32nd Ave S

Erickson Rd

Osborne

Rd

38th St

Tooze RdRiley RdSpruce Rd

Lamo

nt Rd

35th Ave S

DL 12716

DL 812DL 12715

DL 3864

DL 9954

DL 5617

DL 3864

DL 12714DL 5617

DL 3878

DL 9954

DL 9640

DL 9953

116°28'0"W

Map Scale:

!(

C r

e

re k

C

e

G

t

r

k

o

Kootenay

e

k

l

r

Creek

rO

t

r

e

C

Curzon

u

r

Slough

D

Alice

l

Erickson

Ar

r

Thompson

ee

l

ek

iR

k

i

r

Kuskonook

e e

uck

Canyon

A

l

e

C

SixDuck

r

Wynndel

Lister

ih

i

e

C e

e

l

eGlenlily

d

Kingsgate

M

n d

k

e

Mile

C

Rykerts

Creston

a

Kt

n

T

L

K

d v

e

oy

i

C

a y

C

LakeLeach

k

k

Siding

Huscroft

e

Mount

r

M

r

y

o n

Lake

Sirdar

H

c

ow

Arrow

C

C

McConnel

L

e

ai

e

e

CrestonCRESTON

ALC File #:

Mapsheet #:

Map Produced:

Regional District:

1:10,000

Airphoto Map2005 Natural Colour - Ortho

Map Location

75 0 75 150 225 300 375Meters

ALR

ALR

Subject Property

5337382F.008

Oct 18, 2013Central Kootenay

28 of 29

DL 12716

DL 812DL 12715

DL 3864

DL 9954

DL 5617 DL 12714

DL 3878

DL 9953

DL 9640

116°28'0"W

Map Scale:

!(

r

Creek

t

Alice

Erickson

Ar

Thompson

ee

Canyon

Wynndel

Lister

ih

i

Rykerts

Creston

Kt

n

L

Siding

Huscroft

Mount

r

c

ow

ArrowMcConnel

CrestonCRESTON

ALR

50 0 50 100 150 200 250Meters

Map Location

ALR

ALC File #:

Mapsheet #:

Map Produced:

Regional District:

1:10,000ALC Context Map

Subject Property

October 18, 2013Central Kootenay

5337382F.008

Property: 3.3 haALR: 3.3 ha

27 of 29

6T

7TC

6TR

7:6T-3:7TC

6TR

(7:1-3:2T)

8:6WI-2:7WI)

3TD(3TD)

2D(2D)

W

8:7RT-2:6RT

6:6TP-4:7PE

6:2D-4:3TD(6:2D-4:3TD)

6T

6T

6TP

6:5T-4:4T(6:5T-4:4T)

2D(2D)

2T(2T)

3M(2T)

6:3TD-4:2D(6:3TD-4:2D)

8:7TC-2:6TR

3TD(3TD)

3TP(3TP)

4T(4T)

4M(2M)

W

2D(2D)

6:4IW-4:7IW(6:4IW-4:7IW)

2W(2W)

6TR

4MT(3T)

5TP(5TP)

7:4MW-3:5IW(7:4MW-3:5IW)

5TR(5TR)

7:4T-3:3TD(7:4T-3:3TD)

6:4TP-4:3TD(6:4TP-4:3TD)

7:4MW-3:5IW(7:4MW-3:5IW)

6:4T-4:3M(6:4T-4:1)

6:6TR-4:5T(6:6TR-4:5T)

4T(4T)

4TW(4TW)

6:3TD-4:4T(6:3TD-4:4T)

7:3TD-3:4TP(7:3TD-3:4TP) 7:5PT-3:6TP

(7:5PT-3:6TP)

6:6T-4:7TC

6:2D-4:3TD(6:2D-4:3TD)

7:2T-3:1(7:2T-3:1)

6:4T-4:5TM

7:5T-3:6TR(7:5T-3:6TR)

8:1-2:2W(8:1-2:2W)

8:7RT-2:6RT

7WI

5T(5T)

7:7TC-3:5T(7:7TC-3:5T)

7:2T-3:1(7:2T-3:1)

2T(2T)

5T(5T)

8:6TR-2:5TP(8:6TR-2:5TP)

5T(5T)

7:4MP-3:5T(7:3PM-3:5T)

7:7TR-3:6TR

5T(5T)

6:4IW-4:3TM(6:4IW-4:3TM)

7:6TR-3:3T(7:6TR-3:3T)

6:2T-4:4W(6:2T-4:4W)

116°24'0"W116°26'0"W116°28'0"W116°30'0"W

49°6'

0"N49

°4'0"N

CRESTON

CRANBROOK

ALC File #:

Mapsheet #:

Map Produced:

Regional District:

* Note - Subject property location is approximate.Accuracy not guaranteed.

Map Location

350 0 350 700 1,0501,4001,750Meters

Agricultural Capability Map1:50,000Map Scale:

ALR

ALR

Subject Property

5337382F/01

Oct 18, 2013Central Kootenay

29 of 29

1 of 29

2 of 29

4 of 29

5 of 29

6 of 29

7 of 29

16 o

f 29

8 of 29

9 of 29

10 of 29

11 of 29

12 of 29

15 of 29

22 of 29

3 of 29

23 of 29

24 of 29

1

McCoubrey, Lindsay ALC:EX

From: Smith, Darrell R AGRI:EXSent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:13 PMTo: 'Chris Talbot'Cc: McCoubrey, Lindsay ALC:EXSubject: RE: ALC, Local Gov Report, Referral Info Package, RDCK #4810-20-A1314B-06282.000,

Novak

Thanks for the referral on this.  In reading the Planning staff report, it would seem to me that that previous conditions of removing the older home was never carried out.  Then through various planning processes and plans, the parcel of land is now not in compliance with bylaws.  In order to get this parcel into compliance, removal from the ALR and rezoning is required.    The land all around this parcel is in the ALR, except for the lumber yard and waste yard, both industrial uses.  I do not agree with the rationale of excluding the land in an effort to make it complaint with the local bylaw.  There is little rationale on why the land is not suitable for agriculture, which in my opinion should be the main reason for land being in or out of the ALR.  The property directly to the east is in the ALR and looks to be farmed.    I would recommend against the removal at this time based on the information I have been provided.   Darrell Smith, P.Ag.  Resource Stewardship Agrologist  Ministry of Agriculture Invermere, B.C.  250-342-4219   

From: Chris Talbot [mailto:CTalbot@rdck.bc.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:38 PM Cc: kvanderweyde@shaw.ca; President Randy Meyer (rs85meyer@gmail.com); Darryl Plotnikoff; Smith, Darrell R AGRI:EX; Bill Zarchukoff - APC, B; Fred Jones - Chair, APC, B; Jeff Vandergeest - APC, B; John Kettle; Judith Green - ACP, B; Kaare Lindboe - APC, B; Ken Miller - APC, B; Les Mawson - APC, B; Marty Sonntag - APC, B; Muriel Buhr - APC, B; Pat Martin - APC, B; Penny Anderson - Alternate Director, Area B; Randy Meyer - APC, B Subject: ALC, Local Gov Report, Referral Info Package, RDCK #4810-20-A1314B-06282.000, Novak Good afternoon, Please find attached correspondence from Bruce Gunn, Planner for the file referenced in the Subject line above. Best regards, Mary Nesteroff for: Chris Talbot Development Services Administrative Assistant Regional District of Central Kootenay Box 590, 202 Lakeside Drive, Nelson BC V1L 5R4

25 of 29

October 5, 1999 Reply to the attention of Sherry Sumpton

John and Maureen Novak 52D-RR1 South Edmonton, Alberta T6H 4N6

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Application # F-32756

The Agricultural Land Commission has now had an opportunity to thoroughly review all of the information contained in your application regarding land described as Lot 5, District Lot 99SA, Kootenay District, Plan 1500.

You have asked for permission to retain the original dwelling as a second permanent dwelling on the 3.2 ha subject property.

In considering the application the Commission reviewed the file information as well as additional information pertaining to surrounding lot sizes, land uses and agricultural capability. The Commission noted from the file material that when the building permit for the new dwelling was issued it specified that only one single family dwelling was allowed on the property and the existing dwelling would be removed or made uninhabitable upon occupancy of the new dwelling.

Your request to retain the original dwelling is based on your assertion that someone is required to live on the property year round to look after the farm operation. However, the Commission's review of the file information has revealed that little agricultural activity is being undertaken on the property and that furthermore you only live on the property for a portion of the year.

The Commission's concern with additional dwellings is that not only do they increase land prices beyond what farmers are often able to pay, but land is lost in the building/yard and access footprint, reducing the agricultural capability of the property. Finally the Commission is concerned about setting a precedent which could result in the alienation of farmland throughout the ALR in the area and lead to increases in rural density which can have long term, negative effects on the local farm community.

For these reasons, the Commission, under Section 22(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act by Resolution #585/99, refused your application.

The intent of the Act is to preserve and protect agricultural lands and farm communities in the long-term and the Commission truly felt that your application was not in keeping with that mandate.

The land referred to in the application will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission A ct and Regulations.

Yours truly,

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

Per:

A. Chambers, Chair

cc: Regional District of Central Kootenay File: A9907B-06282.000

MC/lv&/I:32756dl.doc

Resolution #585/99

MINUTES OF T H E PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

Meeting held at the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission Office, 4940 Canada Way, Burnaby, B.C. on the 27th day of September 1999.

PRESENT: M. Thompson Vice Chair K. Alberts Commissioner J. Bakker Commissioner G. Horn Commissioner

An application under Section 22(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act was considered concerning land described as Lot 5, District Lot 995A, Kootenay District, Plan 1500.

APPLICATION: #21-F-1999-32756-0

APPLICANT: John & Maureen Novak

PROPERTY LOCATION: Southern rural fringe of Creston - Canyon/Erickson area

L O C A L GOVERNMENT: Regional District of Central Kootenay

SUBJECT PROPERTY SIZE (Ha): one 3.2 ha property

PROPOSAL: To legalize the use of an existing second dwelling on the 3.2 ha property. The applicant constructed a new dwelling for his use and retained the older dwelling for his wife's mother's residence.

The applicant raises horses and divides his time between several residences in western North America. The occupant of the older home takes care of the property in his absence.

Apparently when receiving the building permit for the new dwelling the applicant agreed to render the original building uninhabitable (because only one dwelling is allowed on the property).

TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision and/or Non-farm use

DATE OF PURCHASE: 04/01/1996

DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED: 05/13/1999

PRESENT USE: Rural residence with two permanent dwellings (one 22 years old, the other 2-3 years). Hay and livestock are raised on the property (it also contains a small orchard). AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY: The CLI ratings for the property are as follows.

Unimproved Ratings Improved Ratings % of Unit

6T 70 6:4IW 4:7IW 30

.2

Page 2 #585/99

SURROUNDING LAND USES:

NORTH: 1.7 ha rural residential properties (some pasture use) SOUTH: Goat River EAST: 6.3 ha pasture which is rented by the applicant WEST: 3.6 ha parcel - logging operation.

COMMUNITY PLAN DESIGNATION: Creston Valley OCP #674 - no comment is provided in the Hie beyond this reference

ZONING: Creston Valley Land Use Bylaw # 795 designates this parcel as RR #1 - Rural Resource which permits a second dwelling for farm help.

L O C A L GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Regional District forwarded the application without comment, however, the Creston Valley Agricultural Advisory Commission recommended that the application be refused on the grounds the second dwelling is not required for farm help.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: No previous applications have been considered on the property, except in 1978 a small northerly portion of the property not in the ALR was included into the ALR. Nearby applications have not addressed the issue of illegal second residences.

RELEVANT APPLICATIONS

1) Application # 05061-0 Applicant: J.H. Huscroft Decision Date: 07/11/1978

Proposal: To subdivide the 9 ha property into 0:4 ha lots. Decision: Refuse as proposed on the grounds of impact on adjacent orchards.

2) Application # 20922-0 Applicant: J.H. Huscroft Ltd. Decision Date: 04/23/1987

Proposal: To store logs on the 12.6 ha subject property, adjacent to sawmill lying outside the ALR. The area used for log storage was included into the ALR in 1978. Decision: Allow subject to bonding and an annual site inspection. Monitoring and reclamation of the wood waste dump was also required as a condition of approval.

3) Application # 24592-0 Applicant: P. and E. Sherbinin Decision Date: 08/14/1990

Proposal: To subdivide two 0.4 ha lots from the 2.63 ha property. The applicant's claim they are too old to look after the property and can't find anyone to lease the orchard portion. Decision: Refuse as proposed on the grounds of reduced agricultural capability.

Page 3 #585/99

4) Application # 78-4)64% Applicant: A L C Decision Date'

Proposal: lin-hidc Undb in ilic Creslou area into (he ALR Decision: Allow the inclusion of a small unrtinn of Lot 5, U l . 9954

STAFF COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the application be refused on the grounds the level of agricultural activity does not warrant an additional dwelling for farm help. Enforcement may be a problem, however, and practically the homes may be retained on the property for many more years. It is staff's view that in these situations it is better for the Commission to clearly indicate that a second dwelling is not permitted and then take no action, rather than legalize the problem after the fact. This stance can help prevent copycat violations in the area and also enable the Commission to resist parcelization should the two dwellings ever be used as justification for subdivision.

DISCUSSION: The Commission concurred with the staff recommendation and the recommendation of the local Agricultural Advisory Commission to refuse the proposal because the level of agricultural activity did not warrant an additional dwelling for farm help.

That the application to retain a second permanent dwelling on the property be refused on the grounds the agricultural activity occurring on the property does not warrant an additional dwelling for full time farm help.

This decision is subject to compliance with all other legislation.

IT WAS M O V E D BY: SECONDED BY:

Commissioner G. Horn Commissioner K. Alberts

CARRIED

I:32756dl.doc

lmccoubr

Text Box

Relevant App - 51730 (Adjacent to subject property)