 6 of 109

RDNO Area B (BX/Swan Lake) – Area C (BX Silver Star)

• Speed Watch program performed on 4 occasions during June on Silver Star Road by BX Elementary School by Coordinator and RCMP volunteers.

• Speed Watch program performed on 2 occasion during June 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.

• Ongoing discussions with residents in Upper Hartnell Road. • Met with residents in Keddlestone Road/Deerwood Gardens, Area C and have

implemented Block Watch program there, looking to expand it. • Maintaining regular contact with the 7 Block Watch programs in the area, which

gives Coordinator access to over 143 households / family members by the e-mail system and BlockWatch Captains set up.

RDNO Area D (Lumby Rural) – RDNO Area E (Cherryville)

• Presented ongoing WITS (anti bullying) program at Cherryville Elementary school, Coordinator has attended once in the month of June..

• Speed Watch program performed on 2 occasions this month in Cherryville, on North Fork road, close to Elementary School.

• Speed Watch program performed 3 occasions on Mabel Lake Road, outside of Lumby, close to JW Inglis Elementary school, this month.

• Speed issued raised by residents in Cherryville, Coordinator in discussion with Dave Solberg and Dave Swales, M.O.T regarding safety signs to be installed on Aumond Road, close to children’s play area.

• Maintaining regular contact with the 1 Block Watch program in area which gives Coordinator access to 16 households / family members by the e-mail system and Block Watch Captain set up.

• Coordinator appeared in Cherryville June Newsletter “The Cherryvillan” promoting his role and the RDNO.


Page 7 of 109

RDNO Area F (Enderby Rural)

• WITS (anti bullying) programs ongoing at Grindrod Elementary, have attended once in the month of June.

• Attended at Grindrod Elementary with R/Cst Dale Fennell and RCMP vehicle and spoke to 2 classes regarding personal safety during summer holidays.

• Speed Watch program performed on 3 occasions in Grindrod during June, monitoring traffic over bridge and through town. 50k zone.

• Speed Watch program performed on 3 occasions in Ashton Creek during June, monitoring traffic close to the Elementary school. 50k/30k zone.

• Delivering WITS (anti bullying) and Drug awareness presentations at Ashton Creek Elementary attended on one occasion in June.

• River Watch program launched for the summer boating season. • Speed issues raised by residents in Kingfisher, Coordinator in discussions with

Dave Solberg and Dave Swales M.O.T regarding safety signs to be installed in Kingfisher, by Community Hall, on Mabel Lake Road, close to children’s play area.

• 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 this 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 9382260


Page 8 of 109

SPEED WATCH MONTHLY REPORT FOR June 2011 RDNO Speed Watch PROGRAM COORDINATOR: Roy Morgan PHONE: 250-550-7845 FAX: 250-260-5866 E-MAIL: [email protected]

Locations (Intersection/ Corridor/

Highway)

# of Speed Watch

Deployments

Total Vehicles Checked

Over 10 km/h

# of deployments with police presence

(2 or 3 strikes)

# of tickets issued

Mabel Lake Road, Lumby

3 183 10

Mabel Lake Road, Ashton Creek school, Enderby

3 142 8

Cherryville North Fork Road 2 56 1

Silver Star Rd, BX school. 3 441 15

Grindrod 3 228 5

Pleasant Valley Road 2 116 4

Other location(s)

TOTALS 16 1,166 43

Total visibility hours

16 # of Warning Letters issued

0

Total admin hours

1.5 # of Active Volunteers

0

TOTAL HOURS

17.5 # of Seat Belt Surveys

0

Comments: Locations chosen close to school zones.

Please email to: [email protected] Phone: (250) 729-3505/Fax: (250) 729-3547

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item C1b.

Page 9 of 109

mailto:[email protected]�

1

1

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN 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, June 20, 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: None Keith Gray, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

A. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:

Moved by Dale Fennell Seconded by Bob Honeyman “That the Minutes of the April 18, 2011 regular meeting of the Advisory Planning Commission Electoral Area “F” APC be adopted as circulated.” CARRIED B. PETITION AND DELEGATIONS: None C. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Waiver of Lot Frontage Request Jackson c/o W. E. Maddox (File No. 11-0098-F-WVR) Moved by Diane Larsen Seconded by Bob Honeyman “That the APC accept the recommendation of Development Services to Waive the minimum 10% lot frontage required by reducing the lot frontage of the proposed Lot 1 from 119.37 metres to 11.10 metres as shown on the subdivision plan.” Discussion: a. By allowing this waiver, it creates a panhandle on the property for a driveway CARRIED 2. Waiver of Lot Frontage Request Ayotte - Shook (File No. 11-0077-F-WVR) Moved by Tilman Nahm Seconded by Diane Larsen “That the APC accept the recommendations of Development Services to Waive the ten percent minimum frontage requirement by reducing the lot frontage for Lots1,2,3 from 196.1 metres, 141.4 metres, and 159.05 metres to the frontage of the Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Road for each lot as shown on the subdivision plan.”

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item D1

Page 10 of 109

2

2

Discussion:

a. Tilman Nahm explained that these lots would be strata titled with a common ground located on a ¼ section.

b. Dale Fennell questioned what happens with the Forrest Service Road in the common area. Tilman stated the Forestry road stops at the property line as far has he understands and the roads inside the property have been developed by the landowners as private roads. The Forest road is just used to access their property but have an emergency road through Tilman Nahm’s property for another exit for emergency situations but is not an official access.

c. The concern was raised about the common area and possible future development of that area. It was indicated that all three property owners would have to be in agreement on any future development.

Comments for RDNO from APC: a. Application not clear where Forest Service Road ends in regards to property. b. Application has very poor information for the APC committee. c. The maps do not show North, East, West, South directions.

CARRIED D. ADJOURNMENT: “There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:.25 P.M.”

Next Area “F” APC meeting will be held on July 18, 2011. Certified Correct: _______________________________ __________________________ Chair Secretary


Page 11 of 109

REGIONAL DISTRICT

of NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3046.01.04

RECOMMENDATION: That the July Sustainability Report dated June 17, 2011 be received for information. DISCUSSION: RDNO Environmental Leadership Awards and Inquisitive Clips

The 2011 RDNO Environmental Leadership Awards were recently presented on the Monday of Environment Week, June 6th. This community celebration event was held for the second year in a row at the Powerhouse Theatre in Vernon and included the presentation of RDNO Environmental Leadership Awards, the City of Vernon Sustainability Awards and the inaugural Inquisitive Clips contest. The evening was a great success with over 100 people in attendance despite the conflict Game 3 of the NHL Stanley Cup Finals. The audience included the MLA for Vernon-Monashee, Eric Foster and a number of Regional Board Directors. RDNO awards were presented in all six categories; Community Clean Up, Invasive Plants Control, Sustainability, Waste Reduction and Recycling, Air Quality and Water Stewardship. A number of the inquisitive clips were also screened during the evening and the winning film makers announced. The theme of the inquisitive clips competition was “Show Us Your Greener Side!” Submissions were required to convey a sustainability theme and be under 5 minutes in length. The films entered into the competition ranged from accounts of work undertaken by organizations to personal interpretations of sustainability. Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan Update

In May 2011, Golder and Associates were awarded the contract to undertake the technical assessment for the Shuswap River Watershed Sustainability Plan. The draft report is due in October with the final report expected by the end of November 2011. The resulting report and material will inform the development of the plan along with the outcomes from the stakeholders workshop held in December 2010 and the upcoming public workshops. The public workshops are to be held on June 21 and 22 to engage community members in the visioning and issue identification process. The workshops will be held in Ashton Creek and Lumby and will follow a similar format to the stakeholders workshop that was held in December 2010.

TO: Electoral Area Advisory Committee

FROM: Anna Page, Sustainability Coordinator

DATE: June 17, 2011

SUBJECT: July Sustainability Report


Page 12 of 109


Page 13 of 109

July Sustainability Report Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee - June 17, 2011 Page 2

Community Works Fund Tier 1 Projects

Three Tier 1 projects have been approved for funding over the past month and are outlined below.

Project #058 - Replacement of light fixtures in the Mara Hall with energy efficient models. BC Hydro rebate will be accessed to off-set some of the costs. Cost: $1904 (Community Works Fund allocation $1604 I BC Hydro rebate $300).

Project #059 - Installation of low-flow toilets, small electric water heater and insulation in Kingfisher Hall. This project will result in a decrease in water use and improved energy efficiency in the men's washrooms at Kingfisher Hall. A similar upgrade was completed in the women's washrooms with Community Works Fund funding in 2009. Cost: $2128.

Project #062 - Grindrod Water Utility- Installation of a backflow protection and meter box at intake shed to protect the water quality of the Grindrod water supply and assist in billing of customers. Cost: $5,500.

Submitted by:

Anna Page, Sustain ability Coordinator Approved For Inclusion:

Endorsed by:

Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building

REGIONAL DISTRICT

of NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3045.11.00

RECOMMENDATION: That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the report dated March 23, 2011 regarding the regionally significant projects fund selection process and proposed projects be received for information; and further, That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Regionally Significant Projects Working Group Terms of Reference be adopted; and further, That the Regionally Significant Projects Working Group, as outlined within the report, be assembled immediately. DISCUSSION: The 2010 Gas Tax Agreement Regionally Significant Project Fund for the North Okanagan is $4,271,823. Regionally Significant Projects (RSP) Fund has been set aside for each region and is not open to provincial competition. This report will provide the specific requirements and process for the determination of projects that will be funded. The 2010 North Okanagan RSP Fund project approval process will be administered differently than previous RSP Fund project approvals. The Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and the Province of British Columbia have adopted a Working Group model in which the project selection process is developed, project priorities are identified and grant applications are refined prior to submission. UBCM has indicated that the project selection process will need to demonstrate collaborative decision-making based upon principles developed by the RSP Working Group. The RSP Working Group will:

1. Establish a process and principles for developing and evaluating RSP proposals; 2. Identify regional priorities and projects that fulfill the requirements of the Gas Tax Fund

Agreement; and, 3. Develop and submit RSP proposals.

All applications must be submitted prior to September 30, 2012 to access this fund. It is recommended that RSP submissions are completed as early as possible to access these funds to

TO: Board of Directors

FROM: Anthony Kittel, Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator

DATE: March 23, 2011

SUBJECT: Regionally Significant Projects Working Group Terms of References and Proposed Projects


Page 14 of 109

Regionally Significant Projects Working Group Terms of References and Proposed Projects Report to Board of Directors – March 23, 2011 Page 2 ensure that that the entire funding allocation is used and identified projects can be undertaken as soon as possible. REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS WORKING GROUP (RSP-WG) TERMS OF REFERENCE Purpose The purpose of the Regional Significant Projects Working Group is to provide recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding all matters associated with the Gas Tax Regionally Significant Projects Fund project selection and application process. Scope and Objectives The Working Group will be responsible for all matters that will result in the successful submission and approval of RSP Fund applications that will total no more than $4,271,823. Establishment and Authority The role of the Working Group is advisory. The Working Group will provide the Board of Directors with comments, recommendations, identify project priorities, determine project eligibility, assist in the selection process and identify process principles. Please refer to Figure 1. Composition The Working Group will be comprised of six municipal Administrators, one regional Administrator, UBCM representative(s) and Province representative(s). Regional District of North Okanagan General Managers and municipal senior staff may be requested to attend Working Group meetings. Organization and Procedures The Working Group will be directed through a Chair appointed by the Board of Directors. The Working Group shall meet as needed and will be disbanded once all applications have been presented to the UBCM. The application deadline is on September 30, 2012. Regionally Significant Project Criteria Regionally Significant Projects do not need to benefit the entire region, although these projects should be “regionally significant”. In order to be eligible for funding, a project must:

Qualify as an eligible project under the Gas Tax Agreement; Contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner air or water; Be larger in scale or regional in impact; Be identified as an RSP; Meet objective‐based standards; and Be approved by the Gas Tax Agreement’s Management Committee.

The Role of UBCM and the Province UBCM and the Province will attend the initial Working Group meeting(s) to discuss project eligibility, the selection process, and identification of principles. It is recommended that the RDNO take a


Page 15 of 109

Regionally Significant Projects Working Group Terms of References and Proposed Projects Report to Board of Directors – March 23, 2011 Page 3 leadership role, in partnership with member municipalities, in development of the RSP proposals. The Gas Tax Management Committee, a committee of UBCM, reviews and approves all RSP proposals. Figure 1: Regionally Significant Project Selection Process


Page 16 of 109

Regionally Significant Projects Working Group Terms of References and Proposed Projects Report to Board of Directors – March 23, 2011 Page 4 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECT SUGGESTIONS A number of projects have been identified by the Regional District and member municipalities for regionally significant project funding consideration. Attached to this report are the correspondence received for proposed RSPs. Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO) Planning and Building Project: Regional Growth Strategy Implementation and priority project funding (to be identified) Criteria: Regional in scale and impact, would reduce greenhouse gases (GHG), cleaner air and

water, would have regional benefits. Cost: $800,000 (19% of RSP funding) RDNO Engineering Project: Duteau Creek Filter Plan: Criteria: Sub-regional in scale and impact, cleaner water, reduced GHGs Cost: Unknown Project: West Swan Lake Separation Criteria: Sub-regional in scale and impact, cleaner water, reduced GHGs Cost: Unknown Project: Pottery Road Recycling and Disposal Facility (RDF) Cap and Disc Golf Course Construction Criteria: Sub-regional in scale and impact, cleaner air and water, reduced GHGs Cost: Unknown Project: Greater Vernon RDF Landfill Gas Control System Criteria: Sub-regional in scale and impact, cleaner air Cost: Unknown Project: Birnie Road Material Recovery Facility [major renovation or new building] Criteria: Sub-regional in scale and potentially regional in impact, reduced GHGs Cost: Unknown Project: Eco-Depot at Greater Vernon RDF Criteria: Sub-regional in scale and impact, cleaner air Cost: Unknown Project: North Vernon Drop Centre [listed in Draft 2011 Solid Waste Management Plan Update] Criteria: Sub-regional in scale and impact, reduced GHGs Cost: Unknown Project: New Transit Bus Purchase for Enderby, Lumby and/or Armstrong Routes Criteria: Regional in scale and impact, cleaner air Cost: Unknown


Page 17 of 109

Regionally Significant Projects Working Group Terms of References and Proposed Projects Report to Board of Directors – March 23, 2011 Page 5 City of Vernon Project: 31 Avenue Transit Exchange Construction Criteria: Local in scale, possible sub-regional in impact, reduction of GHGs Cost: $427,000 (10% of RSP funding) Project: Septage Facility Relocation Criteria: Local in scale, possible sub-regional in impact, cleaner water Cost: $500,000 (12% of RSP funding) to $2,500,000 (60% of RSP funding) Project: Kalamalka Lake Road Trail from Highway 6 to Kalamalka Lake Criteria: Local in scale, sub-regional in impact, reduced GHGs Cost: $1,000,000 (24% of funding) Project: Further Development of the Middleton Mountain Trail System Criteria: Unknown Cost: Unknown District of Coldstream Project: Kidston Road Multi-Use Pathway Criteria: Local in scale, local in impact, possible reduced GHGs Cost: $560,000 (13% of RSP Funding) City of Enderby Project: Canadian Pacific Rail Corridor Acquisition, Grindrod to Armstrong Criteria: Sub-regional in scale, possible regional impacts, may reduce GHG if used as a

transportation corridor. Cost: $4,271,823 (100% of RSP funding) SUMMARY: The process that has been developed by the UBCM and the Province will require the creation of a Working Group that represents member municipalities and Regional District priorities. The Working Group format will require a considerable amount of senior staff time, as well as political agreement on program priorities and identified regionally significant projects that meet the requirements of the Gas Tax Agreement. It is recommended that a RSP Working Group Terms of Reference be adopted by the Board of Directors.` To facilitate an efficient RSP funding application process, it is recommended that the Regional District of North Okanagan and member municipalities generally agree on regionally significant project priorities prior to preparing applications for RSP funding. It is recommended that the Working Group is assembled immediately to discuss potentially regionally significant priorities that may be considered by the Board of Directors. The proposed projects for consideration should be evaluated by the RSP Working Group using the project selection criteria included within Terms of Reference. Additional project proposals should be encouraged throughout the process.


Page 18 of 109


Page 19 of 109

Regionally Significant Projects Working Group Terms of References and Proposed Projects Report to Board of Directors - March 23, 2011

Submitted by:

~ Rob Smailes, MCIP

/ /

General Manager, Planning and Building

Approved For Inclusion:

Greg Betts, Administrator

Page 6


Page 20 of 109

, CITY OF

VernOtn City of Vern 011

3400 30th Street

P:250545,1361 F: 250545,7876

File: 1855-20

February 18, 2011

Regional District of North Okanagan 9848 Aberdeen Road Coldstream, BC V1 B 2K9

Attention: Greg Betts, Administrator

Dear Greg:

Re: Gas Tax Grant - Regionally Significant Projects

As per the attached Memo to the City of Vernon Council and the corresponding Council Resolution, please consider this letter as a request for the RDNO to provide the following projects to the RDNO Gas Tax Committee for consideration:

1. 2011 Construction - 31 Avenue Transit Exchange Construction The construction of the relocated transit exchange to 31Avenue between 30 and 31Street The road row for this entire block is to be restricted to bus traffic only with curbing, shelters and appurtenances to be constructed to accommodate the fleet BC transit are currently designing concepts for consideration, The local government responsibility for these works is estimated at $427,000,

2. 2012 Septage Facility Relocation Relocation of the septage facility from its current location at Polson Drive and Pottery Road to the Water Reclamation Plant site on 25 Avenue, Preliminary estimates for the project range from $500,000 to $2,500,000 depending on the scope,

3. 2011 Kalamalka Lake Road Trail from Highway 6 to Kalamalka Lake The City of Vernon is finalizing negotiations with the final three properties along the shared boundary with Coldstream and would then be in a position to construct a multi-use trail from Highway 6 to the Coldstream boundary, The existing BC Hydro ROW above Kalamalka Lake Road on these final properties already has a roughed in access road that could be formalized into a traiL The continuation of the trail into Coldstream may only require approximately 600 meters of shoulder widening, Estimated total construction cost is $1,000,000,

4. 2011 Further Development of the Middleton Mountain Trail System - The details an<tcosts of this project would need to be provided by RDNO Parks,

R~'~/ Rob Dickinson Manager, Engineering Services

Cc: David Sewell, RDNO - General Manager, Finance

\\gw1\groupsI1600-2199 F!NANCEI1855 GRANTS FROM ORGANlZATIQNSl20 Grant, by name\Gas Tax\110217 rsd let rdna $uperceded.doc

www.vernon.ca


Page 21 of 109

INTERNAL M E M 0 RAN DUM

TO: Leon GOllS, Chief Administrative Office FILE: 1855-20

pc: Marg Bailey, Deputy CAO DATE: Feb 4, 201·1 Kevin Bertles, Manager Finance Shirley Koenig, Manager Operations Kim Flick, Manager Planning and Building

FRON!: Rob Dickinson, Manager Engineering & GIS

SUBJECT: GAS TAX GRANT - REGIONALL Y SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS

The Gas Tax Grant includes funding for Il19iollally ~;i(Jllific,lr1t project:; tilmuqh tile Tier) Strategic Priorities Fund. The available ,llllolint lh,11 is res,)rvoci for 1110 r,c[Jiollal Disll·ici of tho Norlll OI«1I1il[)f.111 (nDNO) is M, 1 ()'I ,9G9. Eliuible proj()cts for tilese Illorlies are to IH) considered by il comllliHee set up by tll(e PDNO. The foliowin(J criteria must be lIlet for il project to be eli9ible 2nd thereby approved by the Gas tax Management Committee:

Oualify ilS an [liDible Projcct 1.lIlder the Gas Tax Agreement (e.g., fall within one of the elinilJle project cilieqories); [.()ad tow21rd~. rduced ()feentloIlS8 (las emissions, cleaner air or cleaner VI/clter; Be larger in scale or regional in impact; Be identified by a Tier 2 region as an RSP; Meet certain objective-based standards; and Be approved by the Gas Tax Agreement's Management Committee

Please provide the following four projects for consideration by that committee:

1. 2. 3. ~.

2011 .- 31 /\Velluo transit exchange construction 2012·· Septil(lO Filciliiy relocation 2011 - l<i.1lanlall'fl I.flke r,oad Trail from Highway 6 to Kalamalka Lake 20·11 - t·urtiler developmenl of the Middleton Mountain Trail System

Further- details outlining the scope of the projects including budget and funding partnerships can be provided upon request.

Sincerely,

Rob Dickinson, P.Eng. Manager Engineering & GIS Services 47


Page 22 of 109

GAS TAX GRANT -

REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS (1855-20)

Memorandum dated February 4,2011 from Rob Dickinson, Manager Engineering &

GIS, re: Submission of Gas Tax Grant, Regionally Significant projects.

Moved by Councillor Baumbrough, seconded by Councillor Lee:

THAT Council supports the staff recommendations for four (4) projects, to be

submitted to the Regional District of the North Okanagan for consideration of funding from the approved Gas Tax Management Committee as follows:

1. 2011- 31 Avenue Transit Exchange Construction 2. 2012 - Septage Facility Relocation

3. 2011-i<alamall<a Lake Road Trail from Highway 6 to I(alamalka Lake 4. 2011-Further development of the Middleton Mountain Trail System

CARRIED.


Page 23 of 109


Page 24 of 109

#304 - 1353 Ellis Street, Kelowna BC VI Y 129 Telephone: 250-762-2517 Fax: 250-763-5266

August 27, 2010

District of Coldstream 9901 Kalamalka Road Coldstream BC VIB lL6

VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

Attention: Craig Broderick

URBWNSYSTEMS,

File: 1164.0114.01 Cl

RE: Kidston Road Multi-Use Pathway - Conceptual Design

Craig,

As requested, we have developed a conceptual design for the Kidston Road Multi-Use Pathway from the

existing pathway on the Palfrey Drive right-of-way, south to the "Red Gate" entrance to Kalamalka Lake

Park. This latest concept has the pathway on the east side of Kidston from the Palfrey pathway to

approxi mately 200 m south, where it transitions to the west side of the roadway.

The attached drawings illustrate this concept in plan, profile and section. To limit impacts to adjacent

properties, we have proposed the use of modular concrete block retaining walls and fencing (to prevent

falls) and concrete roadside barrier to address user safety. A preliminary estimate of quantities and the

inclusion of a 30% contingency, yields an estimated pathway cost of $560,000.

District of

C Id t a s ream . ITEM NO ..•

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

11.0

Option 3 Widen Kidston Road to the W est A t 2 10 ugus - 7-

DESCRIPTION ...•• ' .. . .... . . ' . UNIT I PRICE QUANTITY TOTAL' Clearing and grubbing/isolated tree removal L.S. $5.000.00 1 $5,000.00

Common excavation, off-site disposal/on-site reuse m' $7.00 230 $1,610.00

EmbankmentrvVaU Fill m' $22.00 4.220 $92,B40.00

Retaining Walls v. m2 $350.00 520 $182.000.00

Utility Relocations ea $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00

Ditching 1m $10.00 75 $750.00

Culverts 1m $100,00 55 $5,500.00

Storm pipe 1m $125.00 155 $19.375.00

19mm Crush Gravel (100mm Thick) m' $5.00 1,991 $9.955.00

Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving, 50mm m' $15.00 1.991 $29,865.00

Fencing 1m $75.00 537 $40.275.00

Concrete Roadside Barrier ea $220.00 166 $36,520.00

Subtotal $428,690.00

30% Engineering and Contingencies $128,607.00

Total $560,000.00

www.urban-systems.com CALGARY I ml/:ONTON I FORT ST. JOHN I Kt,t'1Wors I KELOWNI\ I NElSOI'J I RIGII'1(mD


Page 25 of 109

Craig Broderick File: 1164.0114.01 Cl August 27, 2010 Page 2

uRB!itmSYSTEMS.

I trust the attached concept meets with your approval. We would be pleased to meet with you if you

have any questions or suggestions with the proposed concept.

Sincerely,

URBAN SYSTEMS LTD.

,--.-.. ,?{~~;t~: ... -.. -.,.---.-- .-_'

/,jj;~A~:-"\ / i Forr<;st Klotzbach Project Engineer

/FPK

U;IProjlJC15jXlI1 161101 H!01IC·Corrffif!(){!denreICl·CllenI1201o-08·27 Coneep/ua! lads/or! Wl!5t Side.doc

www.urban-systems.com eM.Gi\RY I EDHONTON I FORT ST. JOHN I KAMLOOPS I KELOWNA I Ni:LSON I QUESIIiEI.I RICHHorl!D


Page 26 of 109

"

~ ~1 ![:\,\i\ ,II I: T---

~!I,{~ \ , \\

:


Page 27 of 109

tlOll.V/'J13 ,

~

is ! ~ 1 ! ! j , , ! ~ I 8 ~ ~ , ! , ~e ~

" 1~~tt7

=111 •.••. I V(,'{!- 8 1<1<

". 0

';;-'\i : ·"fNt.'- ~

i ! J.~W,'- ~ 'C ,

.~ ". -VN.','--I i § ·.l,';"'.W ,

i I ,,,'" --",.:,'

I· I 1"""-, ~ .. >~;, ~ "':if! "(;".,

· i

* -WN,'-

,i icc !\ I -Vii-IN-

§ ~iNN' • , ---,.!nn_

I!I · , -!"fUN-, ''iW:

i .({Uil. , '"'' ·~W,\~

i mo<, --,I-,j,

I" -'iA'!!~

~ WN!--'''~~-' -~h,,-

§ -fiti?--, -Wf!;'"-

! -'f-NN , -w,w

! --'':Hf;'-J!h,W--

1 -w-t{.!

"'. --'!fUN--'

2 .. ·\WN-J --'f\'t,'-

! ---'11_15-'_ , _~'Ui-,L

! -'tf;i;-, J~,l,t ...

! ·'tt{{t-, 15 -'{Ni!-

I 10 ---. .-- i ~--W'::'N--

'Il -WIN-

~ J,sW: -'Nl!!-

I I ~ -WHi-, _'m~'_' ,,,-,,--

! i"_'''_ -.-n,,-

I' 3tH;','-

! ..1/'--"-"_ [",

--1;-0''--

~ !"-'''--(.",-

--W,',\t ~ "W8?!--,

_J};'&: ~ -.9N-kV-,

-<i'i\,-• ""r'" , -,-,/>,-

LfI ' , " -wm .. ,

-'ttiW~

"'-' ,

-'fHN , -!.'tiW-, 3;','1t:

1,11'1- 1--" .. , • · .. 'rt·;w'-j I·, "

, WN!-'" 1---

, -Wl'N-j ·-1;.'1N·

, I· --.~ ! --'t!-it:- u:i -'t!·tN--! --!{g;1'-. ~ , w -w!!}:- r-

, ! Wr1,"" UJ '" -WtN .... En " • -Wt1,'- >

! :::: :; ::l:J~

Wit,1 m~ ! § ''<!:: ,

I:Q ~2

I , !

~5 , t:t: 3 0 ,

~ ! 8 , ~ ~ i f j j !

, , , , !

, a~ ~~ -.

! ! ! , , j , ! ! :;:l ~< ~ ~~ '2 . ,,\ ~ .

ttLY"'no~

~@ I ~~ .w.


Page 28 of 109

l <il;" 1 -----,~!l

~i" i

,

~, }- j,

: I I

Ii 1- ,

!~, .....

,

++~ [\

~o " 56 "

y, o. ,. §~ 0"

~

+

l , , , , , , , ,


Page 29 of 109

, , , , ;- , , ,

~ , I III Ili---- I

-;-

~ !- it I 1\ . §

6

I ,

I ,

1= HiJl ;

I

II!" - ; , , , , , , , ,


Page 30 of 109

Anthony Kittel

From: Sent: To:

Arnold Badke Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11 :55 AM Anthony Kittel

Subject: FW: Draft Terms of Reference - Regionally Significant Projects Working Group

Anthony, More suggestions for Regionally Significant Projects. More and detailed information can be provided. Please advise if you wish us to go to the next step. My understanding that currently we are only attempting to identify potential; projects.

From: Nicole Kohnert Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:06 AM To: Arnold Badke; AI Cotsworth; Rod Pleasance; Renee Clark; Zee Marcolin Cc: Paddy Juniper Subject: RE: Draft Terms of Reference - Regionally Significant Projects Working Group

The projects I would suggest for Solid Waste Management are: Pottery Road RDF Cap and Disc Golf Course Construction

o Regional park use and sub-regional problem resolution; cleaner water (reduced precipitation infiltration to groundwater through waste) and air (reduced untreated passive venting of GHGs)

Greater Vernon RDF Landfill Gas Control System o Sub-Regional facility use; cleaner air (reduced untreated passive venting of GHGs)

Birnie Road Material Recovery Facility [major renovation or new building] o Regional facility for processing Blue Bag material and other commercial recyclables; cleaner air (keeping

facility local) and ability to process more material and divert from disposal Eco-Depot at Greater Vernon RDF

o Sub-Regional one-stop-drop centre; cleaner air (reduced trips around the Greater Vernon communities to various depots)

North Vernon Drop Centre [listed in Draft 2011 SWM Plan Update] o Sub-Regional drop off depot for yard and garden waste and Blue Bag recyclables from businesses (if not

curbside implemented), and potential eco-depot; cleaner air (reduced long trips to GVRDF and other assorted depots in Greater Vernon area)

For Transit, I believe a new bus may qualify for the RDNO portion of the transit service, but I don't know enough details yet (pending strategic review). Our Enderby/Armstrong and Lumby buses are very old and un-accessible by the elderly and disabled (many stairs into the bus).

Cheers,

Nicole Kohnert, P.Eng., FEe I Manager Regional Engineering Services Regional District of North Okanagan 250-550-3741

From: Arnold Badke Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 8:44 AM To: AI Cotsworth; Rod Pleasance; Renee Clark; Zee Marcolin; Nicole Kohnert Cc: Paddy Juniper Subject: FW: Draft Terms of Reference - Regionally Significant Projects Working Group

Terms of reference for Gas Tax - Regionally Significant projects. Do we have any suggestions that may qualify for this funding?


Page 31 of 109

From: Jennifer deGroot Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:41 PM To: Greg Betts; Leah Mellott; Arnold Badke; Rob Smailes; AI McNiven; David Sewell Cc: Christy Malden; Kari Cameron; Paddy Juniper; Usa Schrauwen; Anthony Kittel Subject: Draft Terms of Reference - Regionally Significant Projects Working Group

Please find the draft Terms of Reference for the Regionally Significant Projects Working Group for your review and comment.

Please contact Anthony Kittel if you require any additional information.

Thank you and regards,

Jennifer deGroot, B.Sc. Interim Executive Assistant, Planning and Building Regional District of North Okanagan 9848 Aberdeen Road Coldstream, B.C. V1 B 2K9 Ph: 250-550-3751 Fax: 250-550-3701 [email protected] - vvww.rdno.ca

2

REGIONAL DISTRICT

of NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.:4000.10

RECOMMENDATION: That the report from the Bylaw Enforcement Officer dated June 23, 2011 regarding approval for use of a PA sound amplification system at 249 Lumby Mabel Lake Road within Electoral Area “D” be received for information. DISCUSSION: Randy Rauck is proposing the Second Annual Wild Salmon Music Festival, to be held July 22, 23 and 24, 2011, which will possibly generate noise in excess of Noise Bylaw regulation. The festival honours the Wild Salmon and proceeds from the event are donated to help support the Wild Salmon awareness program and promote the building of local Salmon enhancement programs like the Salmon ladder at Shuswap Falls. Less than one thousand people are expected to attend the event that will be held at 249 Lumby Mabel Lake Road. Randy Rauck has requested an approval to operate a PA sound amplification system as a part of the event. The use is proposed to be within the confines of and extending outside of, an accessory building located on the property. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The Wild Salmon Music Festival promotes public awareness towards the bettering of the environment for the traditional salmon stocks which occur within the areas of the North Okanagan and predominantly within Electoral Area “D”. Staff has concluded that the request is in keeping with past staff operational procedure approvals. Randy Rauck has provided adequate evidence of notification to neighbourhood property owners (and dwelling occupiers) through a petition process. All but one recorded and received responses submitted to staff, to this date, have shown neighbouring residents to be in favour and in support of the event.


FROM: John Friesen, Bylaw Enforcement Officer

DATE: June 23, 2011

SUBJECT: Request for Use of a PA Sound Amplification System for the Wild Salmon Music Festival at 249 Lumby Mabel Lake Road within Electoral Area “D”


Page 32 of 109


Page 33 of 109

File No.: 4000.10 Report to EMC Page 2 of 2

Staff is therefore positioned to issue an approval to allow for the operation of a PA sound amplification system within the time periods requested by the organizer. The time periods are as follows:

• July 22nd, 2011 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight

• July 23'd , 2011 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight

• July 24'h , 2011 -- 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m.

LEGAL/STATUTORY AUTHORITY:

Noise Bylaw No. 908 General Regulations Section 2 (7) states the following: "No person shall operate any outdoor PA system in the Regional District without first having obtained written permission therefore from the Regional District".

Submitted by:

/~2 \ ~ -,

John Friesen Bylaw Enforcement Officer

Endorsed by:

Pat Luscombe Chief Building Inspector/Bylaw Enf. Manager

Endorsed by:

Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Buifding



Page 34 of 109

REGIONAL DISTRICT of

NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT File No: 7130.01 Wildland Fire Management Strategy - UBCM Funding

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION

Electoral Area Advisory Committee

Ron Baker, Community and Protective Services Manager

June 20, 2011

2011 Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative

That the 2011 Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative Report be received for information; and further

That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be authorized to apply for Operational Fuel Treatment funding for Keddleston Park, Silver Star Mountain and Cherryville Community Forest projects and in so doing agree to provide overall grant management for those projects following successful award.

BACKGROUND

September 23, 2010: Ministry of Forests and Range releases its "Wildland Fire Management Strategy" to promote proactive fire management (available at www.for.gov.bc.ca/pab/media/bell/2010/bcwfms.pdf).

April 8, 2011: UBCM announces that the Province to invest $25 million in the Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative. As with previous funding programs the focus is on: 1. Community Wildfire Protection Plans 2. Fuel Management Prescriptions 3. Demonstration Projects 4. Operational Fuel Treatment Projects

June 14, 2011: UBCM announces that applications now being accepted with July 22 and October 14, 2011 deadlines. Notable changes include: 1. 50% funding for Community Wildfire Protection Plans - previously 100% funded 2. 75% funding for Fuel Management Prescriptions - previously 100% funded 3. 75% funding for Fuel Management Demonstration Projects - same as previous 4. 90% funding up to $100,000 per jurisdiction for Fuel Treatment projects (75% funding if over

$100,000) - previously up to 75% funded

PAST FUNDING SUCCESS

Community Wildfire Protection Plan: RDNO commissioned a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) for the region, dated October 2008, prepared by Sharon Hope and Charles Friesen. 100% funding for the report was provided through the UBCM.


Page 35 of 109

Report to: From: Subject:

Electoral Area Advisory Committee Ron Baker, Community Protective Services Manager 2011 Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative

File: 7130.01 June 20, 2011

Page 2 of 2

Fuel Management Prescriptions: On April 11, 2011 RDNO was awarded $26,532.50 (100% funding) to cover prescription projects at Keddleston Park and Silver Star Mountain. All work to be completed by April 11 ,2012.

Challenges:

The applications process is detailed and complex requIring the services of forestry professional experienced in the process, including the need for and costs associated with First Nations consultation. To date forestry consultant John Davies has developed and submitted funding applications at no charge to RDNO under the expectation that upon award, he would be engaged to complete the project(s). The value to RDNO of avoiding the application costs ranges up to $2,000 per project.

RDNO staff time working with consultant and subsequently UBCM staff, followed by oversight, claim submission and reporting estimated at $2,000 per project.

Leverage: RDNO has historically focused on education rather than direct investment in wildfire management. More recent attempts to secure external funding from which to leverage UBCM funding have been unsuccessful. (e.g. Job Opportunities Fund, Community Works Fund).

Revised Funding Ratios: The requirement that local government fund 25% either through cash (may include external grants or revenue from salvage) or in-kind places a higher burden locally in order to pursue Prescription and Demonstration project funding.

Current Status:

Following completion of the Silver Star and Keddleston Park prescriptions, RDNO will have two projects that may qualify for Operational Fuel Treatment funding.

Work undertaken by Cherryville Community Forest Association (Prescription and Demonstration Projects) has the potential to be advanced to Operational Fuel Treatment Project Application. The anticipation is that timber salvage values may contribute a portion of the 10% - 25% local contribution requirement with balance in-kind. External funding including SIBAC will also be investigated. A field tour with Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Hank Cameron and RDNO is scheduled for June 27,2011.

An advantage of Operational Fuel Treatment projects over other types is that salvage values of harvested timber may cover much of the local funding requirement

ATTACHMENT(S) A. Wildland Fire Management Strategy, News Release September 23, 2010 B. Wildland Fire Management Strategy - Executive Summary C. UBCM announcement re $25 million funding commitment: April 8, 2011 D. UBCM announcement - Applications Invited: June 14, 2011

Submitted by: .

~~_<YLL RonBak~


Commurf1tY/Protective Services Manager

-more-

NEW S RE LEA SE

For Immediate Release 2010FOR0161-001128 Sept. 23, 2010

Ministry of Forests and Range

WILDFIRE STRATEGY PROMOTES PROACTIVE FIRE MANAGEMENT

VICTORIA – British Columbia’s Wildland Fire Management Strategy will further protect communities from destructive interface fires, while improving forest health and making fire suppression more cost-effective, Forests and Range Minister Pat Bell announced today.

“We have one of the best wildfire fighting programs in the world, but as our climate changes, so must our management approach to protect communities and support vibrant forests,” said Bell. “This strategy will help us strike a balance between proactive fire management and suppression, and focus our firefighting efforts in key areas, while capitalizing on the ecological benefits of naturally occurring fire.”

Historically, wildfires burned approximately 500,000 hectares of land in B.C. annually, however, that area has shrunk to an average of less than 100,000 hectares in recent years. This has altered the natural fire cycle and contributed to fuel buildup as forests age.

The 22-page strategy aims to create a more fire-resilient landscape in British Columbia by meeting five key goals:

Further reducing the wildfire risk around communities and public infrastructure through proactive fuel management.

Planning and implementing controlled burns to encourage healthy ecosystems and manage fuel build-up.

Where appropriate, managing some fires for natural processes and focusing suppression response on high-priority wildfires.

Encouraging land, natural resource and community planning to incorporate wildland fire management.

Improving public awareness about wildland fire management.

“We are already implementing many of the strategy’s recommendations through our Strategic Wildfire Prevention Program, Community Wildfire Protection Plan initiative and Bioenergy Strategy, but there’s always room for innovation,” said Bell. “A key component of that will be collaborating more with industry stakeholders, local governments, First Nations and other provincial and federal agencies to ensure wildfire management is considered at all levels of planning.”

British Columbia also played a lead part in developing the Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy, which aims to restore the natural role of fire in forest ecosystems across the country.

Attachment "A"


Page 36 of 109

- 2 -

More than 1,600 wildfires consumed nearly 338,000 hectares of forest and grassland during the 2010 wildfire season, resulting in several evacuation alerts and orders across the Cariboo and Northwest. As of Sept. 21, more than $200 million has been spent on fire suppression.

Since 2004, the Province has provided more than $37 million to local governments, through the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, to help pay for interface fire preparation. Nearly 200 local government governments and First Nations have either completed or are in the process of completing community wildfire protection plans.

Complete copies of the British Columbia Wildland Fire Management Strategy are available on the Ministry of Forests and Range website at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/pab/media/bell/2010/bcwfms.pdf.

-30- Media Contact:

Cheekwan Ho Public Affairs Officer Ministry of Forests and Range 250 387-8482

For more information on government services or to subscribe to the Province’s news feeds using RSS, visit the Province’s website at www.gov.bc.ca.


Page 37 of 109

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/pab/media/bell/2010/bcwfms.pdf








http://www.gov.bc.ca/








B.C. WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 4

Implementa�on of the B.C. Wildland Fire Management Strategy will result in healthier forest and range ecosystems; communi�es that are less at risk from fire and smoke; and a more cost-effec�ve fire suppression program. This will be achieved by adop�ng a proac�ve approach to:

1. Reduce fire hazards and risks (par�cularly in and around communi�es and other high-value areas);

2. Carefully use controlled burning where the benefits are clearly defined and the risks can be cost-effec�vely managed;

3. Monitor and manage, rather than suppress, fires that are of minimal risk to communi�es, infrastructure or resource values;

4. Implement land, natural resource and community planning that incorporates management of wildland fire at all appropriate scales; and

5. Develop a high level of public awareness and support for wildland fire management.

These measures, combined with our con�nuing commitment to aggressive ac�on against unwanted fire, will help us achieve one of the B.C.’s primary goals for the 21st century: “to lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air and water quality, and the best fisheries management – bar none”.

More than 50 per cent of the province’s landmass is covered by natural forest and rangelands. These ecosystems are a cri�cal component of clean air and water, and provide a wide variety of commercial and non-commercial goods and services important to the people and the economy of B.C.

Fire is a natural and essen�al ecological process in most of B.C.’s forests and rangeland. However, as was vividly illustrated during the 2003 and 2009 fire

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYseasons, it can also have undesirable social and economic impacts, threatening human health, safety and property. Balancing the poten�al benefits and risks of wildland fire is a complex task for land, natu-ral resource and fire managers. It is also a task that is vital to public safety and the sustainable management of forests and rangelands in the province.

It is not possible or desirable to exclude all fire from the forest and range environment, but it is necessary to protect communi�es, infrastructure and natural resources from fire damage. Therefore, there are two interdependent components of the Province’s approach to wildland fire: proac�ve fire management (addressed by this Strategy); and aggressive fire suppression (described in the Forest Protec�on Program Strategy). The measures set out in the Wildland Fire Management Strategy may require a new understanding of the role of proac�ve fire management in suppor�ng the goals of provincial wildfire management by many managers, stakeholders, organiza�ons and the public.

A strategic shi� is needed to proac�vely manage

the benefits and risks of wildland fire to meet the

immediate and longer-term needs of society.

Attachment "B"


Page 38 of 109

www.ubcm.ca

MEMBER RELEASE April 8, 2011

TO: Local Government Mayors, Chairs and Administrators First Nations Chiefs and Councils

FROM: Local Government Program Services, UBCM

RE: Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative

The Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative is a suite of funding programs managed through the Provincial Fuels Management Working Group – including the First Nations Emergency Services Society, Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations and the Union of BC Municipalities. The initiative supports communities to mitigate risk from wildfire in the wildland urban interface. On April 7, 2011, the Honourable Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations, announced that the Province is investing $25 million into the Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative to further protect B.C. families and communities from the threat of wildfires. The intent of the new funding will be to support local governments and First Nations at risk from wildfire to:

• Develop Community Wildfire Protection Plans; • Develop fuel management prescriptions; • Implement fuel management demonstration projects, and/or; • Undertake operational fuel treatment activities

The Provincial Fuels Management Working Group is currently developing the program and application materials for the new 2011 program. We expect this will include changes to some of the cost-sharing formulas, enhanced information on project eligibility, updated application and reporting processes and clearer instructions and requirements for financial reporting. We anticipate that the application process will open in the coming weeks. The UBCM website will be updated when new program materials are available and all UBCM members will be notified when the 2011 program is launched. For more information about the funding program, please contact: Danyta Welch, Policy & Programs Officer Union of BC Municipalities (250) 356-5193 [email protected]

Attachment "C"


Page 39 of 109

www.ubcm.ca

MEMBER RELEASE June 14, 2011

TO: Local Government Mayors, Chairs and Administrators First Nations Chiefs, Councils and Administrators

FROM: Local Government Program Services, UBCM

RE: 2011 Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative

The Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative is a suite of funding programs managed through the Provincial Fuels Management Working Group – including the First Nations Emergency Services Society, Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations and the Union of BC Municipalities. The initiative supports communities to mitigate risk from wildfire in the wildland urban interface. On April 7, 2011, the Honourable Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations, announced that the Province is investing $25 million into the Strategic Wildfire Prevention Initiative to further protect B.C. families and communities from the threat of wildfires. Applications are now being accepted for the new programs. A number of program changes have been made and the following grants are available for 2011:

• Community Wildfire Protection Plans – the 2011 program can contribute a maximum of 50% of the cost of eligible activities - to a maximum of $15,000.

• Fuel Management Prescription – the 2011 program can contribute a maximum of 75% of the cost of eligible activities.

• Fuel Management Demonstration Project (formerly, the pilot project program) – the 2011 program can contribute a maximum of 75% of the cost of eligible activities - to a maximum of $25,000.

• Community Operational Fuel Treatment – the 2011 program can contribute a maximum of 90% of the cost of eligible activities up to $100,000 in funding per applicant per calendar year AND 75% of the cost of eligible activities from $100,001 to $400,000 in funding per applicant per calendar year.

New program and application materials are available on UBCM’s website. Two application deadlines have been set for 2011: July 22 and October 14. In order to be considered for funding in the summer or fall, complete applications must be submitted on or before the deadline. Please note, the Fuel Management Information System will not be available for this round of funding and all applications should be submitted directly to UBCM. For more information about the funding program, please contact: Danyta Welch, Policy & Programs Officer Union of BC Municipalities (250) 356-5193 [email protected]

Attachment "D"


Page 40 of 109

F:\3000-3699 LAND ADMIN\3063 AREA C\3063 - APPLICATIONS\DVP\2011\11-0239-C-DVP - SAUNDERS\11-0239-C-DVP - SAUNDERS - Info Sheet.docx

REGIONAL DISTRICT

of NORTH OKANAGAN

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

INFORMATION REPORT

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION

AND LOT FRONTAGE WAIVER REQUEST

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that, upon consideration of input from adjacent landowners, a Development Variance Permit be issued for the properties legally described as Lot A, Sec. 36, Twp. 9, ODYD, Plan KAP46684 and Lot 4, Sec 36, Twp 9, ODYD, Plan 29670, except Plan KAP46684 to vary Section 310 of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 by waiving the driveway access requirements related to a proposed boundary adjustment subdivision of the subject properties as shown on the attached sketch plan attached to the Development Services Report dated May 31, 2011; and further

Date: May 31, 2011

File No.: 11-0239-C-DVP / 11-0002-C-WVR

Applicant: William & Valerie Saunders and Gillian Woolliams

Legal Description: Lot 4, Sec 36, Twp 9, ODYD, Plan 29670, Except Plan KAP46684 AND Lot A, Sec 36, Twp 9, ODYD, KAP46684

P.I.D.# 004-194-233 and 017-678-374

Civic Address: 978 and 996 Galiano Road

Property Size: 1.91 ha (4.73 acres) and 3.19 ha (7.88 acres)

Servicing: On-site septic / Greater Vernon Water

A.L.R. 1 ha and 1.5 ha

Zoning: Country Residential (C.R)

O.C.P. Designation: Agricultural

Proposal: Boundary adjustment subdivision

Proposed Variances: Lot frontage and driveway access

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item F1

Page 41 of 109

Development Variance Permit Application and Lot Frontage Waiver Request 11-0239-C-DVP / 11-0002-C-WVR Page 2

2. That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a Lot Frontage Waiver be granted for the property legally described as Lot A, Sec. 36, Twp. 9, ODYD, Plan KAP46684 to waive Section 802.7 of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 by reducing the lot frontage requirement related to the boundary adjustment subdivision of the property from 63.16 metres to 12.6 metres as shown on the attached sketch plan attached to the Development Services Report dated May 31, 2011.

BACKGROUND: This is an application for a Development Variance Permit and a Lot Frontage Waiver request related to the proposed boundary adjustment subdivision between the properties located at 978 and 996 Galiano Road. By way of letter dated November 9, 2010, the proposed subdivision received Preliminary Layout Approval from the Provincial Approving Officer on the condition that it meets various Regional District bylaw requirements, including the driveway access and lot frontage requirements of the Regional District Zoning Bylaw. Rather than reconstructing the existing driveways and realigning the frontages that service these lots, the applicants have applied to vary the driveway access requirements for both lots and to waive the lot frontage requirement for the property located at 996 Galiano Road. Subdivision History The subject properties were originally created in 1906. In 1992, a boundary adjustment subdivision between the subject properties was approved in order to provide the land-locked property located at 996 Galiano Road with 12.6 m of frontage along Galiano Road. The boundary adjustment subdivision did not require the approval of a lot frontage waiver request or a variance to the driveway access provisions of the Zoning Bylaw. Site Context The subject properties are located on the west and downhill side of Galiano Road. Both properties are designated Agriculturural in the Rural Vernon Official Community Plan and are zoned as Country Residential. The surrounding properties to the north, west and south are also designated Agricultural and zoned Country Residential. Properties to the east are designated and zoned Country Residential. The subject properties slope downward from Galiano Road. Each property contains an existing single family dwelling. The western portions of both properties are located within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Access to both lots is gained from Galiano Road via a shared driveway. The driveway connects to Galiano Road near the southeast corner of 978 Galiano Road. It then travels north and parallel to Galiano Road and enters 996 Galiano Road near the southeast corner of that property. The driveway then splits into two, with one part travelling in a northerly direction to the homesite at 996 Galiano Road and the other part travelling in a southerly direction to the homesite at 978 Galiano Road. An easement is registered in favour of each property for the portions of the driveway used to gain access to the homesites.


Page 42 of 109

Development Variance Permit Application and Lot Frontage Waiver Request 11-0239-C-DVP / 11-0002-C-WVR Page 3 The Proposal The area proposed to be added to the property located at 978 Galiano Road would allow the driveway and parking area on the north side of the dwelling located on that property to be expanded, which in turn would improved the usability of these areas. The boundary adjustment would increase the size of 978 Galiano Road from 1.91 ha to 2.0 ha and decrease the size of 996 Galiano Road from 3.19 ha to 3.10 ha. The driveways and lot frontages for both lots are not proposed to change and access easements are not impacted by the subdivision. The proposed boundary adjustment does not involve sections of the properties within the ALR. RURAL VERNON OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN: The subject properties are designated Agricultural. The Agricultural policies of the OCP do not speak to this type of proposal, although the Rural Land policies suggest that when considering applications to rezone properties to the Country Residential zone, the Regional Board should consider whether the terrain is suitable for development whereby each new lot would have a building site and driveway access in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw. ZONING BYLAW: The subject properties are zoned Country Residential (C.R). The minimum lot size standard of the C.R zone is 2.0 ha. 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 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 may not exceed: 1. one single family dwelling or one two family dwelling or one manufactured home on lots less

than 4 ha in size and located outside the ALR; and 2. one ancillary single family dwelling on lands in and out of the ALR on lots 2.0 ha or larger. Lot Frontage The Zoning Bylaw requires that lots have a frontage of not less than 10% of the perimeter of the lot. The boundary adjustment subdivision would therefore require that 978 Galiano Road have 65.3 m of frontage and that 996 Galiano Road have 63.16 m; the proposed boundary adjustment leaves the frontages unchanged at 66.5 m and 12.6 m respectively. Building Sites Section 310 of the Zoning Bylaw states that lots created in the C.R zone must contain an area of 2000 m2 or larger to serve as a suitable building site. The building site may not exceed 30% slope and must be accessible from a public highway by a private access driveway that: 1. is as close to right angles as possible to the finished road surface for a minimum of 6 m; and 2. has a minimum width of 5.5 m for the first 6 m and 4 m thereafter; and 3. has a maximum slope of 2% from the ditch line for a minimum distance of 10 m and a


Page 43 of 109

Development Variance Permit Application and Lot Frontage Waiver Request 11-0239-C-DVP / 11-0002-C-WVR Page 4

maximum slope of 15% thereafter. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Approval of the applications would authorize the continued use of the existing driveway and lot frontages that service the subject properties, both of which were approved through a previous boundary adjustment subdivision involving the two properties. Currently, 978 Galiano Road does not meet the 2.0 ha minimum lot size for the C.R zone. The proposed boundary adjustment increases the size of 978 Galiano Road to meet the C.R. zone minimum lot size at 2.0 ha and 996 Galiano Road will also still meet the minimum lot size of the C.R. zone at 3.10 ha. The proposed boundary adjustment does not propose construction of new driveways that would comply with the driveway access requirements of the Zoning Bylaw as this would be difficult to achieve due to the drop in elevation between Galiano Road and the existing homesites. Aside from being a shared driveway, it appears that the existing driveway complies with the width and grade requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and an easement is currently registered in favour of each property for the portions of the driveway used to gain access to the homesites. Overall, it does not appear that approval of the applications would negatively impact the use and enjoyment of the subject and neighbouring properties. In light of the above, Development Services raises no objections to the driveway access variance and lot frontage waiver request and upon consideration of input from adjacent land owners, recommends that they be given favourable consideration. SUMMARY: This is an application for a Development Variance Permit and Lot Frontage Waiver related to a proposed boundary adjustment subdivision between the properties located at 978 and 996 Galiano Road. Development Services recommends that the variances for driveway access and waiver of the required lot frontage be given favourable consideration as the existing narrow road frontage on the northern lot constricts the ability to create a second access from Galiano Road. Also, the ability to change the existing shared driveway access to both lots is restricted due to the steep topography in the area. The driveways are protected by long standing easement agreements. The driveway access to the existing dwellings appears to be of adequate width and grade for the driveway in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw. REFERRALS: The application was referred to the following: 1. Electoral Area ‘C’ Director 2. Electoral Area ‘C’ Advisory Planning Commission 3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee 4. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

The Ministry advises that they have no objections to the proposal.

5. Building Inspections Department


Page 44 of 109


Page 45 of 109

Development Variance Permit Application and Lot Frontage Waiver Request 11-0239-C-DVP I 11-0002-C-WVR

6. BX Swan Lake Fire Department

Submitted by:

Caren Walker Planning Technologist

Endorsed by:

) Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building


Page 5


Page 46 of 109

ELECTORAL AREA "c" DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION and

LOT FRONTAGE WAIVER REQUEST

File: Applicant: Location:

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP 11-0239-C-DVP I 11-0002-C-WVR William and Valerie Saunders; G. Wooliams 978 and 996 Galiano Road

3280 3253

3285

3221 3218 3235 324 1

3173

3116 3125

0 3237 0

'i

1220

527 49'

460

50' McLeish Rd ---:---'---:::---

530 520

467 1184

N.O.WA 480 444 WAREHOUSE 442

1195 524

2763 1096

1101

275 2751 1028

~ '1'

1296

"94

1293

1295

2466 Subject properties 996

976 999

973

880

969

815 872

609

2130 905

571 T840

559

§ 547 Gl 541 ~ Pottery Rd '1' 521537

5 ~ 815 645 52 540 510 538 509 ~ 651

491 515 664

482 525 674 " 801 463

476 539 cr 475 536 664

* 474 553 694 695 550 cr 467 567 725 466

564 459 581 -, 454 578 701' 451 585

448 592 595

1

152 0 7. 152 1 !

I Meters :

1: 6,000

1299

1297


Page 47 of 109

SKETCH PLAN SHDW/NC PROPOSE'lJ SUBlJ/V/S/DN DF LOT 4 SECT/ON 36 TOWNSH/P 9 DSDYDDS lJ/V/S/DN YALE lJ/STR/CT PLAN 29670. EXCEPT PLAN KAP46684 ANlJ PART OF LDT A SECT/o.N 36 TDWNSH/P 9 OSDYDOS lJ/V/S/DN YALE lJ/STR/CT PLAN KAP46684 50m Om 50m 100m 150m

~I ~~~~~ ______ ~!~~~~~ ______ ~I

, , , ,

SCA.lJf: 1:1500

/

REM A / PLAN KAP46684 //

/ /

/ /

/

/ /

/ /

/

\ 1 1 1 1 )

I, / \ /

I ;/ /

/ /

EAS .___1 i-Y \ PLAN" I I / \ \

/

/ / \ \ KAP47387 (V \ \

/ /

/ /

/ /

1

1 1 1 1 1

1

1 )

66 PLAN 351

.---------------------~ \/ \ IMPROVED USABILITY /\ \ ,---~:---

OF HOUSE SITE \ \ / /' , \ ~

/ / :-. -Ir----L.....--/~~:_:_----~~/~..J/(.] \, 61.9i: '?

/ 156.1:1: / ...... l- L -l.------t / / PART A e 67.7:1:

/ / :J() / PLAN KAP46'684 5.4:1: / \0 // HOUSE

/ _\ ~ / / ~- /

1

/ <i'v / / ~ / / S«. /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ /

Pl.AN 2.'J61'O PROPOSED

LOT 1 2.0hai:

1 ~I

't61 ~\ ~\ it' \I) \ «: ,

//r-----------~///~----------~2~4~~29~i:------------------------~w~'

/ /

/

/ /

/

DRAWING: 5616 WAIVER SK.DWG 9-DEC-10

IIUONASHEE SURVEYING· GEOMATICS

5 PLAN 29670

Fax (250) 545 5912

NOTES:

ALL DISTANCES ARE IN METERS. CIVIC ADDRESS: 978 GALIANO ROAD VERNON BC

LOT DIMENSIONS ARE BASED ON LAND TITLE OFFICE RECORDS AND COULD CHANGE UPON A COMPLETE RESURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THIS DOCUMENT PREPARED FOR SAUNDERS. MONASHEE SURVEYING AND GEOMA TICS, IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE.

READERS OF THIS DOCUMENT INTERESTED IN NON-FINANCIAL CHARGES AFFECTING THIS TITLE ARE ADVISED TO REFER TO A CURRENT STA TE OF TITLE CER TIFICA TE.

3710A 28th. Street Vernon, B.C. V1T 9X2 Tel. (250) 545 5990

F:\3000-3699 LAND ADMIN\3061 AREA B\_APPLICATIONS\DP\2011\11-0070-B-DP - TRACEY\11-0070-B-DP - TRACEY - DP Info Sheet.docx

REGIONAL DISTRICT

of NORTH OKANAGAN

PLANNING DEPARTMENT INFORMATION REPORT

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION

Proposal: Addition to a seasonal single family dwelling RECOMMENDATIONS: That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that an exemption to Section 1701.3.b.iii of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be approved for the property legally described as Lot 53, DL 1272, ODYD, Plan 8686 and located at 5927 Cosens Bay Road, Electoral Area ‘B’ to permit the floodplain setback of an addition to a seasonal single family dwelling to be reduced from 15 metres to 11.98 metres as shown on the sketch plan attached to the Planning Department Report dated June 15, 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 it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a Development Permit be issued for the property legally described as Lot 53, DL 1272, ODYD, Plan 8686 and located at 5927 Cosens Bay Road, Electoral Area ‘B’ subject to the following: 1. The dimensions and siting of the building addition to be constructed on the land be in

general accordance with the sketch plan attached to the Planning Department Report dated June 15, 2011;

Date: June 15, 2011

File No.: 11-0070-B-DP

Applicant: Douglas & Charis Tracey

Legal Description: Lot 53, DL 1272, ODYD, Plan 8686

P.I.D.# 009-813-080

Civic Address: 5927 Cosens Bay Road

Property Size: 0.12 ha (0.29 acres)

Servicing: On-site water and septic sewage disposal

Zoning: Residential Seasonal Single Family (R.6)

O.C.P. Designation: Residential, Development Permit Area for the protection of the natural environment (Kalamalka Lake) and for the protection of development from hazardous condition (wildfire).


Page 48 of 109

Development Permit Application and Floodplain Setback Exemption Request 11-0070-B-DP (Douglas & Charis Tracey) Page 2 2. Land within 15 m of the natural boundary of Kalamalka Lake 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 lake, and associated habitats

3. A stormwater management system be installed to control runoff from parking areas, internal roadways and buildings whereby culverted stormwater outlet facilities may not be installed directly into Kalamalka Lake, drainage ditch or gully except where a stormwater renovation system is being implemented; and further

That issuance of the Development Permit be withheld until the Regional District of North Okanagan receives notification from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and/or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada that the proposed development meets the requirements of the Riparian Areas Regulation. BACKGROUND: This is an application for a Development Permit and Floodplain Exemption for the property located at 5927 Cosens Bay Road. The applicant is proposing to construct a 168 ft2 addition to an existing seasonal single family dwelling that is located on the subject property. The Rural Vernon Official Community Plan (OCP) designates the property as being within a Development Permit Area for the Protection of the Natural Environment (Kalamalka Lake) and for the Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions (Wildfire Interface). The proposed building addition would be within the Floodplain Setbacks of Kalamalka Lake as designated in the Regional District Zoning Bylaw. As such, approval of a Development Permit and exemption from the Floodplain Setbacks is required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed development. Site Context The subject property consists of a 0.12 ha parcel located on the north side of Cosens Bay Road and south side of Kalamalka Lake. The subject property is designated Residential in the OCP and is zoned as Residential Seasonal Single Family (R.6). An existing seasonal single family dwelling is located on the north side of the property. The property is accessed from Cosens Bay Road by the way of shared driveway and is moderately sloped downwards towards Kalamalka Lake. A Development Permit and Building Permit were issued in 1999 for the construction of the existing dwelling with consideration to setbacks, sewage disposal, and environmental regulations. The cabin was permitted to be setback 12.5 m from the natural boundary of Kalamalka Lake as the relevant floodplain setback was 7.5 m at the time of construction. Currently, the property and area directly surrounding the dwelling is landscaped with a foot path and various retaining walls, which loop from the driveway access around the east side of the dwelling to an ‘L’ shaped dock on the foreshore. A septic disposal field is located between the dwelling and Cosens Bay Road.


Page 49 of 109

Development Permit Application and Floodplain Setback Exemption Request 11-0070-B-DP (Douglas & Charis Tracey) Page 3 The Proposal As shown on the attached sketch plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a 168 ft2 addition on the west side of the existing 430 ft2 dwelling to provide space for a growing family. The applicant states that the west side of the existing building is the best location for an addition as the lake is located on the north side of the dwelling, trees and landscaping would have to be removed on the east side and construction on the south side is limited by steep slopes, septic disposal fields and driveways. The applicant has submitted a letter from C. Jeffrey Oland, P.Eng stating that the existing sewerage system on the property will not be negatively impacted by the proposed addition. The proposed addition is completely within the 30 m Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) of the Riparian Areas Regulation. To address this matter, the applicant has engaged a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP), CTQ Consultants Ltd., to review the proposed development with regard to the Riparian Areas Regulation. The QEP has indicated in a letter to the Regional District that the “proposed addition would not result in any Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (non-HADD) of fish habitat”. Further, construction of the addition will be monitored, implementing Best Management Practices which includes silt fencing and delineation of no-work zones. Restoration and enhancement activities will take place under the guidance of the QEP with a compliance report prepared and submitted once all substantial works are completed. Since the proposed development falls within the SPEA an application to the Provincial Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MoFLNRO) and/or the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) will be required to approve a variance to the SPEA for the proposed addition. The addition is proposed to be situated 11.98 m at its closest point from the present natural boundary of Kalamalka Lake. The current floodplain setback for Kalamalka Lake is 15.0 m. The applicant has submitted a report from a Professional Engineer dated February 8, 2011 which provided confirmation that the habitable floor level of the existing building and proposed addition is situated more than 3.3 m above the Floodplain Construction Level of Kalamalka Lake. The report also states that the dwelling can be safely used for its intended purpose. RURAL VERNON OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN: The Rural Vernon OCP designates the subject property as being within a Development Permit Area for the Protection of the Natural Environment (Kalamalka Lake) and for the Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions (Wildfire Interface). The following Development Permit Areas Guidelines are to be considered when reviewing this application: Protection of the Natural Environment –Kalamalka Lake The Regional Board has the objective to protect the environmentally sensitive shorezone ecosystem around Kalamalka Lake and to maintain the water quality of this lake. All parcels in the vicinity of Kalamalka Lake as shown on Schedule ‘C’ are designated within a Development Permit Area to set conditions for the protection of the natural environment of this lake and its ecosystems and biodiversity. When reviewing a Development Permit Application the Regional Board will consider the guidelines outlined as follows:


Page 50 of 109

Development Permit Application and Floodplain Setback Exemption Request 11-0070-B-DP (Douglas & Charis Tracey) Page 4 1. land within 15 m of the natural boundary of Kalamalka Lake should 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 lake, wetlands, watercourses and associated habitats;

2. the Regional District may require a Restrictive Covenant to ensure long-term protection and maintenance of riparian vegetation;

3. where new plumbing works are proposed, a means of sewage disposal shall be installed to provide an adequate method for the disposal of sewage effluent and where the Interior Health Authority or the Ministry of Land, Water and Air Protection has denied approval, the Development Permit Application may be refused;

4. where an on-site sewage disposal system is proposed within the Development Permit Area, the Regional District will require that the sewage disposal works as well as the stormwater and surface drainage system be designed by an engineer with consideration of the protection, by Covenant, of a separated back-up sewage drainfield area; and notwithstanding these engineering requirements, the Regional District may also request an independent appraisal of the subsurface soil conditions to review the suitability of the site to absorb effluent;

5. the Regional District will require that a stormwater management system be installed to control runoff from parking areas, internal roadways and buildings whereby culverted stormwater outlet facilities should not be installed directly into any wetland, watercourse, drainage ditch or gully except where a stormwater renovation system is being implemented;

6. all designs for new construction works and all construction activity works should conform to guidelines established within the “Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitats” (Ministry of Lands and Parks, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1992) and in accordance with federal and provincial regulations.

Hazardous Conditions – Wildfire Interface The areas shown as such on Schedule A are designated as a development permit area for the protection of development from wildfire hazard. The Regional Board’s objectives are to ensure that particular development and maintenance measures are implemented to protect persons and property from wildfire hazard, and to ensure that property owners are aware of the wildfire hazard. Development permit applications involving the construction of a building within the development permit area must include a site plan and building plans indicating compliance with the following guidelines, and it will be a condition of each development permit that the land be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved site plan and building plans: 1. The area of the development parcel within 10 m of any building under construction should

be kept free of flammable construction materials and debris. 2. The area of the development parcel within 10 m of any building should be cleared and kept

free of all fallen timber and other dead vegetation, and dead standing timber should be removed from that area.

3. Trees on the development parcel within 10 m of any building should be limbed to a height of 2 m above ground level.

4. Vegetation on the development parcel within 30 m of any building should be thinned to reduce the overall tree crown cover to approximately 3 to 6 m between crowns if the existing crown cover exceeds that amount.

5. Roof coverings on every building must have a Class C fire resistance classification, determined in accordance with the B.C. Building Code.


Page 51 of 109

Development Permit Application and Floodplain Setback Exemption Request 11-0070-B-DP (Douglas & Charis Tracey) Page 5 ZONING BYLAW: The subject property is zoned Residential Seasonal Single Family (R.6). Uses permitted in the R6 zone include accessory residential buildings, public parks and playgrounds and seasonal single family dwellings. The number of dwellings and buildings allowed per lot in the R6 zone may not exceed: 1. one seasonal single family dwelling; and 2. one domestic garage or free standing carport and one other accessory residential building;

or two accessory residential buildings other than garages or carports. The proposal as compared to the R.6 zone requirements is as follows:

CRITERIA PROPOSAL ZONE REQUIREMENTS Lot Area (min.) 0.12 ha 1.0 ha Lot Frontage (min.) 22.8 m 15.2 m Lot Depth 49.8 m N/A Lot Coverage (max.) 10 % 35 % Building Height (max.) 8.8 m 9.0 m Building Setbacks (min.)

- Front lot line (Cosens Bay Rd) +38.0 m 7.5 m - Rear lot line 7.8 m 7.5 m

- Side lot line (east) +8 m 2.0 m - Side lot line (east) 2.2 m 2.0 m - Natural Boundary of Kal Lake 11.98 m 15.0 m Floodplain Management Provisions The Zoning Bylaw requires that buildings be setback 15.0 m from the Natural Boundary of Kalamalka Lake. In addition, the underside of a floor system of a building must meet the Flood Construction Levels of 393.2 m for land adjacent to Kalamalka Lake. Section 910(5) of the Local Government Act permits local governments to allow for exemptions from the floodplain setback and the floodplain elevation in relation to a specific parcel of land or use of a building if the local government considers it advisable, and

a) considers that the exemption is consistent with the Provincial guidelines, or b) has received a report that the land may be used safely for the use intended, which report

is certified by a person who is a professional engineer or geoscientist and experienced in geotechnical engineering

Section 910(6) of the LGA further states that the granting of an exemption, and the exemption, under Section (5) may be made subject to the terms and conditions the local government considers necessary or advisable, including without limitation,

a) imposing any term or condition contemplated by the Provincial guidelines in relation to an exemption,

b) requiring that a person submit a report described in subsection (5)(b), and c) requiring that a person enter into a covenant under Section 219 of the Land Title Act.


Page 52 of 109

Development Permit Application and Floodplain Setback Exemption Request 11-0070-B-DP (Douglas & Charis Tracey) Page 6 RIPARIAN AREAS REGULATION: The Riparian Areas Regulation dictates that local governments must not approve any residential, commercial or industrial development within a Riparian Assessment Area or Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area (SPEA) unless it has been notified by the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and/or Provincial Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (MoFLNRO) that a Qualified Environmental Professional’s assessment report has been received and that the development is allowed to proceed as per Section 4(2) or (3) of the Regulation. Since the proposed development falls within the SPEA an application to MoFLNRO and/or DFO will be required for the proposed addition. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Development Permit for the Protection of the Natural Environment (Kalamalka Lake) The Planning Department recommends the Development Permit application be given favourable consideration as the proposed development generally complies with the Development Permit guidelines. Construction of the existing dwelling on the property was authorized under a previously approved Development Permit and the options to construct an addition are limited. The applicant has submitted a report from a Qualified Environmental Professional stating that the “proposed addition would not result in any Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction (non-HADD) of fish habitat”. The applicant has also submitted a letter from a Professional Engineer stating that the existing sewerage system on the property will not be negatively impacted by the proposed addition and in this regard, Interior Health has stated that they have no objections to the proposed development. The Development Permit guidelines state that land within 15 m of the natural boundary of Kalamalka Lake should remain free of development and that stormwater management systems are to be installed to control runoff into Kalamalka Lake. It is recommended that these be included as conditions of the Permit. To ensure the development complies with the Riparian Areas Regulation, it is recommended that issuance of the Development Permit be withheld until MoFLNRO and/or DFO have provided the Regional District with notification that it meets the requirements of the Riparian Areas Regulation. Floodplain Setback The Planning Department recommends that the Floodplain Setback Exemption Request also be given favourable consideration as the proposed addition does not encroach any further into the floodplain setback than the existing building and the applicant has submitted a report from a Professional Engineer stating that the dwelling can be safely used for its intended purpose. In this regard, the report notes the following: 1. The flood level as per Zoning Bylaw Bylaw 1888, 2003 is 393.2 m and the floor level of the

dwelling including the proposed addition is 396.5 (3.3 m above the flood level); 2. The footings of the addition will be approximately 2.5 m above the flood level; 3. The safety of the dwelling will not be compromised with a flood level of 393.2 m.


Page 53 of 109

Development Permit Application and Floodplain Setback Exemption Request 11-0070-B-DP (Douglas & Charis Tracey) Page 7 As a condition of approving the excemption, it is recommended that a Section 219 Covenant be registered on the title of the property to save harmless the Regional District from damages that may be caused by flooding. Hazardous Conditions – Wildfire Interface The applicant has provided the necessary information demonstrating compliance with the OCP Wildfire Interface Guidelines. Issuance of Wildfire Interface Permits are delegated to staff, and therefore do not require approval of the Regional District Board of Directors. SUMMARY: This is an application for Development Permit for Protection of the Natural Environment (Kalamalka Lake) and exemption to the floodplain setback related to a proposed addition to a seasonal single family dwelling at 5927 Cosens Bay Road. The Planning Department recommends that applications be given favourable consideration as it has been demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in any Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat and that the dwelling can be safely used for its intended purpose. It is recommended that as a condition of approval, the relevant guidelines be incorporated into the Development Permit and that a Section 219 Covenant be registered on the title of the property to save harmless the Regional District from damages that may be caused by flooding. To ensure the development complies with the Riparian Areas Regulation, it is recommended that issuance of the Development Permit be withheld until MoFLNRO and/or DFO have provided the Regional District with notification that it meets the requirements of the Riparian Areas Regulation. REFERRALS: The application has been referred to the following for their review and comment: 1. Electoral Area ‘B’ Director 2. Electoral Area ‘B’ Advisory Planning Commission 3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee 4. Integrated Land Management Bureau

No comments received. 5. Building Inspection Department

No comments received. 6. Interior Health Authority

Received confirmation that the wastewater system in question is operating properly, and will not be negatively affected by an increase in the size of the dwelling. As such, has no further objection to the issuance of the Development Permit.


Page 54 of 109


Page 55 of 109

Development Permit Application and Floodplain Setback Exemption Request 11-0070-B-DP (Douglas & Charis Tracey)

7. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure No objection to the application.

8. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations No comments received.

Submitted by:

Wesley Miles ' -------ePfanning-A-s-ststant'---------------------tAIVp"'p""ro"'vli5:eBro-Flncluslon:

Endorsed by:

~ Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building

Page 8


Page 56 of 109

ELECTORAL AREA "S" DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP File: 11-0070-B-DP Applicant: Douglas & Charis Tracey Location: 5927 Cosens Bay Road

Kalamalka Lake

~~ - - •• ~ to

43 44 PLAN 5 51

60

Subject Property

A ",cd' 8686 fI 58 ~

& .,

~11B34

3---------· I I I I I I I I I I I


Page 57 of 109

LOT 52

SKli'7'CH PLAN OF 7'OPOCR4PHIC SURVli'Y 7'0 ACCONPANY RIPARIAN ARli'A ASSli'SSNli'N7' OF LOr 53 £lIS7'RIC?' L07' 1272 OSOYOOS £lIVISION YA£li' £lIS?'RIC7' PLAN 8888 THE INTENDfO PLOT SIZE OF THIS PLAN IS <lJ2mrr IN 'MOTH SY 560mm IN HEIGHT (0 SIZE) !+HEN PLOrTf:O AT A SCALE OF 1:150

Om !

=

5m ;

SCALE: 1:150

OA TE OF SURIfFY: NOVEMBER 17 2010

ALL DISTANCES AfiE IN METeRS,

10m

I

CIVIC ADDR5S: 2927 COSNffl? BAY RQAD GO!QSTRfAU RC

LOT OIJJENSIONS ARE BASED ON LAND nTl.£ DFFfC£ RECORDS AND COULD CHANGE UPON A COMPLETE RESl./RVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERrY.

£LEVA TlONS ARE GEODETIC AND DER/V£{) FROM KALAMALKA LAKE LEVEL D-EVATlON AT DATE OF SURVEY - .191,28 METRES.

THIS DOCUMENT PREPARED FOf( Doue mACEr MONASHff SURVEYING AND GEOMATlCS, IS NOr RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZED US£.

• DENOTES STAKE SET

• DENOTES STANDARD IRON POST FOUND

BMONASHEE SURVEYING' GEOMATICS FIX(250)~6e12

3710A 28th. Stmt VIMTIOII, s.c. VIT 8X2 Ttl. (260) G46 6m DRAItfNG: 5674 RAR.OWG

KALAMALKA LAKE

wat«llM at dat~ of SlIfW1y

LOT 54

COSENS SA


Page 58 of 109

1 I

do<,

LOT 52

SKETCH PLAN OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO ACCOMPANY RIPARIAN AREA ASSESSMENT OF LOT 53 DISTRICT LOT 1272 OSOYOOS DIVISION YALE DISTRICT PLAN 8686 THE INTCNOCO ptOT SIZE (T TffI5 ptAJIIS "J2mm IN MOTH BY .56Qnm IN HEI(;HT (C SlZC) t+f/CN PLOTTeO <"I T ... SCALf (T 1: ISO Om

!

SCALE: 1: 150

JlJIWNOTCS'

DArt OF SURVfY: NOVCMBeR 112010

ALL DISTANCES ARE IN METERS

10m

I

CIViC ADDRESS. 59?7 COWENS BAt ROAD CO/OSTf?[AU Be

LOT DIU£NSlONS ARE BASED ON LAND nTLe OFfiCE RECORDS AND COULD CHANGE UPON A COMPLETE RESURVCY or THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

ELEVA TlONS ARE G[OOETIC AND DERIVED rR~ KALAAfALKA LAKE Lnn ELEVATION AT DATE Of SUR~~Y - J9/.28 MURES.

THIS DOCUJl[NT PREPAREO FOR ~ UONASHEE SUR~'['(JNG AND GEOMATlCS, IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY UNAUTHORIZeD USE.

• DENOTES STAKE SET

• DENOTeS STANDARD IRON POST FOUND

= .. OIASHEE SURVfYll6' GEOIlATiCS ... _ .... "

nlOA -. ...... ___ Le. V1Tm ...... catot .. .. DRAItlNG. 5674 RAR.OWC

KALAMALKA LAKE

• • ",elIenl no/ural bwnrkry (High ",ol~ line)

•

LOT 53

LOT 54

2.0';0


Page 59 of 109

r: i


Page 60 of 109


NORTH OKANAGAN

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INFORMATION REPORT

WAIVER OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUEST

FileNo.:

Applicant:

Legal Description:

P.I.D.#:

Civic Address:

Property Size:

Zoning:

OCP Designation:

Proposal:

11-0098-F-WVR Date: June 3, 2011

Scott & Bonnie Jackson c/o W.E. Maddox

Lot 2, Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP58263, Except Plan KAP88652

023-653-388

80 Mat Road

11.33 ha (28.04 acres)

Country Residential (C.R)

Country Residential (C.R)

1 lot plus remainder subdivision


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the ten percent minimum frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be waived for the property legally described as Lot 2, Sec 3, Twp 19, R9, W6M, KDYD, Plan KAP58263, Except Plan KAP88652 and located at 80 Mat Road, Electoral Area IF' by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Lot 1 from 119.37 metres to 11.10 metres as shown on the subdivision plan attached to the Development Services Information Report dated June 3, 2011.

BACKGROUND:

This is an application for Lot Frontage Waiver for the property located at 80 Mat Road, Electoral Area "F". The applicant has applied to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for a conventional subdivision to create one lot with an area of 3.32 ha and a second lot of 8.01 ha. By way of letter dated February 11, 2011, the proposed subdivision received Preliminary Layout Approval from the Provincial Approving Officer subject to, among other conditions, re-design of the lot layout to offer the required 10% frontage or to obtain approval of the Board of Directors to waive the lot frontage requirement of the Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003. A lot frontage waiver in this regard is requested for the proposed 3.32 ha lot.

Site Context

The subject property is an 11.33 ha parcel located on the west side and southerly end of Mat Road. The subject property is deSignated in the Official Community Plan and zoned as Country Residential (C.R). All of the surrounding properties are also designated and zoned Country Residential.

Page 10f4


Page 61 of 109

WAIVER OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT File No.: 11-0098-F-WVR

The majority of the subject property is treed and gradually slopes upwards from Mat Road. The constructed portion of Mat Road ends at the northeast corner of the subject property. Terry Road to the south connects with Mat Road via a dedicated road right-of-way that is currently unconstructed. A single family dwelling is located on west side of the property. Access to the dwelling is gained from Mat Road via an existing driveway that travels along the north side of the property.

The Proposal

As shown on the attached subdivision plan, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into one 3.32 ha lot and one 8.01 ha lot. The 3.32 ha lot would have 11.10 m of frontage on Mat Road and the proposed 8.01 ha lot would have 207.68 m of frontage on the dedicated road right-of-way that connect Mat Road to Terry Road.

Access to a potential building site on the proposed 8.01 ha lot would be gained from a new driveway that would connect the proposed building site to the constructed portion of Mat Road. The driveway would have a grade of 0% for the first 22 m and would be no greater than 14.6% thereafter. Access to the existing single family dwelling on the proposed 3.32 ha lot would be gained from the existing driveway which has a grade of 1.2% for the first 20 m and is no greater than 6.2% thereafter.

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN:

The Electoral Area "F" OCP designates the subject property as Country Residential. The following Rural Residential Policies are to be considered when reviewing this application:

1. Rural residential lands shall conform to the following requirements: a. outside the Agricultural Land Reserve and, where the use abuts land in the ALR, be provided

with adequate buffering on the non-agricultural lands; b. have access to a public road system meeting Ministry of Transportation standards in which

emergency egress must be considered particularly in wildfire interface areas; c. not in an area that has high capability for other uses such as gravel deposits, mining, wildlife

habitat, rare and endangered wildlife habitat, rare vegetation communities, springs and domestic water supply (community watersheds) unless the impacts can be mitigated through clustering or other innovative development techniques;

d. not in an area with slopes greater than thirty percent (30%); e. not subject to flooding or in an area with a high water table; f not subject to excessive expenditures for services such as roads, electric power, and school

bussing; g. contains a suitable building site; h. is serviced with a potable water supply meeting the requirements of DIVISION XIV - SERVICES -

POLICIES - Potable Water Supply; and i. provides for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage meeting the requirements of

DIVISION XIV - SERVICES - POLICIES - Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal.

Development Permit Areas

The subject property is identified as being within a Development Permit Area for the Protection of Development from Hazardous Conditions (Wildfire Interface Area). Issuance of a Development Permit in this regard will be required prior to subdivision approval and 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.

Page 20f4


Page 62 of 109

WAIVER OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT File No.: 11-0098-F-WVR

ZONING BYLAW:

The subject property and proposed lots are 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; and

Lot Frontage

Lots proposed in the subdivision are required to have a lot frontage of not less than 10% of the perimeter of the lot. The proposed 3.32 ha lot would have a total perimeter of 1193.6 m and the proposed 8.01 ha lot would have a perimeter of 1200.0 m. Therefore, required frontages would be 119.3 m and 120.0 m respectively.

Building Sites

Section 310 of the Zoning Bylaw states that lots created must contain an area of 2000 m2 or larger to serve as a suitable building site. The building site may not exceed 30% slope and must be accessible from a public highway by a private access driveway that: 1. is as close to right angles as possible to the finished road surface for a minimum of 6 m; and 2. has a minimum width of 5.5 m for the first 6 m and 4 m thereafter; and 3. has a maximum slope of 2% from the ditch line for a minimum distance of 10m and a maximum

slope of 15% thereafter.

RONO POLICY NO. LU033 - PANHANDLE LOTS:

The Regional District has adopted a policy related to panhandle lots. The policy states that panhandle lots are permitted in the following cases: 1. Access to or development of adjacent land is not adversely affected. 2. If the road is suitable for a future public road, it is dedicated and constructed to a gravel standard. 3. The panhandle is a minimum of 10m in width and 20 m where further subdivision is possible. 4. The alignment provides for direct access from a public road. (no doglegs) 5. The maximum length is 45 m in the Residential zones, 115 m in the Small Holding zone, 225 m in

the Country Residential zone, and 445 m in the Non-Urban zone.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:

Development Services recommends that the proposed lot frontage waiver request be given favourable consideration as the proposed subdivision complies with the Regional District policy on panhandle lots. Also, the proposed subdivision does not compromise the potential for further subdivision of the proposed 8.01 ha lot in the future and the applicant has demonstrated that a potential building site on the proposed 8.01 ha lot can be accessed by a private access driveway that complies with the private access driveway standards of the Zoning Bylaw. The same has been demonstrated for the proposed 3.32 ha lot which contains an existing dwelling.

Page 3 of4


Page 63 of 109

WAIVER OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT File No.: 11-0098-F-WVR SUMMARY:

This is an application for Lot Frontage Waiver related to a proposed subdivision of the property located at 80 Mat Road in Electoral Area "F". Development Services recommends that the lot frontage waiver request be given favourable consideration as the proposed subdivision complies with the Regional District policy on panhandle lots, would not compromise the potential for further subdivision of the proposed remainder lot and driveway access and buildings sites for each lot have been demonstrated and designed to comply with the Zoning Bylaw.

REFERRALS:

The application has been referred to the following for their review and comment:

1. Electoral Area IF' Director

2. Electoral Area IF' Advisory Planning Commission

3. Electoral Area Advisory Committee

4. Shuswap River Fire Protection Area - Community I Protective Services Manager No comments received.

5. Building Inspection Department No comments received.

6. Interior Health Authority Interests do not appear to be affected by this application.

Submitted by:

Wesley Miles, E t. Planning Assistant

Endorsed by:



Page 4 of4


Page 64 of 109

161-F


ELECTORAL AREA "F" LOT FRONTAGE WAIVER REQUEST APPLICATION

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP 11-0098-F-WVR s. & B. Jackson clo W. E. Maddox 80 Mat Road

KAP45461 D.D. 134553-F

PLAN 28369

i' Q:-0

l f

PLAN

I(AP74661

KAP74GGl

3 P.41755

.<f-~ 1:: '<7 1',l.

1'0 "'0

28369

3 KAP58263

I Subject Property

,.!~.

"'1~' 4

N I';'H~

Ol co '<j'

u~. co Q..

« ~

.2

3

KAP74661

,'I ,_,

j,",','

2

PLAN

41755

l'.'H'. ¢

" 2 £,

1<»). S

~ 3 II

a

KAP58263

~. 5 " ,,,"'

10 I.cn,

9 l.1lh0J It) ~ 0) ".~

!!,"5 tf!

1

KAP58263

KAP88495 5

4 G \ n~, HH,

7 3 'O'HI

!.'~IJ

'?s t Q

if 'Z

.. ~ RP~

C.T, N28033-F

BLK. 1 ~ BLK.2

PLAN \ 1548

13 PLAN

11

6 P,1482

A

KAP71745

1

KAP71385

A KAPB0656

lv»~.

2 I(AP44729

15 REM.1G

REM,14

1482

;u \" PLAN 0 » ~> 1 <::> 'q,

A

KAP49753

P 35352

1 10\[,44414

30172 2

10

5 ;"

it

I 5 i

c?PLAJi482

PLAN

4i


Page 65 of 109

ALL DISTANCES ARE IN METRES.

2(L W""'" r:r:

I I I I 1

1

~I ~I ~I ~I <I '" Ci'!1

1

I I I

~I ~I ~I Cl <..J

Pl~;;;T L.()T ~:

F'L.I~.;\J r·:i\F':5 G~: {:; ~:~~ LOT 1

Area=3.32 ha including

panhandle

I 62.760

I I

R I ;; I m

I I I

REM LOT 1 PLAN KAP88652

LOT 3 PLAN KAP58263

REM LOT 2 PLAN KAP58263

Area=8.01 ha

Well H25903 •

402.348

PLAN OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOT 2, PLAN KAP58263, SEC 3, TP 19, R 9, W6M, KDYD EXCEPT PLAN KAP88652

from edge of rood for 20m: 5.5m wide @ .1.2% grade

From edge of road for 22m:---_ 5.5m wide @ 0.0% grode ,;. ,f-:7

~.i' '/!-' " l' 1 / .i'~Ao/,' I

Perc v)" b :';' / ;' Test H1 v)'~;"'//

--------..... § // / r • Q. ... ','iV' \ Test I J\

\ Pit H1 • \, \ ·5% to ·10% \

\ ....................... - \ \. ) Proposed--\-! Perc " Building Site \ Test H2 , Areo=4300 m2 ", ! , ,

" , , , , ...... _____ J

LOT 1 PLAN KAP91165

~ » -1

::::0 o » o

SCALE: 1: 2500 OUR FILE: R9100 DATE: 31 Mar 2011 DRAWN: RB

Mr. Scott Jackson

WILLIAM E. MADDOX

91000A02

B.C. LAND SURVEYOR 3500 - 30th STREET

VERNON, B.C. V1T 5E8 TELEPHONE (250)542-4343


Page 66 of 109


NORTH OKANAGAN

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INFORMATION REPORT

WAIVER OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUEST

File No.: 11-0077 -F-WVR Date: June 6,2011

Applicant: Jeremy Ayotte

Legal Description: The Fractional Southwest % of Sec 6, Twp 20, R8, W6M, KDYD

P.I.D.#:

Civic Address:

Property Size:

Zoning:

OCP Designation:

Proposal:

003-928-951

180 Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road

64.35 ha

Non-Urban (N.U)

Non-Urban (N.U)

Three lot bare land strata subdivision


That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the ten percent minimum frontage requirement of Section 802.7 of Regional District of North Okanagan Zoning Bylaw No. 1888, 2003 be waived for the property legally described as The Fractional Southwest % of Sec 6, Twp 20, R8, W6M, KDYD, located at 180 Larch Hills Forest Service Road (FSR), Electoral Area IF' by reducing the lot frontage of proposed Bareland Strata Lots 1, 2 and 3 from 196.1 metres, 141.4 metres, and 159.05 metres to the frontage of the Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road for each lot as shown on the subdivision plan attached to the Development Services Information Report dated June 6, 2011.

BACKGROUND:

This is an application for Lot Frontage Waiver for the property located at 180 Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road. The applicant has applied to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for a three lot bareland strata subdivision. By way of letter dated October 7, 2010, the proposed subdivision received Preliminary Layout Approval from the Provincial Approving Officer subject to, among other conditions, re-design of the lot layout to offer the required 10% lot frontage or to obtain approval of the Regional District to waive the lot frontage requirement of the Regional District Zoning Bylaw. A lot frontage waiver in this regard is requested for all three proposed lots.

Site Context

The subject property is a 64.35 ha parcel located at the easterly end of Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road. The subject property is designated in the Official Community Plan and zoned as Non Urban. All of the surrounding properties are designated and zoned Non Urban. The properties to the north, northwest and west are owned by the Crown.

Page 10f4


Page 67 of 109

WAIVER OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUEST File No.: 11-0077-F-WVR

The majority of the site is treed. As shown on the attached contour map, the southerly quarter of the property is steep hillside with a gradual transition to plateau land in the north. Currently there are two single family dwellings on the property, one of which is located near the centre of the property and the other near the northwest portion of the property. Access to the dwellings is gained via a shared driveway that connects to Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road.

The Proposal

The applicant is proposing a bare land strata subdivision to create three lots, two of which would be 10.0 ha in size and one of which would be 11.2 ha. To the south and east of the bareland strata lots would be a 33.7 ha common lot. The existing dwellings would be located on their own bareland strata lot, leaving one vacant bareland strata lot.

All proposed barelend strata lots would have frontage on a 40 m by 40 m common access area connecting onto Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road. Two of the lots would have 20.0 m of frontage on the common access area and one would have 72.5 m. Each lot would have private driveways that connect to the common access area. The driveways would have grades of 5-11 %. Access to the proposed Common Lot would be gained through the proposed barelend strata lots.

Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road

The Provincial Approving Officer is prepared to approve the proposed bareland strata subdivision on the condition that the applicant provide written confirmation from the Ministry of Forests that Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road meets all the requirements of BC Regulation 334/79 and if so, the following notation be included on the final subdivision plan: "Pursuant to Section 15(2) of BC Reg. 334/79, consent is given to this plan of subdivision. The giving of this consent shall not imply an obligation of the crown in right of the province to improve, maintain or repair the forest service road shown on this plan."

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN:

The Electoral Area "F" OCP designates the subject property as Non Urban. The following Rural Residential Policies are to be considered when reviewing this application:

1. Rural residential lands shall conform to the following requirements: a. outside the Agricultural Land Reserve and, where the use abuts land in the ALR, be provided

with adequate buffering on the non-agricultural lands; b. have access to a public road system meeting Ministry of Transportation standards in which

emergency egress must be considered particularly in wildfire interface areas; c. not in an area that has high capability for other uses such as gravel deposits, mining, wildlife

habitat, rare and endangered wildlife habitat, rare vegetation communities, springs and domestic water supply (community watersheds) unless the impacts can be mitigated through clustering or other innovative development techniques;

d. not in an area with slopes greater than thirty percent (30%); e. not subject to flooding or in an area with a high water table; f not subject to excessive expenditures for services such as roads, electric power, and school

bussing; g. contains a suitable building site; h. is serviced with a potable water supply; and i. provides for the collection, treatment and disposal of sewage.

Page 2of4


Page 68 of 109

WAIVER OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUEST File No.: 11-0077-F-WVR

ZONING BYLAW:

The subject property is zoned Non Urban (N.U). The minimum lot size standard of the N.U zone is 7.2 ha. Uses permitted in the N.U zone include ancillary single family dwellings, bed and breakfast use, boarding house use, community care facilities, home occupations use, intensive agricultural use, limited agricultural use, rapid infiltration and spray irrigation, 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 N.U 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 14.4 ha or larger for lands (outside the ALR); and 3. one additional single family dwelling on lots 21.6 ha or larger for lands (outside the ALR); and 4. one ancillary single family dwelling on lands in and out of the ALR; and

Lot Frontage

Lots proposed in the subdivision are required to have a lot frontage of not less than 10% of the perimeter of the lot. Lot Frontage is defined as the length of a parcel boundary which immediately adjoins a highway other than a lane or walkway. Highway is defined as all public streets, roads, ways, trails, lanes, bridges, trestles, ferry landings and approaches, and any other public way. The three bareland strata lots would have a perimeter of 1961.0 m, 1413.0 m, and 1590.5 m. Therefore, required frontage of the proposed bareland strata lots is 196.1 m, 141.3 m, and 159.05 m.

Building Sites

Section 310 of the Zoning Bylaw states that lots created within the N.U zone must contain an area of 2000 m2 or larger to serve as a suitable building site. The building site may not exceed 30% slope and must be accessible from a public highway by a private access driveway that: 1. is as close to right angles as possible to the finished road surface for a minimum of 6 m; and 2. has a minimum width of 5.5 m for the first 6 m and 4 m thereafter; and 3. has a maximum slope of 2% from the ditch line for a minimum distance of 10m and a maximum

slope of 15% thereafter.

RDNO POLICY NO. LU033 - PANHANDLE LOTS:

The Regional District has adopted a policy related to panhandle lots. The policy states that panhandle lots are permitted in the following cases: 1. Access to or development of adjacent land is not adversely affected. 2. If the road is suitable for a future public road, it is dedicated and constructed to a gravel standard. 3. The panhandle is a minimum of 10m in width and 20 m where further subdivision is possible. 4. The alignment provides for direct access from a public road (no doglegs). 5. The maximum length is 45 m in the Residential zones, 115 m in the Small Holding zone, 225 m in

the Country Residential zone, and 445 m in the Non-Urban zone.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:

Development Services recommends that the lot frontage waiver request be given favorable consideration as the proposed subdivision complies with the Regional District panhandle policy and limits the number of single family dwellings that could be constructed on the property and at the end of a forest service road to that which is currently permitted. It is noted that the Provincial Approving Officer is prepared to approve the proposed subdivision regardless of whether a lot frontage waiver is granted and despite it not providing access to lands beyond the subject property.

Page 3 of4


Page 69 of 109

WAIVER OF LOT FRONTAGE REQUEST File No.: 11-0077 -F-WVR

In addition to the above, the applicant has demonstrated that the existing dwellings on the property would be accessed by private driveways that comply with the private access driveway standards of the Zoning Bylaw and that the same would apply for a building site on the proposed vacant lot.

SUMMARY:

This is an application for Lot Frontage Waiver related to a proposed subdivision of the property located at 180 Larch Hills Mara Meadows Forest Service Road in Electoral Area "F". Development Services recommends that the lot frontage waiver request be given favourable consideration as the proposed subdivision complies with the Regional District panhandle policy, limits the number of single family dwellings that could be constructed on the property and at the end of a forest service road to that which is currently permitted, and driveway access and buildings sites for each lot have been demonstrated and designed to comply with the Zoning Bylaw.

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

Submitted by:

Wesley Miles, EPt. Planning Assistant

Endorsed by:



Page 4 of4


Page 70 of 109


ELECTORAL AREA "F" LOT FRONTAGE WAIVER REQUEST APPLICATION

SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP 11-0077 -F-WVR Jeremy Ayotte 180 Larch Hills

\j \

--r------ --1-----I I

lfLd I UH

I

----~--+----. I I

l.3A 1 LS 3

I


Page 71 of 109

251 0 126 251

I' ••••••••• '====i' •• c=::J1 Meters

1: 9,892

North Okanagan Map

© Corporation of the City of Vernon & Regional District of North Okanagan

This drawing has been produced by the City of Vernon's and the Regional District of North Okanagan's Geographic Information Systems. The data provided is derived from a variety of sources with varying levels of accuracy. The City of Vemon and the Regional District of North Okanagan make no warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with the regard to the correctness, accuracy and/or reliability of the information contained herein.

o

EA

AC

- RE

GU

LAR

AG

EN

DA

July 7, 2011 - Item

F4

Page 72 of 109

leo :Mar-a Meadows 1

1"f\(}f\ , (,yt1' ~eS.'::I

f>..C'·

o CO

.AJ~ C rr'/ate dr[,;<'e\"'lBYS right angle and !:.S fn

\/ll:jtil for 6· m . .:: n") \~J' idth ill ereafter

t"l

:; Fr

N r-.

!JjU

SL 3 10.0 hCl

2.000 rn2 -:: 20::l ;

~

273

"CQrnn,on"

J \, \:

C"-L 1\ ..:JI \' H.? ho ·v

(;p;btl;'!':::lH IYellol

j-, 0

201

~-

,'8 ~

000

o '"'

~

~ >--<, G

r,

-L:

I

..-rJ')

-::t

I -t

:.u!::\

"Common"

33.7 ho !.l')

;is

REGIONAL DISTRICT

of NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3046.01.04

RECOMMENDATION: That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the Community Works Fund Tier 1 Project budget be increased to $90,000.00 for 2011. DISCUSSION: In 2011 the Regional District of North Okanagan had already allocated the full Community Works Fund (CWF) Tier 1 project budget of $50,000 to eligible projects. Staff is seeking direction from the Board of Directors as to how to manage Tier 1 projects for the remainder of the year. Three options are available:

1. The Tier 1 project budget is increased to $90,000 for 2011 and future Tier 1 project proposals be assessed and approved according to the expenditure procedure;

2. Each Tier 1 project is assessed in the same manner as Tier 2 projects, with the staff technical review committee screening them to ensure that meet the eligibility criteria and final approval for each project coming from the Board of Directors;

3. Not accepting any more Tier 1 projects in 2011.

Staff recommend that Option 1 is followed. Not accepting any more Tier 1 projects in 2011 is problematic if Tier 2 projects are still to be considered. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: In January 2009 the RDNO CWF Expenditure Procedure was developed to establish how projects would be assessed for funding through the CWF. The procedure established two tiers of funding, Tier 1 for projects up to $8,000.00 and Tier 2 for projects over $8,000.00. The CWF Expenditure Procedure stipulates that Tier 1 projects be assessed by staff and then be given final approval from the RDNO Administrator. The Board of Directors is to be informed of funded Tier 1 projects through the Sustainability Coordinator’s monthly report to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee. A budget of $50,000 per year is allocated for Tier 1 projects which are assessed on a first come first served basis. Tier 2 projects are assessed by staff to ensure they meet the eligibility criteria then a recommendation for funding is made to the Board of Directors who has to approve the funding of all Tier 2 projects. Tier 2 projects are assessed as a group three times per year.


FROM: Anna Page, Sustainability Coordinator

DATE: June 9, 2011

SUBJECT: Community Works Fund Tier 1 Projects


Page 73 of 109

Community Works Fund Tier 1 Projects Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee– June 9, 2011 Page 2 The division of projects into two tiers based on value allows for lesser value projects to be assessed and processed in a timely manner at a staff level. Larger value projects are assessed and processed more comprehensively, considering both the eligibility criteria and how they rank against one another and are approved by the Board of Directors. In 2011 the Tier 1 budget of $50,000 has already been allocated to nine projects as outlined in Table 1.

Project # Project Area Value

41 Silver Star Water – Chlorine injector at booster station Area C $7,900.0042 Whitevale Water – Installation of Sampling Stations Area D $4,500.00 43 Whitevale Water – Hydraulic Modeling Area D $7,990.00 44 Greater Vernon Water Utility – Antwerp Deep Well Area D $7,800.00

45 Whitevale Water – Installing sampling port and water level probe in well. Area D $5,850.00

53 SCADA Improvements at Whitevale Water Utility Area D $7,990.00 58 Mara Hall retrofits - light replacement Area F $1,604.00 59 Kingfisher Hall Retrofits – men’s washroom Area F $2,128.00 62 GW - Backflow protection and meter box Area F $5,500.00

Total $51,262.00

Table 1: 2011 Funded Community Works Fund Tier 1 Projects Three additional Tier 1 projects have been submitted for assessment since the budget was fully allocated with a combined value of over $20,000. These projects are outlined in Table 2. As it is only June it is highly like more Tier 1 projects will be submitted over the next six months.

Project # Project Area Value 57 Transportation study of businesses outside of Village boundaries Area D $7,990.00

60 Mabel Lake Water - Chlorine Injection Improvement and Contact Time Loop Area F $7,800.00

61 Grindrod Water - Chlorine Shed Area F $7,800.00 Total $23,590.00

Table 2: 2011 Submitted Community Works Fund Tier 1 Projects FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS: There is currently in excess of $700,000 remaining in the CWF budget with a further $1,000,000 to be received over 2012 and 2013. Increasing the Tier 1 budget for 2011 by $40,000 to a total of $90,000 would allow staff to continue to process lesser cost but beneficial projects in a timely manner. If the budget was not increased these projects could still be considered for funding following the same process as is currently used for Tier 2 projects. Increasing the budget for Tier 1 projects would require an amendment to the annual budget to reflect the change.


Page 74 of 109


Page 75 of 109

Community Works Fund Tier 1 Projects Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee- June 9, 2011 Page 3

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS:

If the 2011 budget for CWF Tier 1 projects is increased staff will assess projects in the current manner. If Tier 1 projects are to be assessed and approved in the same manner as Tier 2 projects there will be an increased number of projects to be reviewed by the staff technical review committee and by the Board of Directors.

SUMMARY:

In 2011 the Tier 1 budget of $50,000 has already been allocated to nine projects. Three additional Tier 1 projects have been submitted for assessment since the budget was fully allocated with a combined value of over $20,000. It is highly like more Tier 1 projects will be submitted over the next six months. Increasing the Tier 1 budget for 2011 by $40,000 to a total of $90,000 would allow staff to continue to process lesser value projects in a timely manner.

Submitted by:

Anna Page, Sustainability Coordinator Approved For Inclusion:

Endorsed by:


REGIONAL DISTRICT

of NORTH OKANAGAN

REPORT

File No.: 3045.10

RECOMMENDATION: That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that, if the Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study: Phase I proceeds, that Reserves (030) will be used to fund the project; And further, that the Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study Terms of Reference be reviewed and revised based upon the outcome of Phase I: Review Existing Conditions, if the Board of Directors chooses to proceed with the project. DISCUSSION: The original Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study proposals received from Dillon Consulting, Hemson Consulting Limited and Urban Systems scored very similar on content, although the use of a phased approach was no consistent. The Electoral Area Advisory Committee, on February 3, 2011, requested that the three submitting consultants provide additional information on budgeting and deliverables, based upon reorganizing the proposals into three distinct and comparable phases. The Electoral Area Advisory Committee required further clarification on the costs associated with each phase and staff instructed the consultants to reorganize the proposal and clarify the costs without substantially changing the content of the proposals. Hemson Consulting, Dillon Consulting and Urban Systems submitted revised proposals with the requested information. Phase I: Review Existing Situation was the foundation that Phase II: Cumulative Effects of Unincorporated Annexations and Phase III: Recommendations and Conclusions. As a result, the scope and cost of Phase II, as has been indicated in two of the three proposals, will need to be reevaluated once Phase I has been concluded. It is recommended to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee that Phase I: Review of Existing Situation be undertaken first and that, based upon the findings, that the scope be reconsidered. All three proponents should be contacted, if the Electoral Area Advisory Committee decides to continue to project after Phase I, to submit updated proposals for Phase II and III for consideration. Urban Systems scored highest during evaluation of Phase I of the proposals, provided the product that best reflected the requirements of the Request for Proposal for Phase I and the needs of the Electoral Area Advisory Committee.


FROM: Anthony Kittel, Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator

DATE: May 25, 2011

SUBJECT: Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study


Page 76 of 109

Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee – May 25, 2011 Page 2 PHASE I: REVIEW EXISTING SITUATION TASKS

a) Document the current situation within the study area(s) with respect to the following: North Okanagan municipal annexation policies and provincial legislation, as well as

annexation policies from throughout North America; Services provided by the Regional District of North Okanagan to Electoral Areas; Services provided by other agencies; Property taxes and other fees, with a full accounting of service provision costs per

household; Local political representation; and General description of land use planning and regulation.

b) Evaluate annexation application activity and annexation policies within the key priority areas,

in relation to current municipal and regional strategic direction, including Official Community Plans, municipal policy direction and the Regional Growth Strategy.

c) The current situation information will represent the ‘base case’ for analysis of financial, land

use and service delivery implication of cumulative unincorporated area annexations. BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The Electoral Area Advisory Committee (EAAC), on May 12, 2010, were asked to chose three priority 2010 planning projects. The Board of Directors, on June 2, 2010, resolved to identify the Annexation Study to determine the impacts of incremental annexations on the Electoral Areas as a top new priority planning projects for 2010, in addition to the projects underway from 2009. The Board of Directors, at the December 8, 2010 regular meeting, further resolved to direct staff to proceed with a Call for Proposals for the Regional District of North Okanagan Electoral Areas Annexation Impact Study. Three proposals were received by February 25, 2011 for consideration. The Request for Proposal for the Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study was advertised from January 10, 2011 to February 25, 2011 and the Regional District of North Okanagan received three proposals for consideration. A three hundred point proposal evaluation matrix was used to assess the proposals and the three preformed very similarly, although each consulting firm took very different approaches to the study. Urban Systems, Dillon Consulting and Hemson Consulting submitted proposals. The three proposals scored very similarly on content, although there were additional questions regarding comparability of the cost of each phase. As a result, staff was directed to request further information from the consultants on February 3, 2011. SUMMARY: Phase I: Review Existing Situation is the foundation that Phase II: Cumulative Effects of Unincorporated Annexations and Phase III: Recommendations and Conclusions. As a result, the scope and cost of Phase II, as has been indicated in two of the three proposals, will need to be reevaluated once Phase I has been concluded. It is recommended to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee that Phase I: Review of Existing Situation be undertaken first and that, based upon the findings, that the scope be reconsidered. All three proponents should be contacted, if the Electoral Area Advisory Committee decides to continue to project after Phase I, to submit updated proposals for Phase II and III for consideration.


Page 77 of 109


Page 78 of 109

Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study Report to Electoral Area Advisory Committee - May 25, 2011 Page 3

Based upon the requested information received from Dillon Consulting, Hemson Consulting and Urban Systems and the outcome the evaluation of Phase I of the proposals, if the Board of Directors proceeds, Urban Systems will be awarded Phase I: Review Existing Conditions of the Electoral Area Annexation Impact Study

Submitted by:

Strategy Coordinator Approved For Inclusion:

Endorsed .~bY~: _____ -----~


What does establishing a GE Free zone mean?

Getting a resolution passed by municipal government. It is not a by-law – but it sends a clear message that genetic engineering is not wanted in the municipality or region.

What are Genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organisms (GEO)?

Organisms that have their genetic material altered using DNA molecules from different sources giving them modified or novel genes. Genes from fish can be inserted into tomatoes and pesticides inserted into plants so that every part of the plant (eg BT corn) contains pesticide. Some also have a terminator gene inserted so that it can't reproduce. All users of GM seeds must buy them and are brought to court by Monsanto if they try to keep their own seeds. In nature only genes from similar species can interact so that the resulting organism can interact with its environment as it evolved to do, and not be an entirely new life form that might collapse an entire ecosystem. Genes interact and do not exist in isolation. Most GMOs are heavily dependent on pesticides and are “roundup ready” allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide so as to be able to kill nearby weeds and any other green thing the herbicide touches without killing the crops. In Canada we grow GE corn, Canola, Sugar Beet, Soy, and have approved Alfalfa which is not commercialized yet.

The dangers: Resistant Weeds and Increasing Poisons in the water, air and land:

In ways we barely comprehend, the genes within a species are interconnected and interact as an integrated whole. When a gene from an unrelated species is introduced, the context within which it finds itself is completely changed and can have unpredictable results. Monsanto sells the GM seeds and the herbicides too. The heavy pesticide use results in creating Super weeds that can't be killed by herbicides and are greatly reducing yield. Plants such as corn and cotton that are engineered to include a gene from the micro-organism Bacillus thuringiensis, to make it resistant to certain pests produce a toxin that is present in the

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item F7a.

Page 79 of 109


whole plant from

roots to seeds.

In India thousands of cattle that grazed on BT cotton fields after harvest died. Consumption of Bt corn byproducts produces increased mortality and reduced growth in caddisflies, aquatic insects that are related to the pests targeted by the toxin in Bt corn. Monarch butterflies fed pollen from BT corn die – What about the bees and what is it doing to us?

Health Risks

The Russian GM Soy Experiment showed that after feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet showed devastating results. By the third generation, most lost the ability to reproduce, suffered slower growth, had a high mortality rate, and some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths. Allergies, unknown toxins and increased estrogens are posing long term health risks to all life forms including humans – an L-tryptophan GE supplement produced in 1989 caused the death of 37 people. Not only is GMO food harmful to the animals that eat it, but it also has the potential to overcome the crops around it. Insects, birds, and wind carry seeds into neighbouring fields and beyond. This is cross-pollination, and cannot be controlled in an outdoor environment. The pollen from GM plants can cross-pollinate with normal plants and contaminate entire fields. With the proliferation of GM crops, this is a real danger. Economically disastrous contamination is a new reality for Canadian flax farmers and will be a concern with the introduction of any new GM crop such as GM alfalfa and GM wheat – all farmers would be expected to declare their crops as GM and wheat is a grass – think of the potential impacts.

Threat to the World's Food Supply. Giant agri-business companies such as Monsanto forge ahead to flood the world's food chain with experimental technologies that are proving to be harmful to life. This removes people's right to propagate seeds – as seen in the Percy Schmeizer case - and affects the food


Page 80 of 109


sovereignty of developing countries & the ability of nations to feed their own people. In India more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves each month because they are massively in debt from purchasing GM seeds and pesticides. They die horrible slow deaths by swallowing the pricey insecticide they were promised they would not need when they were coerced into growing expensive GM crops.

Why does government say GE is safe? They claim their decision is science based – as was their claim that thalidomide was safe. David Suzuki: “I’m a geneticist. What bothers me is we have governments that are supposed to be looking out for our health, for the safety of our environment, and they’re acting like cheerleaders for this technology...”.

Who is against GMOs?

Union of Concerned Scientists - Prince Charles - Vandana Shiva, PhD – and many scientific journals and papers – see: http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NoToGMOs.php

GE is not sustainable and not profitable. Join GE Free regions and countries!

Most of European countries (recently Ireland) are GE Free, Brazil, Paraguay, many Asian and African countries also. In the US, many regions are pushing for a federal ban. In BC, as of 2009, Powell River, Salt Spring Island, Nelson, Kaslo, Rossland, New Denver were declared GE Free.


Page 81 of 109


http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm�

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NoToGMOs.php�

GE FREE BC http://www.gefreebc.org/gefree_tmpl.php?content=home Scientists Speak http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NoToGMOs.php http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/biotechnology-and-sustainable.html David Suzuki – GENETICIST says GM food is bad science

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/biotechnology/clips/11008/http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/01/the-trouble-with-monsanto-and-gmo-dr-david-suzuki-spells-it-out/

Vandana Shiva: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva Vandana Shiva received her bachelors degree in physics, then pursued a M.A. in the philosophy of science at the University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada), with a thesis entitled "Changes in the concept of periodicity of light". In 1979, she completed and received her Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. Her thesis was about the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics was titled "Hidden Variables and locality in Quantum Theory".[4][6] She later went on to interdisciplinary research in science, technology and environmental policy, at the Indian Institute of Science and the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore.

Russian Study linking GE Soy to sterility and infant mortality in hamster http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/18

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

Definition & Governmental support and opposition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO#Governmental_support_and_opposition Aquatic systems harmed by BT Corn http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171030.htm

Genetically Modified Organisms – A Dangerous Experiment

http://www.invigorate360.com/reviews/top-10-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food/ http://www.naturalnews.com/023238_GMO_food_Monsanto.html

Network of Concerned Farmers http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item F7b.

Page 82 of 109


http://www.gefreebc.org/gefree_tmpl.php?content=home�

http://www.saynotogmos.org/scientists_speak.htm�

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NoToGMOs.php�

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/biotechnology-and-sustainable.html�

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/biotechnology-and-sustainable.html�

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/biotechnology/clips/11008/�

http://archives.cbc.ca/science_technology/biotechnology/clips/11008/�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Science�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Science�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Guelph�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph.D.�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Western_Ontario�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Western_Ontario�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva#cite_note-thesis-3�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva#cite_note-thesis-3�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Science�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Management�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore�

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/18�

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/18http:/www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO#Governmental_support_and_opposition�

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008171030.htm�

http://www.invigorate360.com/reviews/top-10-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food/�

http://www.naturalnews.com/023238_GMO_food_Monsanto.html�

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/�

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item F7c.

Page 83 of 109

Sample Resolution/ Petition Calling for a Moratorium on the Release into the Environment of GE Crops Regi(illldDistridNQrth·.Ololnagan

l. Findings

WHEREAS, it is impossible to prevent pollen and seed flow between open-air agroecosystems;

WHEREAS, the flow of genetic material between genetically engineered crops, organic and non-GE crops threatens the economic value of harvests and exposes farmers to legal challenges;

WHEREAS, the flow of pollen between crops and wild relatives introduces novel GE traits into local ecosystems and threaten existing environmental elements;

WHEREAS, the introduction of herbicide tolerance (e.g. Roundup Ready) and the associated widespread use of glyphosate and other herbicides has already produced resistant weedy varieties of crops and crop-relatives;

WHEREAS, the federal government has yet to fully implement the recommendations issued by the Royal Society of Canada for the proper regulation of agricultural biotechnology and genetically engineered products to prevent harm;

WHEREAS, the Community Charter specifies the purposes of a municipality to include, "fostering the economic, social and environmental well-being of its community";

WHEREAS, the Community Charter grants councils the right and responsibility to

council "impose requirements in relation to:

(g) the health, safety or protection of persons or property in relation to matters referred to in section 63 [protection of persons and property};

(h) the protection and enhancement of the well-being of its community in relation to the matters referred to in section 64 [nuisances, disturbances and other objectionable situationsl;

(i) public health;

(j) protection of the natural environment;

(1<) animals;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Regional District of North Okanagan strongly discourage the release into the environment, use or sale of live, self-reproducing genetically engineered organisms or reproductively viable component thereof within the areas governed by its constituents until the long-term consequences of such products and

1

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item F7c.

Page 84 of 109- ',~ .

organisms are fully understood or have been sufficiently shown to have no deleterious environmental, economic and health effects.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that nothing in this resolution shall prevent (I) the use of GE crops and animals in scientific research or education under secure, enclosed laboratory conditions that prevent the flow of genetic material to the outside environment; (2) the diagnosis or treatment of illness by a licensed health care practitioner or veterinarian.

2. Definitions: For the purposes of this resolution the following terms are defined accordingly:

(a) "Genetic engineering" refers to the direct manipulation of an organism's DNA using recombinant DNA technology. For the purposes of this resolution genetic engineering does NOT include traditional selective breeding, conjugation, fennentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, tissue culture, or marker assisted selection.

(b) "Genetically engineered organism" refers to specific organisms whose DNA have been intentionally manipulated using recombinant DNA technology.

(c) "Organism" refers to any living thing, exclusive of human beings. (d) "Live, self reproducing genetically engineered organism" refer to any organism or part thereof which is capable of regenerating itself on its own or in the body or cell of another organism, including those in which reproduction is limited by the genetic use restriction technologies, and whose genetic material has been modified by modern biotechnology in a way which does not occur naturally by mating or recombination.

2

6/28/2011

1

Becoming a GE Free Zone

What is a GE Free Zone?

What are GE Organisms?

Huguette Allen-SENSSustainable Environment Network Society


What is wrong with GE Organisms?

Why should RDNO do something about it?

What is a GE Free Zone?

A region or country that bans GEO or states its intention to become GE Free.


It requires a motion by RDNO stating intention to become GE Free – not a by-law but a clear message that GE is not wanted in communities.

Who is GE Free?

Most European countries (recently Ireland).Many Asian and African countries.

Brazil prohibits planting GE by federal law, Paraguay bans commercial planting


Paraguay bans commercial planting.In the US, many regions are GE Free and pushing for a federal ban. In BC, as of 2009, Powell River, Salt Spring Island, Nelson, Kaslo, Rossland, New Denver were declared GE Free.

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item F7d.

Page 85 of 109

6/28/2011

2

Why be GE Free?1. To ensure food safety and sovereignty

2. To support local agriculture and rural communities


3. To protect the integrity & health of the environment and the people who live in it

4. To protect a rural economy


Genetically Engineered Organisms (GEO) or Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) have their genetic material altered using DNA molecules from different sources giving them modified or


from different sources giving them modified or novel genes.Genes from fish can be inserted into tomatoes, genes from mice into pigs, and bacteria into the cell genome so that every part of the plant, from roots to pollen, will contain poison.

What GE Organisms?

In Canada we grow GE corn, Canola, Sugar Beet, Soy, and have approved Alfalfa which is not commercialized yet. And trees...And pigs... genetically engineered (using mouse genes) to excrete less phosphorous in their feces (U of Guelph's


to excrete less phosphorous in their feces (U of Guelph's “enviropig” ) and goats for chemical vaccine (Nexia in Montreal) and cows for human fertility treatment...

A U.S. firm has applied to commercialize fish genetically engineered to grow to market-size twice as fast as other farmed salmon....


Page 86 of 109

6/28/2011

3

What is wrong with GE Organisms?

In nature only genes from similar species mix naturally so that the resulting hybrid interacts with its environment as it evolved to do.


Engineering entirely new life forms via a crudemechanism has unintended consequences that can collapse entire ecosystems – eg: GE Trees exhibit unnatural traits such as herbicide tolerance, insecticide production, reduced lignin content (the substance that makes trees strong) and finally, sterility.

A crude technology

Genetic engineering relies on a crude and old-fashioned technology based on 195Os knowledge. Fragments of the genetic insert are often included along with complete copies. Rearrangements of the plant’s DNA occur f tl


frequently.Some of these effects have only become known after the GE crop has been grown in the environment and eaten by animals and humans (e.g. Roundup Ready Soya & BT corn).

We now know that genes interact - do not exist in isolation - GE results are unpredictable.

Why use GE?

GE organisms are designed by industry for industrial farming, industrial control and industrial profits. Farmers must buy all seeds and chemicals Plants


Farmers must buy all seeds and chemicals. Plants are heavily dependent on chemicals - are “roundup ready” (also sold by Monsanto) allowing farmers to drench the crop land with herbicide so as to be able to kill all green things the herbicide touches without killing the crops.


Page 87 of 109

6/28/2011

4

Living Pollution that self-replicates

Loss of soil fertility due to heavy chemical use

Loss of control over production (farmers using GE seeds sign a contract to always buy seeds from Monsanto losing control over their own production)

Loss of protection against pests – Increased pesticide use leads t S W d


to Super Weeds

Increased air, soil and water pollution due to chemicals

Creation of new or worse viruses

Poisoned animals up the food chain

Gene transfer to wild relatives

“Companies developing genetically modified crops risk creating the biggest environmental disaster of all time

An Experiment gone Wrong


GM crops are damaging Earth's soil and are an experiment gone seriously wrong

A future reliance on corporations to mass-produce food would drive millions of farmers off their land”Prince Charles, August 2008.

Loss of locally owned farms Loss of healthy rural communities Loss of food security & sovereignty Poor countries saying NO to GMO

Impacts on Growers & Communities


y g

DISASTER RELIEF? Haitian Farmers say “ABA Monsanto” burn Toxic Monsanto Seeds, Standing Up For Food Sovereignty


Page 88 of 109

6/28/2011

5

The GM GenocideFarmers who enter into Monsanto contract not allowed to save seeds.In India, thousands are committing suicide due to debts from GM seeds and pesticides.


“There's already plenty of evidence that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses The fact that it

Monsanto and Governments swore up and down that BT would only hurt insects. The Bt-toxin they claimed

Unpredictable results in BT Corn


system responses. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the US since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.” Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, on the Sherbrooke Hospital Study

toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

Unpredictable AND DangerousSherbrooke University Hospital found the corn's Bt-toxin in 93% of the blood of pregnant women and their babies. The study will be published in the peer reviewed

journal Reproductive Toxicology. Poison is linked to allergies, learning disabilities autism cancer MS and numerous


learning disabilities, autism, cancer, MS and numerous autoimmune disorders.

The Russian Soy experiment links sterility, infant mortality and growth problems to GM Soy – yet we feed Soy Milk to babies!


Page 89 of 109

6/28/2011

6

Why does Government say it's safe?

Government officials claim their decision is science based – as was thalidomide?


David Suzuki: “I’m a geneticist. What bothers me is we have governments that are supposed to be looking out for our health, for the safety of our environment, and they’re acting like cheerleaders for this technology...”. Government/corporations/universities...

Why should RDNO do something about it?

To show leadership and vision

To support others asking government to develop regulatory framework


To protect our health, environment & economy

To send a clear message that food security & sovereignty is protected here

How to go about it?

1. Sign resolution strongly discouraging release of GMOs in RDNO

2. Publicize decision and lobby other levels of


government

3. Work with others (Canada and US GE Free regions) to plan a transition to GE Free agriculture

4. Regularly report on progress and plans.


Page 90 of 109

6/28/2011

7

Thank You.

Links & resources have been emailed

SENS commits to helping as needed


SENS commits to helping as needed

We look forward to your answer.

Thank you for listening


Page 91 of 109

1

BC Abattoir Inspection System Review (BCAISR)

Stakeholder Consultation

Phase 4 : Discussion of Draft Options for Provincial Meat Inspection

Background

Objectives of the BCAISR:

The meat inspection system options described below are to be considered for implementation in BC’s

provincially licensed Class A (slaughter and processing) and Class B (slaughter only) abattoirs.

Class A and B abattoirs are provincially licensed facilities that can sell meat products for human

consumption anywhere within the province of British Columbia, but not outside provincial boundaries.

The proposed meat inspection systems provide inspection and oversight of the following abattoir

processes:

condition of livestock

condition of carcasses

operational processes

Facility hygiene

The inspection systems described below do not include oversight of “ready to eat” meat processing or

“cut and wrap” services that Class A facilities provide. The inspection of these meat processing facilities

is provided by Regional Health Authorities.

The intent of the BCAISR is to help the Province identify a model of meat inspection system for Class A

and B facilities that will maintain or improve upon current standards in an outcome based manner,

consistent with the standards and intent of the BC Meat Inspection Regulation, the federal Meat

Inspection Act and the Food and Drug Act. The review aims to identify a model of meat inspection that

provides clear and transparent expectations for abattoir operators and that government, operators and

consumers will trust, support and be proud of. To that end, a new inspection system must strongly

support the following objectives:

Meat safety and wholesomeness

Animal health and welfare

Consumer confidence

A strong provincial meat industry

Cost effectiveness

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item 8a.

Page 92 of 109

Discussion on Draft Options for Provincial Meat Inspection 2011

2

Currently the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) provides meat inspection services to provincially

licensed facilities under contract with the Province. The CFIA has notified the province that they will be

withdrawing inspection services from provincially licensed abattoirs by January 1st 2014. The existing

system of meat inspection will be replaced with a new system administered by the province in advance

of this date. The BCAISR Steering Committee has identified the meat inspection options described below

as potential replacements for the existing system.

Financial costs of potential systems

Currently, the provincial government pays the costs of meat inspection services in provincially licensed

abattoirs and is committed to doing so at least until December 2012. The Ministry of Health will assess

how inspection service costs can best be addressed after that date. In doing so, it will be cognisant of

the recommendation made by the BC Ranching Task Force in 2009 that government continue to cover

the cost of these services, and will also take account of the needs and financial restrictions that have

been expressed by other members of the province’s livestock and meat processing sectors.

In order to allow comprehensive consideration of the suggestions and recommendations that the

BCAISR Steering Committee has received as part of this process, it has not yet been possible to provide a

level of detail in the meat inspection systems described below to enable accurate cost estimates. Before

proceeding with a detailed development of these potential inspection systems, the Steering Committee

would appreciate the opportunity to consider any further input you may have on these systems. Once

all input has been received and considered, key aspects of the proposed systems can be determined and

cost estimates will be developed.

At this stage, the systems described below could be paid for either by government, by industry or

through a cost-share arrangement involving both. Along with the other objectives mentioned above,

reviewers are asked to keep in mind that cost effectiveness for the paying party or paying parties is an

important attribute of a future provincial meat inspection system.

Terminology

We have made every attempt to use consistent, descriptive terminology throughout this document.

Where the meaning of terms differ (e.g., the role of an ‘inspector’ in System I versus System II) we have

attempted to provide a clear explanation. Reviewers are invited to provide input on the use of terms.

Gradual Implementation: A new meat inspection system will be in place in advance of January 1st 2014.

The BCAISR Steering Committee will recommend that the new system be implemented gradually to

provide facility operators with time and support to adapt to the approach and to help all players in the

meat industry understand and become comfortable with the new system.


Page 93 of 109


3

Parameters of this consultation:

The intent of this consultation document is to communicate potential designs for a new provincially-run

meat inspection system to stakeholders in BC’s livestock and meat sector, and to request input on these

draft inspection systems.

Logistics associated with the implementation of the inspection system, such as determining the agencies

that will administer the program, are not included in this document. This work and level of detail will

commence after the final inspection model has been approved.

Currently, CFIA meat inspectors provide verification or certification of certain practices (e.g., separation

of Specified Risk Materials, condemnations, numbers slaughtered, etc.). Further work will be required by

government and industry to ensure that these responsibilities are appropriately transferred without

disruption.


Page 94 of 109

Dis

cuss

ion

on

Dra

ft O

pti

on

s fo

r P

rov

inci

al M

eat

Insp

ecti

on

2

01

1

4

Sum

mar

y o

f C

urr

ent

and

Pro

po

sed

Mea

t In

spec

tio

n S

yste

ms

by

Ro

le:

C

urr

ent

Trad

itio

nal

Sys

tem

P

rop

ose

d S

yste

m I

Pro

po

sed

Sys

tem

II

Op

erat

or

N

o t

rain

ing

req

uir

ed

P

erfo

rms

slau

ghte

r

R

esp

on

sib

le f

or

the

safe

ty a

nd

qu

alit

y o

f th

eir

pro

du

ct a

nd

co

mp

lian

ce w

ith

re

gula

tio

ns

N

o t

rain

ing

req

uir

ed

P

erfo

rms

slau

ghte

r

R

esp

on

sib

le f

or

the

safe

ty a

nd

qu

alit

y o

f th

eir

pro

du

ct a

nd

co

mp

lian

ce w

ith

reg

ula

tio

ns

C

erti

fica

tio

n r

equ

ired

P

erfo

rms

slau

ghte

r

C

erti

fied

to

exa

min

e liv

est

ock

an

d c

arca

sses

to

en

sure

fo

od

sa

fety

, an

imal

h

ealt

h

&

wel

fare

R

esp

on

sib

le f

or

the

safe

ty a

nd

qu

alit

y o

f th

eir

pro

du

ct a

nd

co

mp

lian

ce w

ith

re

gula

tio

ns

Insp

ecto

r C

anad

ian

Fo

od

Insp

ecti

on

Age

ncy

(co

ntr

acte

d

by

the

pro

vin

ce)

In

spec

ts e

very

sla

ugh

ter

P

erfo

rms

eval

uat

ion

s o

f liv

est

ock

an

d

carc

asse

s to

en

sure

fo

od

sa

fety

, an

imal

h

ealt

h &

an

imal

wel

fare

P

rovi

des

lim

ited

in

form

atio

n a

nd

ed

uca

tio

n

to a

bat

toir

op

erat

ors

E

nsu

res

pro

vin

cial

sta

nd

ard

s ar

e m

ain

tain

ed

and

en

forc

es s

anct

ion

s w

hen

re

qu

ired

H

as b

ack-

up

su

pp

ort

fro

m a

ve

teri

nar

ian

P

rovi

nci

al g

ove

rnm

ent

In

spec

ts e

very

sla

ugh

ter

P

erfo

rms

exam

inat

ion

s o

f liv

est

ock

an

d

carc

asse

s to

en

sure

fo

od

sa

fety

, an

imal

h

ealt

h &

an

imal

wel

fare

A

pp

rove

s fo

od

saf

ety

pla

ns

P

rovi

des

on

goin

g in

form

atio

n a

nd

ed

uca

tio

n

to a

bat

toir

op

erat

ors

E

nh

ance

d

avai

lab

ility

to

p

rovi

de

insp

ecti

on

se

rvic

es o

n w

eeke

nd

s

E

nsu

res

pro

vin

cial

sta

nd

ard

s ar

e m

ain

tain

ed

and

en

forc

es s

anct

ion

s w

hen

req

uir

ed

H

as b

ack-

up

su

pp

ort

fro

m a

ve

teri

nar

ian

P

rovi

nci

al g

ove

rnm

ent

In

spec

ts o

per

ato

r p

ract

ices

(as

ab

ove

) o

n a

p

erio

dic

, p

refe

rab

ly

un

ann

ou

nce

d

bas

is

bas

ed o

n f

acili

ty n

eed

s

P

erfo

rms

som

e ex

amin

atio

ns

of

live

sto

ck a

nd

ca

rcas

ses

to e

nsu

re t

hat

bes

t p

ract

ices

fo

r fo

od

saf

ety,

an

imal

hea

lth

& a

nim

al w

elfa

re

are

bei

ng

mai

nta

ined

A

pp

rove

s fo

od

saf

ety

pla

ns

V

erif

ies

faci

lity

pra

ctic

es b

y b

oth

ob

serv

ing

slau

ghte

r an

d a

ud

itin

g re

cord

s

P

rovi

des

on

goin

g in

form

atio

n a

nd

ed

uca

tio

n

to a

bat

toir

op

erat

ors

E

nsu

res

pro

vin

cial

sta

nd

ard

s ar

e m

ain

tain

ed

and

en

forc

es s

anct

ion

s w

hen

re

qu

ired

H

as b

ack-

up

su

pp

ort

fro

m a

ve

teri

nar

ian

E

nfo

rces

pro

vin

cial

sta

nd

ard

s w

ith

san

ctio

ns

wh

en r

equ

ired

.


Page 95 of 109

Dis

cuss

ion

on

Dra

ft O

pti

on

s fo

r P

rov

inci

al M

eat

Insp

ecti

on

2

01

1

5

Au

dit

or

A

ud

its

of

the

pro

vin

cial

m

eat

insp

ecti

on

sy

stem

are

no

t cu

rren

tly

con

du

cted

.

V

erif

ies

the

op

erat

ing

pro

ced

ure

s, p

ract

ices

an

d p

olic

ies

of

Cla

ss A

an

d B

op

erat

ors

, th

eir

insp

ecto

rs,

and

th

e fu

nct

ion

ing

of

the

ove

rall

insp

ecti

on

sys

tem

A

dm

inis

tere

d b

y an

ind

epen

den

t ag

ency

L

esse

r fr

equ

ency

th

an i

nsp

ecti

on

s (p

oss

ibly

an

nu

ally

)

V

erif

ies

the

op

erat

ing

pro

ced

ure

s, p

ract

ices

an

d p

olic

ies

of

Cla

ss A

an

d B

op

erat

ors

, th

eir

insp

ecto

rs,

and

th

e fu

nct

ion

ing

of

the

ove

rall

insp

ecti

on

sys

tem

C

on

du

cts

aud

its

spec

ific

to

en

suri

ng

anim

al

wel

fare

A

dm

inis

tere

d

by

a d

iffe

ren

t ag

ency

th

an

insp

ecti

on

s

L

esse

r fr

equ

ency

th

an i

nsp

ecti

on

s (p

oss

ibly

an

nu

ally

)

Ap

pea

ls

O

per

ato

rs

can

ap

pea

l to

in

spec

tor’

s su

per

viso

r o

r to

th

e lic

ensi

ng

off

icer

at

BC

C

entr

e fo

r D

isea

se C

on

tro

l

A

pp

eals

ar

e

also

p

oss

ible

u

nd

er

the

Foo

d

Safe

ty A

ct

O

per

ato

r ca

n a

pp

eal

dec

isio

n o

f in

spec

tor

to

the

ind

epen

den

t au

dit

ing

agen

cy

A

pp

eals

ar

e

also

p

oss

ible

u

nd

er

the

Foo

d

Safe

ty A

ct

O

per

ato

r ca

n a

pp

eal

dec

isio

n o

f in

spec

tor

to

the

ind

epen

den

t au

dit

ing

agen

cy

A

pp

eals

ar

e

also

p

oss

ible

u

nd

er

the

Foo

d

Safe

ty A

ct

Foo

d S

afet

y

Pla

n

R

eq

uir

ed b

y re

gula

tio

n

C

ove

rs m

eat

hyg

ien

e a

nd

an

imal

hea

lth

U

pd

ated

at

the

op

erat

or’

s d

iscr

etio

n

A

pp

lied

wit

h li

mit

ed o

vers

igh

t

R

eq

uir

es s

pec

ific

bu

t lim

ited

on

goin

g re

cord

ke

ep

ing

R

eq

uir

ed b

y re

gula

tio

n

C

ove

rs

mea

t h

ygie

ne,

an

imal

h

ealt

h

and

an

imal

we

lfar

e

R

eq

uir

ed f

or

licen

sin

g

C

han

ges

to t

he

pla

nt’

s o

per

atio

ns

will

req

uir

e u

pd

ates

to

th

e P

lan

M

ay

req

uir

e a

limit

ed

amo

un

t o

f o

ngo

ing

reco

rd k

eep

ing

M

ay b

e re

view

ed o

n a

n o

ngo

ing

bas

is b

y th

e in

spec

tor

and

au

dit

or

R

eq

uir

ed b

y re

gula

tio

n

C

ove

rs

mea

t h

ygie

ne,

an

imal

h

ealt

h

and

an

imal

we

lfar

e

R

eq

uir

ed f

or

licen

sin

g

C

han

ges

to t

he

pla

nt’

s o

per

atio

ns

will

req

uir

e u

pd

ates

to

th

e P

lan

R

eq

uir

es a

lim

ited

am

ou

nt

of

on

goin

g re

cord

ke

ep

ing

of

crit

ical

pra

ctic

es

Is

re

view

ed

on

an

o

ngo

ing

bas

is

by

the

insp

ecto

r an

d a

nn

ual

ly b

y th

e au

dit

or

M

ay

req

uir

e

oth

er

mea

sure

s fo

r p

ath

oge

n

red

uct

ion

an

d t

esti

ng


Page 96 of 109

Dis

cuss

ion

on

Dra

ft O

pti

on

s fo

r P

rov

inci

al M

eat

Insp

ecti

on

2

01

1

6

Sum

mar

y o

f th

e P

rop

ose

d M

eat

Insp

ecti

on

Sys

tem

s, b

y R

esp

on

sib

ility

:

R

esp

on

sib

ility

P

rop

ose

d S

yste

m I

Pro

po

sed

Sys

tem

II

On

goin

g d

aily

ab

atto

ir

pra

ctic

es &

re

spo

nsi

bili

ties

, su

pp

ort

ed b

y tr

ain

ing

&

cert

ific

atio

n

Per

form

sla

ugh

ter

Op

erat

or

Op

erat

or

Co

nd

uct

an

te m

ort

em e

xam

inat

ion

s In

spec

tor

Op

erat

or

Co

nd

uct

po

st m

ort

em e

xam

inat

ion

s In

spec

tor

Op

erat

or

Ver

ify

hu

man

e tr

eatm

ent

of

live

sto

ck

Insp

ecto

r O

per

ato

r

Ver

ify

faci

lity

hyg

ien

e

Insp

ecto

r O

per

ato

r

Mai

nta

in f

oo

d s

afet

y p

lan

In

spec

tor

Op

erat

or

Reg

ula

r,

per

iod

ic f

oo

d

safe

ty p

ract

ices

Ver

ify

foo

d s

afet

y p

lan

s o

n a

n o

ngo

ing

bas

is

Insp

ecto

r In

spec

tor

Sup

po

rt e

xam

inat

ion

of

lives

tock

or

carc

asse

s w

ith

ad

dit

ion

al e

xper

tise

wh

en n

eed

ed

In

spec

tor

wit

h v

ete

rin

ary

sup

po

rt

wh

ere

req

uir

ed

Insp

ecto

r w

ith

vet

eri

nar

y su

pp

ort

w

her

e re

qu

ired

Less

fre

qu

ent

pra

ctic

es

Au

tho

rity

to

sto

p f

acili

ty o

per

atio

ns

or

ho

ld

pro

du

ct if

pro

vin

cial

sta

nd

ard

s ar

e n

ot

met

Insp

ecto

r In

spec

tor

Ove

rsig

ht

of

ove

rall

syst

em

Ind

epen

den

t au

dit

ing

agen

cy

Ind

epen

den

t au

dit

ing

agen

cy

Hea

r an

y ap

pea

l by

op

erat

ors

In

dep

end

ent

aud

itin

g ag

ency

In

dep

end

ent

aud

itin

g ag

ency


Page 97 of 109

7

Meat Inspection Systems for Discussion

System I.

The points below describe how meat inspection would be carried out and supported in the proposed

‘System I’ meat inspection model:

Daily inspection: A trained provincial inspector conducts an examination of every animal before

slaughter to verify the health and well being of livestock and examines every carcass to help ensure the

safety of the product for human consumption. The inspector also oversees the work of the facility

operator in maintaining a hygienic facility. Inspectors have access to the assistance of a veterinarian as

required to support their work.

Abattoir operators perform slaughter on livestock according to industry standards and under the

supervision of the provincial inspector.

The responsibility for food safety, animal health, animal welfare and the hygiene of the abattoir lies with

industry.

Scheduling: A provincial inspector must be present for the slaughter of every animal destined for public

consumption. Thus, abattoirs are only permitted to operate when an inspector is present. The province

will expand the availability of inspection services, particularly to provide regularly scheduled inspection

services on weekends.

Training: Provincial meat inspectors are trained to the outcome-based requirements of the BC Meat

Inspection Regulation and the standards put in place by provincial agencies. Training is focused on the

scale of operations in British Columbia and the specific practices used by provincially licensed facilities. A

code of practice for inspectors is publicly available to ensure the role and authority of meat inspectors is

transparent and well-defined.

Operators may pursue any available training opportunities as they wish but these are optional and not

necessarily provided by government.

Food Safety Plans: All provincial abattoirs require an approved food safety plan. Changes to the plant’s

operations (e.g., introduction of a new species, or an addition to the facility) would require updates to

the food safety plan and approvals by the provincial auditor. The plans may be reviewed at any time by

the provincial inspector and the provincial auditor.


Page 98 of 109


8

The food safety plans are designed specifically for provincially licensed abattoirs. Food safety plans may

require record keeping for a limited number of critical elements, such as the health of the animal,

humane slaughter, management of unsuitable animals/carcasses, trimming of visible contamination

from the carcass, and chilling. Extensive documentation however will not be required. Operators may

choose to keep additional records if, for example, they wish to satisfy buyer requirements.

Oversight and Appeals: All parties involved in the provincial meat inspection system will be audited on

an annual basis. Audits will examine the performance of both operators and inspectors and the overall

functioning of the meat inspection system. This will provide an additional mechanism of oversight and

verification to operators and inspectors.

The agency that administers these audits will be independent of the agency that delivers inspection

services.

In cases where operators wish to contest a decision made by the provincial inspector, they may make an

appeal to the auditing agency. Appeals on condemnations, product holds or other issues will be carried

out in a swift and efficient manner to help ensure minimal disruption to businesses and maximum safety

for BC consumers.

Animal Welfare: Standards for animal welfare and humane slaughter are set out in the BC Meat

Inspection Regulation and the federal Meat Inspection Act. Under this new system the standards are

maintained and reflected in the practices laid out in the food safety plans of provincial facilities, verified

on an ongoing basis by the provincial meat inspector and in annual audits.

Other Reporting Responsibilities: Class A and B facilities are accountable to various provincial and

federal agencies for proper practices with respect to waste disposal, livestock tagging, statistical

reporting, etc. These responsibilities and the accountabilities associated with them remain the same.


Page 99 of 109


9

System II:

The points below describe how meat inspection would be carried out and supported in the proposed

‘System II’:

Daily inspection: Abattoir operators are trained and certified to examine every animal before slaughter,

to verify the health and well being of livestock, and to examine every carcass to help ensure the safety

of the product for human consumption. Operators oversee the hygiene of their facility (facility staff are

also trained as required).

Abattoir operators perform slaughter of livestock according to industry standards and have

responsibility for food safety, animal health, animal welfare and the condition of their facility.

A government inspector is not required to witness the slaughter of every animal destined for public

consumption.

Scheduling: As operators are trained and certified to evaluate the condition of livestock and examine

carcasses for meat safety, they may operate at any time their facility is prepared.

Training: Operator training in meat inspection is specific to the species processed in each plant, and

consists of both theoretical and hands-on training to help operators identify issues of animal health,

animal welfare, meat safety and meat wholesomeness. Training takes place over several months until

operators are comfortable and competent to carry out inspection practices unsupervised. Training

updates are available periodically (and may be required) to assist operators and staff to stay abreast of

current practices.

During the initial months of the implementation of this model, the inspectors will maintain a continuous

presence in all facilities. Once an operator is certified to carry out inspection, the inspector will maintain

a strong presence to assist the operator to integrate his/her training into their operations, gradually

reducing their visits to a frequency tailored to each plant.

Only operators who have earned their certification are permitted to slaughter without a government

presence. Prospective new operators entering the abattoir business are required to obtain certification.

Certified operators will be able to conduct slaughter according to their own schedule to satisfy their

business needs and the needs of their clients. Operators may obtain certification either by taking the full

training program or, if they have equivalent experience, by challenging the certification exam.


Page 100 of 109


10

Periodic Inspection: The Province provides inspectors trained in meat inspection and the verification of

food safety plans to oversee provincially licensed abattoirs. These inspectors visit all provincial facilities

on a regular, periodic and often unannounced basis to verify the practices being implemented and the

proper records being kept, and to provide support as necessary to abattoir operators. In so doing they

verify slaughter practices both ‘on the floor’ and by checking required documents and records.

The inspector’s role is primarily to support the abattoir operator in meeting (or exceeding) provincial

standards and to ensure corrective actions are taken where these standards are not met. To this end,

their role involves education to support continuous improvement in the operator and facility, as well as

enforcement capacities such as fines and other sanctions for operations that do not maintain provincial

standards.

The frequency of inspection will be determined through risk-based evaluations of each plant. Each

abattoir will be assessed based on the risk factors of that operation, including considerations such as the

species and volume slaughtered, facility layout, markets served and the past performance of the

operation. The frequency and intensity of oversight by the provincial auditor will vary according to this

assessment. This approach will target provincial inspection resources toward operations that most

require them, while also maintaining a strong baseline of inspection to all Class A and B facilities.

Performance Recognition: Inspectors will evaluate all areas of an abattoir’s processes according to a

transparent checklist to help ensure meat safety, hygiene and animal health and welfare. Inspectors will

provide facilities with a score that reflects their performance. Facility scores will be publicly available.

Thus, facilities that routinely score well on their inspections will receive a designation that can be

demonstrated to their buyers.

Facilities with low or inconsistent scores may have their frequency of inspections increased.

Consequences will be in place for those that do not maintain provincial standards. Depending on the

severity of the issues, they may incur fines, have product seized or have their license suspended.

Food Safety Plans: All provincial abattoirs require an approved food safety plan. Changes to the facility’s

operations (e.g., introduction of a new species, or an addition to the facility) require updates to the food

safety plan and approvals by the provincial auditor. The plans are also reviewed regularly by the

provincial inspector, who assists the facility operator and staff to adhere to the plan and make

improvements where possible. The plans will also be reviewed during annual audits.

The food safety plans are designed specifically for provincially licensed abattoirs. Food safety plans may

require record keeping for a limited number of critical elements, such as the health of the animal,

humane slaughter, management of unsuitable animals/carcasses, trimming of visible contamination

from the carcass, and chilling. However, extensive documentation systems will not be required. The


Page 101 of 109


11

plans may also involve processes such as carcass treatments to increase meat safety in facilities with

high volumes, or periodic microbiological testing to ensure the efficacy of food safety practices.

Operators may choose to keep additional records if, for example, they wish to satisfy buyer

requirements.

Operator Support: Operators will be able to access technical assistance from an inspector as required to

help support their informed decisions with respect to livestock treatment, condemnations or other

issues. Inspectors may be available for this purpose by phone, internet or in person, and will have access

to the assistance of a veterinarian as required to further support facility operators.

Oversight and Appeal:

All parties involved in the provincial meat inspection system will be audited on an annual basis. Audits

will examine the performance of both operators and inspectors and the overall functioning of the meat

inspection system. This will provide an additional mechanism of oversight and verification to operators

and inspectors.

The agency that administers these audits will be independent of the agency that delivers inspection

services.

In cases where operators wish to contest a decision made by the provincial inspector, they may make an

appeal to the auditing agency. Appeals on condemnations, product holds or other issues will be carried

out in a swift and efficient manner to help ensure minimal disruption to businesses and maximum safety

for BC consumers.

Animal Welfare: Standards for animal welfare and humane slaughter are set out in the BC Meat

Inspection Regulation and the federal Meat Inspection Act. Under this new system the standards are

maintained and reflected in the practices laid out in the food safety plans of provincial facilities, verified

on an ongoing basis by the provincial meat inspector.

In this new system, video cameras may be used in some facilities to record livestock lairage and/or

stunning and bleeding practices. The video records provided by this arrangement may be verified on a

random basis by provincial inspectors. Operators who are found in contravention of animal welfare

standards, including under the Meat Inspection Act or the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, will face

fines or other sanctions.


Page 102 of 109


12

Other Reporting Responsibilities: Class A and B facilities are accountable to various provincial and

federal agencies for proper practices with respect to waste disposal, livestock tagging, statistical

reporting, etc. These responsibilities and the accountabilities associated with them remain the same.

Consultation

The options above have been developed after consultation with stakeholders about how the inspection

system in the province could best meet the needs of abattoir operators, livestock producers, consumers,

retailers and the BC public.

Please provide any suggestions or concerns you or your business/agency/organization have about either

of the options discussed above, and identify aspects that you support. Comments may speak to the

design of each system as outlined above, and/or to the implementation approach for these meat

inspection systems.

The focus of the submissions should be on the operational or administrative aspects of the delivery of

meat inspection services in Class A or Class B provincially licensed facilities. Other topics such as the

issuance of Class D and E slaughter licenses, slaughter waste disposal, construction standards for

licensed facilities, etc. are beyond the scope of this review.

Submission instructions: We respectfully ask that submissions be kept to a maximum of 10 pages (single

spaced). You may provide additional supporting information in appendices.

We prefer to have submissions provided electronically. If possible, please make your submissions by

email to Grace Gladu in the Ministry of Health at [email protected]. To make other arrangements

(fax or post), or if you have any other questions about the consultation, please contact Graham Gillis,

policy analyst with the Ministry of Health, at 250 952-1647, or [email protected].

Further details: Submissions will be acknowledged by the Ministry of Health Services by email or in

writing, within two weeks of receipt. Submissions will be reviewed by the BCAISR Steering Committee,

which includes representatives from the Ministry of Health Services, the Ministry of Agriculture, the BC

Centre for Disease Control, and the BC Food Processors Association.

A report detailing the feedback received from stakeholders during the BCAISR stakeholder consultation

process will be compiled and made available to consultation participants in September 2011. During this

compilation process, partial or whole submissions could become public. If you would like your

submission to be kept confidential, please clearly indicate your preference on your submission.


Page 103 of 109

mailto:[email protected]





13

Further Information:

For information on BC’s Class A and B licensing program see:

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/protect/meat-regulation/

For information on the existing system of meat inspection in these facilities, a copy of the BC Meat

Inspection Regulation can be found at:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/10_349_2004

For information on meat safety, and the existing HACCP guidelines for abattoirs, see the BC Centre for

Disease Control’s website at: http://www.bccdc.ca/foodhealth/meat/default.htm


Page 104 of 109





http://www.bccdc.ca/foodhealth/meat/default.htm

http://www.bccdc.ca/foodhealth/meat/default.htm

June 24, 2011 886958 Dear stakeholder, As indicated in previous correspondences this year, the BC Ministry of Health has been leading a review of the meat inspection system in provincially licensed Class A and Class B abattoirs and an assessment of best options for the modernization of this system. The BC Abattoir Inspection System Review (BCAISR) has been led by a steering Committee of representatives from the BC Ministry of Health, the BC Ministry of Agriculture, the BC Centre for Disease Control, and the BC Food Processors’ Association. Their primary objective has been to identify how inspection services could best be delivered in a way that supports optimal meat safety, consumer confidence and cost effectiveness, while responding to the various needs of the livestock and meat processing industries. In order to assess the existing meat inspection system in BC and identify viable alternatives, the steering committee has held multiple consultations with representatives such as yourself from the agricultural, meat processing and retail industries. They have also consulted extensively with meat safety experts, public health professionals and abattoir operators. The document attached outlines the results of this work. It describes two possible options for modernizing BC’s meat inspection system, which the BCAISR steering committee is considering submitting to the BC Ministries of Health and Agriculture as potential policy directions. In order to allow consideration of the various suggestions and recommendations that the Steering Committee has received as part of this process, the meat inspection systems described have not been developed to a level of detail that would enable cost estimates. Before doing so, the steering committee would appreciate the opportunity to consider any further input you may have on these particular inspection systems, keeping in mind that cost efficiency is an important objective. A document outlining the parameters for submissions is attached. Please note the deadline for

submissions is July 15th. Please make your submissions to Grace Gladu at the Health Protection

branch of the Ministry of Health at [email protected]. If you have any questions about the review, please contact Graham Gillis, policy analyst with the Ministry of Health, at 250 952-1647, or [email protected]. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful and constructive input. Yours truly,

Ron Duffell Director, Food Protection Program Health Protection

Ministry of Health Health Protection Mailing Address Telephone: (250) 952-1987 1515 Blanshard St 4-2 Facsimile: (250) 952-1713 Victoria BC V8W 3C8

EAAC - REGULAR AGENDA July 7, 2011 - Item 8b.

Page 105 of 109



MEMBER RELEASE May 3, 2011

TO: Mayor & Council, Chair & Board, Senior Staff FROM: UBCM Secretariat

RE: RCMP Contract Management Committee – Terms of Reference

This communication is being forwarded to obtain local government input into the Terms of Reference for a provincial and local government RCMP Contract Management Committee. One of the recurring themes that local governments have identified in the RCMP Contract negotiations is the need to develop a working partnership between local government, the Province and the RCMP in the delivery of police services. UBCM in 2009 undertook a survey of local government that looked at the affordability and accountability of police services. One of the accountability measures identified in the survey was the “establishment of a Provincial Committee on Policing”. UBCM has had ongoing discussions with the Province around the need for new measures to monitor the effectiveness of the RCMP agreement going forward and to discuss changes that are proposed in relation to the cost of and delivery of police services by the RCMP under the new contract. The Province has agreed to the creation of an RCMP Contract Management Committee. The RCMP Contract Management Committee will be formalized in the new agreement to facilitate regular input/feedback to the Province as well as local government input into the 5 year RCMP contract review process. Attached is a copy of the Terms of Reference for the RCMP Contract Management Committee. The Committee will include both Provincial and local government representatives. This will be a permanent Committee to address concerns related to the RCMP contract and to the on-going delivery of local government police services by the RCMP. UBCM would appreciate the views and suggestions of your local government on the Terms of Reference. Please forward your comments and suggestions by June 10, 2011 to Ken Vance at the UBCM Offices in Richmond at 604-270-8226 (ext. 114) or at [email protected].


Page 106 of 109

Terms of Reference BC Local Government RCMP

Contract Management Committee Overview: The Province and BC local governments are committed to working together toward the common goal of providing an efficient and effective RCMP police service in support of the administration of justice. In this context a Joint Provincial-Local Government RCMP Contract Management Committee is being established to:

(i) Assist in ensuring the delivery of local police services in a cost effective manner by way of the RCMP through the length of the new RCMP Agreement;

(ii) Ensure that the management of the RCMP Agreement represents a

partnership between the Province and those BC local governments who rely on the RCMP for the delivery of local police services;

(iii) Ensure opportunities for input by local government into decisions that impact on the costs and/or the delivery of local police services;

(iv) Ensure opportunities for consultation with and accountability to local

governments by the RCMP in the delivery of police services; (v) Ensure that opportunities related to and/or shortcomings in the new RCMP

Agreement that may be identified from time to time during the term of the Agreement are addressed in a timely manner; and

(vi) Ensure that the RCMP provides information and rationale to the Province and

BC local governments with respect to changes in the delivery of police services by the RCMP.

Purpose: The purpose of the Committee is to provide a forum for consultation, analysis and communication between Local Government and the Province regarding the management of the Agreement under which the RCMP provide local police services in BC and to analyze and respond to changes that may be proposed from time to time by the Federal government and/or the RCMP and recommend changes to the Federal government and/or the RCMP that may be considered necessary or appropriate. Functions: The Committee has two key functions:

1) Communication • Receive and disseminate information to local governments about issues

that may impact the cost, quality, governance or capacity of the RCMP to deliver local police services;


Page 107 of 109

• Create and maintain a webpage on the UBCM website dedicated to communications regarding the RCMP Contract and policing issues of interest to local government;

• Provide a forum for local government to identify issues and concerns in relation to the delivery of local police services by the RCMP for consideration by the Committee;

• Communicate to BC local governments and the Province positions that have been taken and decisions that have been made in the context of addressing opportunities and issues with respect to local police service delivery.

2) Research and Analysis • Consider changes proposed by the Province, the Federal government

and/or the RCMP in relation to any aspect of the delivery of local government police services;

• Consider proposed updates to the Municipal Companion Document; • Collect and coordinate local government input into the RCMP Agreement

five year review process; and • Research and discuss issues and/or concerns of BC local governments

related to the RCMP Agreement and the delivery of local police services by the RCMP; and

• Develop recommendations for and provide input to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Contract Management Committee, the Province, the UBCM, FCM and BC local governments.

Membership: The local government representatives as referenced below will be appointed by the UBCM:

• Eight (8) Local Government representatives as follows: o Four representatives from local governments policed by the RCMP with a

population over 15,000 (three being from the Lower Mainland RCMP District and one being from another part of BC);

o Two representatives from a local governments policed by the RCMP with populations between 5,000 and 15,000;

o One representative from a regional district policed by the RCMP; and o One representative from a local government with a population under

5,000; • UBCM Executive representative; and

• The Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM), Policing and Security Programs Branch

One local government representative of the Committee will be appointed by the UBCM to sit as an Observer at the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Contract Management Committee meetings. Appointments to the Committee may be elected officials or local government staff, however, the majority of the Committee must be elected officials. Local government


Page 108 of 109

appointments to the Committee will coincide with the terms of elected office and will take into account the need for some level of continuity of service on the Committee for the effective functioning of the Committee. Representation on the Committee may by assessed by the Committee from time to time and modifications recommended to the Province and the UBCM as appropriate. The Committee may decide to structure a sub-committee of UBCM, Provincial and local government staff that would research and develop reports to the Committee regarding issues and opportunities that are referred to the sub-committee by the Committee from time to time. Committee Co-Chairs: The Committee will be co-chaired by:

• ADM, Policing and Security Programs Branch; and • The UBCM-appointed Observer to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Contract

Management Committee Meeting Schedule: The Local Government Contract Management Committee will meet in person a minimum of two times per year and by teleconference as required. Meetings will be convened at the call of the Co-chairs. Local Government representatives of the Committee may choose to caucus without the Province. Representatives of the RCMP will be invited to attend Committee meetings as required, and/or Committee representatives will schedule meetings with the appropriate RCMP managers to discuss issues raised by the Committee and report back to the Committee. Reporting Relationship: The Committee will report to the Deputy Solicitor General, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and to the UBCM Executive.


Page 109 of 109

regular agenda · regular agenda . a. approval of agenda . 1. regular agenda – july 7, 2011...

Documents