Phased Development
One thing has been bugging me. I commented about here in another post:
In the last minutes from the OCP stakeholders group, there was a bit of coverage of this issue:
"Although the OCP does encourage the concept of infill development, there's no implied order or sequence. Could it not specify an order of development, so that hillsides up Praire Valley or any ALR land couldn't be developed at all until all the sewered, non-ALR land in the 'urban growth area' was infilled?"As we've been talking about this concept, I see that it wouldn't have to be extremely rigid -- maybe there's a ratio to the sequence. So once 80 percent of the remaining non-ALR land near sewer and water lines in the urban growth area is full, then they move to approving the next phase, which might be the least viable (agriculturally) ALR land closest to downtown. When a ratio of that was full, they could move on to the next priority. It would seem to be a more ordered, rational approach, rather than spending piles of money developing a hillside suburb nowhere near town while land is vacant in town.
In the last minutes from the OCP stakeholders group, there was a bit of coverage of this issue:
"Rick Cogbill brought to the group’s attention that the Planner would like to have some phasing put in to place, and would like the group to come up with priorities for development in certain areas.If the town planner was asking for this kind of priority list, it would be interesting to ask him whether that has actually been done.
Rick Valenti responded to this comment by mentioning that East of North Prairie Valley would be an excellent initial place to expand because it is the closest to the current sewer system, and the next priority would then be Jersey Lands.
Tony Cooke felt that the logical places for new building are the sewered areas with higher density potential, especially those close to the Downtown core.
Doug Crumback stated that we should prioritize future growth areas based on the direction the sewer will likely be extended first. ie if Bentley Road gets sewer first then possibly Rattlesnake Mt should be one of the frist priority areas for a future growth area."
posted by Jeremy |
Permanent Link
3 Comments:
Bill is too kind to correct my oversights here, but he pointed out that the OCP does offer some guidance on phasing. On page 30, it refers to the process for adding land from the Future Growth Area to the Urban Growth Area:
"1-10 An extension to the boundaries of the UGA to include Future Growth Areas must be considered thrugh the Official Community Plan amendment procedure. Inclusion of Future Growth Areas into the Urban Growth Area will be reviewed at such time as the UGA is 75% developed. The review process with determine development priorities."
At first glance, 75% seems potentially low, but at least it seems logical. I guess what I'd still like to see is some attempt to prioritize development within the Urban Growth Area, so that infilling on non-ALR land close to town and increased densities on existing properties was nearly complete before starting on the next part, which could be either the ALR land (assuming it can be removed) closest to town (that 53-hectare block on the north end, maybe)...or the areas on Cartwright which have the least visual, environmental and infrastructure impact. Once those areas were nearly full, they could move on to the next lowest priority, but that might be 15 years down the road, and priorities could be constantly re-evaluated.
By
Jeremy, at 1:42 p.m.
This has some connection to the OCP meeting as well as another slant on taking property out of the ALR.
At the OCP meeting a number of councillors (particularly Mr. Roberge) said they were inundated with emails, phone calls and letters from the town folk about everything and anything and that he in particular, was unable to keep up with answering them all. I can see that it would be difficult for someone to run for alderman or mayor, run a full time business and still keep up with all the new things happening even in a town this size. So, as I said in a letter to the editor some time ago, I don’t begrudge councillors the pay raise they are looking for. This is probably why people who are retired and still have the stamina to do it should be running for council. The problem with old folk is that they are usually pretty set in their ways and aren’t even into new things like computers and such.
Anyway I called the municipality the next day to see if anybody was attending the “Water Watch” workshop that was being held in Kelowna this past week, and darned if they weren’t going to have at least 3 people from Council there plus the foreman in charge of same from the Municipality. I was most surprised.
The second thing was I sent an email to Councillor Cogbill and took him to task for making the motion early this year in a council meeting to remove the Strafehl property out of the ALR and got an immediate reply from him. Here is the email, the Council Minutes, the motion, followed by his reply:
To Councillor Cogbill:
I would be interested in your explanation as to why you proposed the motion to exclude the Strafehl property from the ALR, particularly when the OCP was in the offing? Are you or are you not in favour of keeping ALR lands from being developed?
Sincerely,
Frank Martens
8. APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE LAND FROM THE ALR AT 9731 THOMPSON ROAD (STRAFEHL FAMILY FARM)
The Planner reviewed his report, noting that the applicants propose seniors oriented multi family housing if the lands are removed from the reserve. The property is bounded by residential development on three sides. The Planner suggested the ALC has expressed a willingness to consider excluding the lands if they are used for seniors housing. Outright support of the application is contrary to our existing OCP.
Some members suggested they are reluctant to support this application in isolation and that the bigger picture needs to be reviewed as part of the new OCP. Other suggested that as the new OCP is not imminent, and the ALC appears to support consideration of the application, it should go forward.
Moved by Councillor Cogbill, Seconded by Councillor Spittlehouse,
THAT Council forward the ALR exclusion application with respect to 9731 Thompson Road (Lot 10, DL 473, Plan 147 except Plan B6586 ODYD) to the Agricultural Land Commission without a recommendation to permit the Agricultural Land Commission to consider this proposal relative to the District’s proposed Official Community Plan.
DEFEATED due to a tie vote.
Councillors Hallquist, Roberge, and Wright opposed.
Moved by Councillor Hallquist, Seconded by Councillor Wright,
THAT Council defer the exclusion application until the District obtains approval by the ALC for the new proposed Official Community Plan.
DEFEATED due to a tie vote.
Mayor Johnston and Councillors Cogbill and Spittlehouse opposed.
Mayor Johnston suggested that as Council is deadlocked on this application, and we have one member of Council absent, this application will be deferred to the January 24, 2005 Council meeting.
Here was Cogbill’s reply to my email:
Hello Frank, and thank you for your note.
To the question of whether I feel that some ALR lands should be considered for removal from the reserve, the answer is yes, and I'm not alone; even the Agricultural Land Commission thinks so. That's why they have an exclusion application process.
The reasons for the Strafehl orchard consideration are well-documented, and I believe you're probably very aware of them. But briefly, as the Planner's report stated, it's surrounded on three sides by residential. It also has very minimal buffering between the orchard and La Vista next door - so much so that it is used as the poster child for many Smart Growth Planning presentations as to what not to do. Infilling this pocket seems reasonable. It is also within our downtown core area, making it easy for residents to walk to town, and it makes good use of our existing services without sprawling out into the valleys.
These are only a few of the things that were considered. If in fact the land does get released, then I think your questions would be better directed towards the Land Commission. They are the ones who really decide.
Sincerely,
Rick Cogbill
My comment:
Many years ago the Council of the time asked that half of the Strafehl property, about 10 acres, be excluded from the ALR. The “excuse” the family offered at the time was that the land was in a frost pocket and was not agriculturally viable. The fact that neighbouring orchards were just as effected and still managed to make adequate profits from growing apples appeared to be completely irrelevant. But it also goes to show that all you have to do is look at Summerland’s planning over the years to see the inadequacy of untrained municipal staff and untrained councillors. Not an “Urban Geographer” in the lot, I’ll wager.
By
Anonymous, at 4:39 p.m.
Thanks for including this, Frank. I think it would be a stretch to expect our councillors to have extensive knowledge and experience in urban geography, which is probably why they depend on the town planner and outside consultants for expertise and advice. They do seem committed to learning as much as they can about the best options for the town...although we might not agree with them about what those best options might be.
If Councillor Cogbill's interpretation is correct, then it seems like it might not be the worst place for an ALR exclusion. Higher housing densities close to downtown makes a lot of sense, although it seems like anyone who implies as much gets labelled as an enemy of agriculture and Summerland's heritage. I think that polarization is a shame, because it sets up an either/or fight that nobody wins.
By
Jeremy, at 8:37 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home