Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the public hearing
for official community plan amendment bylaw 2026 - 25 and
the zoning amendment bylaw number 2026 - 26, 434 Lakeshore
Drive West to order. I would like to ask the
corporate officer to introduce the bylaws. Thank you, Deputy Mayor
Gilbert. This public hearing is being held pursuant to Section
464 and 465 of the local government act for the
purpose of hearing representation from those persons who believe their
interest in property may be affected. The public hearing is
recorded in all the contents are posted on our website.
The bylaws tonight are official committee plan amendment violent number
202625 and so any amendment bylaw number 202626 for 434
Lake Shore Drive West and Agricultural Land Reserve Exclusion Application
for 610 Pine View Road. Notice of the public hearing
has been duly advertised in accordance with the requirements of
the look of from an act. Also copies of the
bylaws and support and documentation have been available for inspection
on the city of Penticton website. The role of council
is to hear representation from those persons who wish to
provide comments regarding the proposed bylaws. Everyone who wishes to
speak shall be given the opportunity to be heard. However,
it is important that all who speak at this hearing
restrict the remarks to matters contained in the bylaws. Council's
main function is to listen to the views of the
public. It is not the function of council at this
public hearing to debate the merits that proposed bylaw with
individual citizens. No decisions will be made at the public
hearing, but will be considered within a council meeting. It
should be noted that after the public hearing has been
concluded, council cannot hear from interested parties regarding the proposed
bylaws. Public hearing number one is for OCP Amendment bylaw
number 202625 and zoning amendment bylaw at number 202626. OCP
Amendment Bylaw number 202625 proposes to amend official community plan
bylaw number 201908 as follows. Amend map one future land
use by changing the future land use designation for lot
one district lot for group seven, Sumilkamin Division Yale from
the Yale Blitton District Plan 35081 except plan EPP91648 located
at 434. Lakeshore Drive West from low density residential to
high density residential and zoning amendment bylaw number 2626 proposes
to amends zoning bylaw 2024 - 22 as follows. Rezone
lot one, District Lot 4, Group 7, Samilkamin Division, Yale
Formula Yeolitin District Plan 35081, accept plan EPP 91648 located
at 434 Lakeshore Drive West from par 4L Small Scale
Multi - Unit Residential Large Lot to RM3 Medium Density
Multiple Housing and remove site - specific provision section 10.
2. 5. 1f from 10. 2 R4S, small - scale
multi - unit residential, small law in its entirety. The
site - specific text amendment, which allows a bed and
breakfast on the property will no longer be applicable should
the property be redeveloped. The proposed amendment would allow for
a multi - family residential development up to six stories
in height. Seven letters have been received since the printing
of the agenda and distributed to council. Thank you. Thank
you very much Ms. Collison. Before we go to the
public, is there any new information from staff. Thank you,
council. I have a short presentation that I'd like to
go through. There's no new information, but just to reiterate
some of the information. Yeah, thank you. Go ahead, Ms.
Tenge. Okay, so this public hearing is for an official
community product amendment and zoning amendment for 435 lecture drive
west. The properties on across the street from the Okanaganic
park, it's vacant. It's being previously occupied by a heritage
home called Warren House, building 1912. The proposal CPMM is
to change a designation on the property from low density
to high density to support the same land use designation
in this block. So this designation, so what's existing right
now is for your nets and three stories. And the
proposed high density residential supports that higher density up to
six stories in height. There's also a rezoning request. The
change is owning on the property from our 4L, which
allow 4 units to RM3, which would allow morning 4
units up to 6 stories. There is no specific development
proposal at this time, but the applicant has provided a
lot of intent, and that was included in council package.
A development permit would be required. If they have approval
from moving forward. Staff have prepared a mail out notification
for properties within 100 metre. In total 192 notices were
mailed, norediseed sign was also posted on the property and
advertisements were placed in a newspaper. Seven letters were receive
encirculated to council. So there are key criterias that must
be considered when an OCPMM is proposed. So does it
align with the broader CP vision? What are the social
economic and environmental benefit to the community? What are the
cost implications, sustainability to contacts, and meaningful engagement. So the
first criteria, so the OCP supports housing being built close
to downtown transit, Mary's. It's also close to a bus
route to keep my research, Geraint Mo in the hospital.
Second criteria is obviously economic and environmental benefits. Again, higher
density, multifamily residential development on this property contributes to the
city's housing needs. Um, this already service and central location
that can accommodate growth. The third criteria is assessment of
development costs. So this is an existing in - service
urban lot and any costs will be born by the
developer or the applicant. The surrounding properties to the east
and south are designated high density residential, which allows up
to six stories in height. It's also important to mention
that building that are there today, uh, are generally maximum
of four stories. And their designation indicate that really the
long - term vision is for six stories, but what's
existing is maximum of four stories. As I mentioned, there's
a four - story height limit on Lakeshore Drive in
your CP, but it's limited to properties further down on
Lake Shore beside the LaCoana Park and does not apply
to this area. The last criteria is ensuring that the
public engagement was carried out from May 14 to June
12th. So the Aplicant is proposing to change a zoning
from R4L to RM3, which would allow multifamily development of
the six stories in height, which also aligns with the
high density OCP designation. So that concludes my presentation. And
I do believe that the applicant is here. He's over
Zoom. He doesn't have a presentation, but he's here to
answer any question, council may have. Okay, thank you very
much, Ms. Tenge. So we are holding the public hearing
in person in electronically, and we'll continue until everyone participating
has had an opportunity to be heard. If you are
in the Zoom webinar and want to speak, please use
the raise hand feature, and you will be given the
ability to turn on your camera and microphone and provide
your comments. Please keep your comments to three minutes and
reframe from cheering or jeering. Uh, you may return to
the podium to speak again if you run out of
time. So for the first time, is there anyone that
would like to speak to official community plan amendment, bylaw,
number 20, 26 - 25, or zoning amendment bylaw, number
2026 - 26, please provide your name and street and
the street that you live on. You may go up
to the podium there, sir. Bill
wicket, I live at 433 Churchill Avenue. Immediately behind the
proposal. I'm against it for two reasons. Uh, aesthetically, number
one. I believe the lackawanna Park Four story heights limit
should extend from Winnipeg Street to the sycamous. Right now
nothing, a long lake shore is above four stories. Uh,
if we allow six further on down, somebody else is
going to want more. And I don't want the lake
shore. To start looking like Waikiki. Four stories, I feel,
is enough. But that is not the main reason. The
main reason why. Is if you go to six stories,
uh, I've seen proposals from the owners that they're talking
about up to 28 apartments. I hope before council votes,
each of you have actually driven down the alley. It's
not on a street. And there'll be no street access
from Lakeshore. The only access is this alley. Right now
the alley is so narrow. Two cars can't go buy
each other without basically one stopping and allowing waving the
other one on. If you allow. A dozen or two
dozen or more cars for one unit, one lot is
going to be chaos. It's literally a back alley. And
right in front of my place is an alley that
serves that lot. And it's already got a lot more
traffic over the last 10 years with all the four
- story places going up. But if you allow six,
and God knows how many, possibly 28 apartments, it's not,
it's just impossible. There's no room for the vehicles. Uh,
I hope you've all driven down that alley. And experienced
it. Because right now if you even have a FedEx
truck or a UPS truck delivering something to your place,
it blocks the whole, not road. It blocks the alley.
So vehicle transportation there. Is the mean reason why this
proposal should not go to six stories. It should be
limited to four stories. And in my opinion, the four
units. Thank you. Nope. Oh, sorry. Could we please keep
the cheering, no cheering and jerry? We want to make
sure that, uh, anyone who can speak, uh, be, be
granted to speak without any, you know, biased or any
other, um, motivation in regards to that. We want to
make sure it's neutral here for this space for a
public hearing. Um, do we have someone online that would,
uh, if you want to come up, but if we
have someone online that would like to speak to the
motion, or sorry, the public hearing. Nosed right hand. Thank
you. There are no raised tents in Zoom. Okay. Thank
you. Go ahead. Am I on? There we go. Biblically
Skosky 336 Lakeshore. I'd like to follow up to Mr.
Wickett's comments. Um, we shared concerns about development with city
council several times since 2009. We've provided tours to councils.
I met with Councillor Gilbert in 2024. And receive replies
to questions on this proposal recently from councillors Watt and
Stuart. As always, we are not opposed to densification or
development. Just concerned on how it impacts traffic, parking, infrastructure
capacity and public safety as the lakeshore Churchill corridor was
not built to handle the volume of development that is
now being considered. The number of homes in the area
has more than quadrupled in the past 30 years, yet
there have been minimal improvements to the roads and the
length that serves them. Churchill's alley is a single lane
width, but is expected to handle two - way traffic
and cross a busy pedestrian beach walkway adjacent to this
proposal. So the lane is treated like a street, but
without the safety features of a street, there's no sidewalks,
no speed control, and limited lighting. Visitors unknowingly park illegally
in the lane, further adding to the problem. Now according
to pendictons fire department, they don't use lanes to access
buildings anywhere in Pendicton. So quick access to lake chart,
churchill, or laneway facing doors, especially during weekend road closures
in the summer can become extremely challenging. Every second matters.
During an emergency. Kudos to our firefighters efforts when Warren
House burned and threatened surrounding homes. If a similar emergency
occurred during a busy summer event, the outcome could have
been far worse. Without addressing these civic concerns, it's possible
further large - scale development could create serious liability issues.
Churchill Avenue can't absorb the pressure either. As one of
pentacton's narrowest and most congested streets, vehicles frequently park near
lane exits, and on both sides of the street, reducing
sight lines and limited space for the two - way
traffic. In fact, penticton transit has confirmed it is one
of the narrowest streets they service in Penticton. Because there
is no feasible way to widen this road network, no
way to fix that. Development must be scaled to what
the neighbourhood infrastructure can safely and logically support. So six
- story buildings would create far more vehicle pressure on
an already constrained access system. Therefore, we support three to
four - story buildings as it is consistent with the
existing neighbourhood. It's better aligned with the current OCP intent
and less likely to worsen already unsaved conditions. So please
visit the area before making any precedent setting decisions while
keeping in mind that the current conditions as of today
don't reflect peak, summer conditions. And finally, be remembered as
the council who protected this amazing neighbourhood through thoughtful, sensible,
and practical planning by declining this application. Now is the
time to set this right. Thank you. Yep. Next person,
if you want to come up and then we'll go
to someone, we'll go online for the next one. I
see that the hand there, but we'll go to the
gallery first. Reni Myers, and I'm at 409 Hills Avenue.
Uh, that neighbourhood is mostly houses everywhere, except for a
long lake showed youth. And, uh, the thought of a
six - story building is what got me out here,
because to me it's absolutely absurd for the reasons that
my neighbours have noticed, so I'm not going to go
through all that again. A huge concern for me is
the beach access walkthrough, which is always very busy and
I use it maybe three times a day. I know
all my neighbours use it. Children, dragon, people dragging their
wagons, full of the beach stuff. And so six stories
of apartments and all those cars. Trying to come and
go during the day on that lane, it's impossible as
far as how I can see. Just think about it.
So, um, that's my say, uh, I'm totally against the
sick story building there. It's the, it's crazy. Okay, thank
you. I'll go to the raised hand that's online.
I've Lynn Kelsey, if you could unmute yourself.
Can I try again? Yeah, there we go. Now we
can hear you. Oh, now you can hear me. Okay.
Well, I'm out of town due to the smoke. For
my own physical health. I really disagree with this being
a sick story. I totally agree with the comments of
the previous people that this, this is just not. A
political. I worked on Churchill Street. I know how busy
that street is and how big a problem the parking
and the traffic and everything is. The laneway is too
narrow to support what needs to happen. And as far
as I'm concerned. Three stories and maximum four stories would
be sufficient for this area. Let's not set a president
that turns this into like a lake shore and Miami
beach or something. Um, we don't need that. We needed
something that has a nice character, which when we had
Warren House had a nice character. Let's not ruin the
heritage of Warren House by putting up a monstrosity of
a six story building. So please ask you to. Really
consider this. And, uh, make sure that you make a
responsible decision based on the comments that you've heard tonight.
Thank you. So for a second time, is there anyone
that would like to speak to official community plan amendment
by law number 2026 - 2025 or zoning amendment bylaw,
uh, 2026 - 26. Yep. Come up to the podium,
please.
Good evening, my name is Shirley McPherson. I live on
736 Lakeshore Drive. And I just want, I'm here to
support all of the people who've already spoken. I don't
feel it is necessary to repeat the same things. We
have been going through this a lot over the last
10 or 12 years. And, um, this is when I
see all of my neighbours. So I really hope too
that you will make a responsible decision regarding this. Amazingly
crazy idea. We're very fortunate that someone hasn't been struck
in the lane. Because it's come very close. Thank you.
And is there any other raised hands on Zoom. There
are no raised hands in Zoom. Madam, you may come
up to the podium. Hi there. I'm Melanie Atkinson. I
live at 668 Lakeshore Drive. And I especially at this
time of year and with the way things are changing,
I'd like to talk about water responsibility. If you're going
to be putting in something that six stories possibly 28
units that could have two bathrooms, a kitchen sink, a
dishwasher, because they all do now. You can say what
you want about the developer will have to take care
of that. But what does it say about us as
a city that we're not looking at that saying, no,
the OCP that we have three, possibly four stories will
be enough. I also live on Lakeshore and can attest
to the fact that that back alley is just an
accident waiting to happen. And well, they're under construction. There
will be huge problems with people trying to get through.
Thank you.
Kate, for a third and final time, is there anyone
that would like to speak to official community plan amendment
bylaw number 2026 - 25? Or zoning amendment bylaw 2026
- 26. Yeah. You may come up to the podium.
I'm Teresa Dieeds. I live at 422 Lakeshore Drive, which
is the Lakeview Apartments. I've lived in Penticton. My entire
life. And in the last 10 years have moved to
this area. When I first lived here, the first two
years I was given a parking permit for Churchill Avenue,
which was then taken away. And as Churchill was developed,
um, there was so many areas that were single feering
places that switched into multifamily. And so many of them
were approved. And there wasn't proper parking on these, um,
developments. And so therefore a large number of vehicles were
then parking on the roadway. And I live in an
apartment where there is no, uh, the parking in the
back services are apartment. But we have no parking whatsoever
right now for visitors. Because there's been such an influx
of cars on church hill avenue. And it is a
nightmare. I can attest to what everybody said to try
to manoeuvre down that road. That road needs to be
one side parking because of the congestion. And you cannot
get down that street. To cars at a time. And
the back lane has become a nightmare. And it is
a lane. When they were doing some work on the
house down on Lakeshore, just in the last few months,
there was huge trucks backing up our laneway. And that
was the only way they could get in, because you
can't come down the walking lane beside the proposal. It's
so narrow. And, um, our alleyway is, there's been damage
done to it. Cause it was not put in there
with the intent of these big trucks with all their
weight to be driving on them. And through our parking
area as well. There's been damage in our lot because
that's the only way they could pull out. There's no
road for anything to come in. And my concern is
when they, and if they get approval for this, where
are all the big trucks going to park to do
the work? How is the garbage man going to get
down the lane? He barely gets through their now. And,
um. I agree with what everybody has said. They have
given it a lot of thought. And not only do
I think it would be a good idea to not
allow this. I agree. Maybe something, um, with four units
in it. But let's put this matter to rest once
and for all. And just have something in our bylaws.
Where no, we're not going to go there again and
debate this six story stuff. It doesn't work on our
beautiful street. There's been too many changes already. Let's protect
some of what was the thing that lured people to
pentict in many years ago. And, you know, I believe
you have to have development, but you also have to
protect your heritage. And that's not happening in Penticton. Thank
you for your time. Is there any raised hands on
Zoom. There are no raised hands in Zoom. Okay.
Council, do you have any questions. Councillor White. Thanks, Chair.
Sorry. I was just going to suggest if you wanted
to, all the developer to have an opportunity. Yeah. Thanks.
I wonder if you're going to have questions for the
developer questions for staff. So, um, yeah, for the developer
online, if you want to maybe address any of the
questions or concerns that we brought up in the public
hearing. Yeah. Hi. Um, my name's Peach Ruttell. We've owned
434 for the longest time. We did suffer the loss.
And I understand and hear all the concerns in relation
to the height. But at the end of the day,
the zone three, RM3 zoning was selected because under the
current bylaw, that's the only zoning that would allow a
building to be constructed at similar height to the properties
next door and behind. And other locations, electric drive. My
quest to the council is that by approving an RM3
zoning, the council is not granting an absolute right to
build the maximum height. It's just creating an opportunity to
do so. The right to build is provided under the
development permit. Where the public and the council will again
have the ability to voice their opinions and approve the
height and massing the building. And that's what issues such
as laneway access. And other considerations such as height number
of units should be addressed. Speaking of opportunity, the change
of the zoning to RM3 will also afford the opportunity
for. To address the council's concerns raised in the pendict
in 2023 housing's assessment, basically for the need for smaller
units, not to build a two to three million or
even four million dollar single family home on this lot.
The opportunity to support housing growth and intensification and central
urban area. In line with the OCP policy. And the
opportunity to have a positive contributions to pendicton housing diversity.
Lastly, the RM3 zoning is a logical extension to the
existing high density designations to the eastern south of the
property, as you saw presented by the council. With a
laneway, yes, it is small, but it forms a natural
boundary. And a clear physical edge to the natural transition
to low density neighbourhood. As such, it would be in
keeping with the rest of Lakeshaw. I trust therefore that
the council dispite the potential height implied by M3 zoning
approved this opportunity inherent to the RM3. Zonings and leave
the discussion to final height as part of the development
permit because there are a lot of questions like people
raised, which need to be answered. How is Axis going
to be provided? How is the water supply? Is it
sufficient. How is the traffic flow and waste management going
to be? All those things that address as part of
the development permit. Anyway, I hope that answers most of
the questions that people have had. And I trust that
the council will find favor in this proposal. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions. Go ahead, Councillor Raynon. Thank you
through the chair. Uh, obviously it's for city staff, but,
um. As we pass this through, it would go to
another reading, correct? And then we would have an opportunity
to, um, set a height barrier. Is that correct? Go
ahead, Ms. Dengue. So the chair to council rain. And
so what's in front of you today, what we're discussing
is the public hearing. Then after it wants to public
hearing as calls, you'll be discussing the bylaw stated by
the corporate officer. If any changes to the bar, I
was, you know, to occur or request. We would have
to come back with those changes and then bring it
forward and run through the same process. So what's in
front of you is a change from the OCP to
allow the high density residential as well as RM3. If
any changes was to occur within those, we would have
to come back with a new byline from the council
would have to consider and send to public hearing as
well. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Graham. Yes, thank you,
the chair. It's sort of a developer. 28 units, is
that set? Like that's, that's going ahead. You're not going
to shrink that. You need to be 28 units. And
if so, these are rental units. And what's the makeup?
Is it one, two, three bedroom or is it just
one and two bedrooms? Thank you. Uh, good question. Fortune,
we haven't got that far. I mean, essentially we spend
a long time deliberating whether or not to rebuild our
home. Creating a single family home, which would probably worst
three to four million. We didn't see that in our
interest, nor did it align with pendicton's vision. The problem
we face is that we can't do this on our
own. So we need funding and we may need a
partner. Um, and at the end of the day, the
development needs to be economically viable. So the final design
and all those questions will still need to be addressed
in the future. Because we have no fixed view as
to what it will look like other than to say
that it would be within keeping of lecture drive. We
don't want to create a monstrosity like was suggested the
Miami Beach type of look. We want something to be
in keeping within massing, but we want it. We need
to be able to make it economically viable. So long,
long, long statement to say, sorry, I can't answer your
questions because we haven't done the design. No, we're not
set on 28 units. But the six story building would
potentially come to seek 28 units. It doesn't matter doesn't
necessarily mean to say that that's what we will build
or intent to build. But the more units, the lower
the cost of the unit. Because the fixed costs in
the design. So if you only have four units. When
you add build costs and everything else around there, they
certainly aren't affordable to make them more affordable. And again,
this isn't true affordability. This is lakeshill drive. But to
bring the price down and make it available to more
people, you need more units. Councillor, you're a question. Councillor
Stewart. Thank you to the chair. And I apologise if
I'm stumbling through this. I just want to make sure
that I'm crystal clear. Currently before us, if we are
voting to pass the rezoning from the current status to
RM3, that allows for a high density build. And that
in and of itself is one step. And the next
step with regard to the size of the structure is
a separate and distinct piece that we can also consider.
That there's approved or contained within the zoning. Approval. Is
that right? Am I close. Uh, Ms. Tenge? Through the
chair to councillors, stewart. Um, so again, so the zoning
has specifications on height. Density. Uh, so what will happen
if the council passed this parallel. Then they would have
to come back with a design that would meet the
arm three. Bylaw. Um, depending on the size, it could
be a staff issued development permit. If they need variances,
then we would notify the public again. And we'll come
back to council. So there's a chance depending on the
size that it could be as a staff level. So
not necessarily meaning that they would, the public would be
notified again. Because if they meet the intent of the
arm three in terms of sight coverage, setbacks, um, then,
you know, we look at the form and character of
the building in the landscaping. Yeah. Thank you. And just,
Councillor Stewart, maybe if you'll follow up, but it might
be advantageous to have that follow up when we go
to vote for the bylaw when it's coming up here
after the public hearings are done. Um, it's more or
less having questions for the developer. And I think one
of those questions can be done for when the bylaw
comes up. Okay. Any other questions from council. Okay. So
the public hearing for official community plan amendment bylaw number
2026 25 or zoning amendment by law 2026 26 is
now closed and no information can be received. Thank you
for those watching. We will now move on to our
next scheduled public hearing.
Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call the public hearing
for agricultural land reserve exclusion application for 610 point view
road. And I'd like to ask a corporate officer to
introduce the ALR exclusion application. And thank you, worship. Public
hearing number two is for ALR exclusion application for six
pin view roads. It's to exclude a portion of the
property located at 6105U road, but one district lot 2710.
So Milcomy Division Yale District Plan, EPP22470 from the Agricultural
Land Reserve ALR. The AppGants proposing to use a portion
of a property within the provincial agricultural land reserve for
a residential subdivision. This development is not permitted in the
ALR and an application to exclude a portion of the
property from the ALR is required. We have received three
letters since the agenda has been distributed to council. And
you have those now. Thank you. Thank you. And before
we go to the public, is there any new information
from staff. Thank you, you worship. I have a short
presentation. That's OK. So again, this public hearing is for
an agricultural and reserve exclusion application. The properties on this
outside of Prime View Road contains a single detached welling
and an orchard. The applicant is proposing to use part
of the property for a residential subdivision. The reminder will
stay in the ALR. This is not permitted in the
OR and a negative ALOR exclusion application is required. A
large exclusion and residential subdivision on the property is being
planned since the 90s. The OCP was amended in 2002
to allow low density residential development on this property pending
the preparation of an area plan. Several previous application received
approval with some conditions, but a final subdivision plan was
never completed. This application is to accommodate a new subdivision
designed from the last approval in 2023. This slide shows
the last application presented at council in 2022. So the
application was for the full property to be excluded. Ultimately,
the applicant receive a conditional approval from the land commission
in 2023, but only for a portion to be excluded
only so the decision by the LR in 2023 was
to exclude about four acres of the land to allow
for future subdivision. So the 2026 application ascent front of
council today is generally in line with the decision from
2023, meaning that only a portion of the property is
being requested to be taken out of the LR as
opposed to the previous application, which included the entire property.
So you can see on the left corner that the
area that's being proposed to be excluded. So the full
property is 9. 2 acres total, and the area that
being requested to be excluded is roughly 3. 38 acurs
to allow a 10 lot subdivision. Ahead of today's council
meeting, 106 notices were sent out to the residents located
within that 100 metre buffer. Sign was posted, advertisement, and
a newspaper, and three large received and circulated to council.
So only local governments can make nail art exclusion application
to the commission. Um, so council adopted a policy to
define what sort of application we could bring forward. All
option has to be exhausted and no portion of that
property can be designated agriculture in the OCP. So ALR
exclusion is the only way to achieve the proposed residential
subdivision in the property is designated low density residential, so
not agriculture and EOCP. So this application is in line
with the council policy. So again, it's been designated residential
since the 90s. Um, the residential subdivision aligns with this
destination, only a portion is being proposed. And an existing
road dedication on the property will dedicate it, but never
constructed. We need to be closed as it's part of
a previous approval as well. Um, and that concludes my
presentation. Thank you. We are holding the public hearing in
person and electronically, and we'll continue until everyone participating has
had an opportunity to be heard. If you're in the
Zoom webinar and want to speak, please use the raised
hand feature and you'll be given the ability to turn
your camera and microphone on and provide your comments. Please
keep your comments to three minutes and refrain from cheering
or during. You may return to the podium to speak
again if you run out of time. And. Is the
applicant present and with the applicant like to make a
presentation now or would you like to wait until after
the public comments. You're right until after. Okay. Thank you.
So, uh, for the first time, is that anyone that
would like to speak to the ALR exclusion application. Please,
if you could step up to the podium and provide
your name and the street you live on and then
give us your opinion. Good evening. I'm Henry Tessman. We
live at cross the street at 727 Pineview Road. Uh,
we're in opposition to the residential subdivision plan for 610
pine view route. And our recommending to council not to
move forward with the ALR exclusion application to the ALC.
Our community is much more developed when compared to the
1990s when the process started with using the agricultural land
at 610 Pineview for residential development. The pace of development
has been particularly noticeable in our community since the last
time we were here for a public hearing back in
2022. We have infill happening on Pine V Road and
on Baltimo Avenue. The Avery place development has been completed
in that time. The development on Temperstone is just about
completed, just a lot or two, are undeveloped. There is
development happening now on the north side of Evergreen on
the north side of Pineview. And the more substantial development,
as you know, happening at the south end of Evergreen.
And also at the end of Dartmouth Drive. There's also
the ongoing development happening on Hawthorne drive. So there are
development happening in our Wilsea community avenue at this time,
which begs the question, why do we need to pull
agricultural land out to do more residential development. The August
4th staff report states that the development of 610 Pindview
contributes to council strategic priority objective of proactively planning for
deliberate growth. Focusing on creating and inclusive, healthy and vibrant
community. We don't think that this development will actually result
in achieving those goals. The proposed 10 law development is
on the south side of Pineview Road between two widing
curves. Near to the entrance of the proposed development is
a steep and winding incline as you come up pine
view. There are concrete barriers located on the side of
the row on the side of the road below the
entrance to the proposed development and the road is narrower
here than it is as you go up pine view.
The proposed subdivision requires the property to be rezoned to
large lot residential. Assuming that this is to densify the
development, there will be a substantial increase in vehicular traffic.
And the buildings will further decrease road visibility. This is
a significant impact on our community. Pineview wrote is a
busy road. There is a lot of heavy traffic related
to the ongoing residential developments. There is also increased back
and forth to the newly created parking lot access to
access the upper wiltsy trails and the Skaha bluffs. There's
no sidewalk on the south side of Pineview. It is
unsafe to cross Pineview except for the deer to get
to the sidewalk on the other side of the road.
All family activities, as is happening now, will require travelling
by vehicle to bus stops to schools and to playgrounds
that otherwise are close by and could be accessed by
foot. Better residential developments are happening in our community. Council
does not need to take land out of the ALR
as small as it may be described to further residential
development in our community, especially when it is not achieved
creating an inclusive, healthy, vibrant community. At this time, the
land is still in the ALR. The various conditions that
the ALR commission has set since 1993 have repeatedly not
been met. The most recent failure is the developer's inability
over time two - year timeframe to provide the requested
subdivision plan. And new application by council to the ALR
commission is required. So at this time, council should balance
their priority of supporting a residential development that requires using
agricultural land that is currently in the ALR with our
community bylaws that requires counsel also to actively protect agricultural
land. Time has passed by the need to use some
of the agricultural land at 610 pine view for residential
development in our community. This is the time for council
to rezone 610 pine view entirely to agricultural. Land. We
recommend to counsel not to proceed with the application to
exclude the subject property from the ALR. We recommend to
council to proceed with amending the zoning designation, as stated
in the alternate recommendation of the subject property from the
detached residential to agriculture. We also want to recommend to
counsel that council should undertake a review of the future
land use designations in our official community plan. To identify
if other ALR land is currently in property designated as
being planned for residential use and to amend the designations
to agriculture land. Specifically, the current you're going to have
two sentences. Okay. Okay. Specifically the current future land use
map shows all of six ten pine view as designated
for future residential development. This contradicts our OCP bylaw and
doesn't reflect the reality that the entire property is currently
in the ALR and that the ALR has affirmed its
agricultural viability. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Should we
go to Zoom call of one of our Zoom callers
now. Lori is that, Lori, can you hear us, Laurie?
Thank you. Um, my name is Laurie Goldman. I'm on
Dolphin Avenue in Penticton. Um, I can't say much more
to the gentleman's points who came ahead of me. He
covered everything as a climate activist. You know that I'm
very concerned about emissions. And I'm very concerned about food
sustainability. I have not been out of my house in
days except for short trips because of smoke. We are
in a climate situation that requires us to consider food
sustainability. And I think the ALR was set up for
a reason. And this reason is a good one. And
we need to consider our future when it comes to
food sustainability. Yes. Everybody wants a development. We need development,
but this is not the right place. ALR is there.
We should actually, um, strengthen our ALR designations to keep
our community green and to provide food for people, uh,
we are developing the city so well in more dense
areas where we can handle the water and all of
the other infrastructure. I'm also very concerned about more cars
creating more admissions going up into that neighbourhood. Thank you
very much. Thank you. Do we have any more comments
from the gallery. And so
I would say for the second time is that anyone
that would like to speak to the ALR exclusion application.
And do we have any callers on Zoom with a
hand raised? Yes, we do. We have one rate hand
coming in just now. And Lynn Kelsey.
So, um, I would like to just agree with the
gentleman that spoke and also with Lori that, um. I
sat on the OCP, not this last time, but the
time before. And we made designations very clearly. When it
was agriculture, it needs to be agriculture because we need
that ability to. Have food. Local in our, in our
community. And so I would like to, um, just suggest
that this not go through because I don't want it
to become a situation where, Oh, well, you approve the
top part. Might as well just do the rest. That
can't happen. I don't think it needs to happen. Thank
you very much. Thank you. And do we have any
more. Comments from the public in the gallery. So I'm
going to call for a third and final time. If
there's anyone that would like to speak to the ALR
exclusion application for six, ten point view road.
And do we have any more zoom callers? Don't raise
hands and zoom your worship. Okay. So now we can
hear from the applicant. If you'd like to step forward,
sir. Grieving your
worship. For those of you that don't know me. My
name is Ed Grifoni from CTQ consultants for engineers, planners,
and urban designers out of Kelowna. I've been in the
valley here for about 35 years, but I started my
career right here in Penticton in 1975. And some of
the people here know I did many, many planning projects,
engineering projects, finance projects for the city of Penticton in
the last 35 years as well. Anyway, we've been retained
by the Figuera family to review the application that was
before the city and before council. And to see if
it could be amended. To move it forward in a
positive manner. Uh, there was a lot of, for whatever
reason, we don't know, but there was a lot of,
I think, uh, misled consultants. Miss led municipality and misled
land commission. What happened with this application. We've had the
discussion with Audrey and her staff. And she's very well
aware of all the history, most of which she's presented,
uh, tonight. Of what happened with this application. As Audrey
indicated, um, zoning on it. There's an OCP amendment on
it. And there was a lot of discussion by the
land commission in the city of Pendicton that called for
this land out of all the ALR in the city
of Penticton. To be considered for urbanization. So part of
the land that's in the 610 Pine View and an
adjacent piece of land. We're targeted by the land commission.
Back in the 90s when the land commission came to
the city and said, do you want some land out?
Which land and why? The justification was made. And then
there was also further planning by the city of Penticton
in the light of the upper valley view neighbourhood plan,
I believe it was called, that continued to support the
idea of allowing that area to be developed in an
urban way. And that's how all this proceeded. So the
land commission's decision to release that land that particular area
of land. All of the figuerous land, all of 610,
and the adjacent land still stands as far as the
commission is concerned. However, like one of the gentlemen pointed
out, and like Audrey pointed out at the beginning, um,
the conditions weren't met. And this is one of the
big issues that we had to deal with to come
to this point today. Um, the plan that was put
forward by the consultants before, uh, and then went forward
to eventually to the commission basically was a concept. And
the figuerous people realised that that plan for 10 lots,
10, 11 lots could not be done the way it
was laid out. And that is because there's so many
insinuating circumstances with that site in terms of developability. Uh,
access off of the, um, point view. Um, steep slopes.
Environmentally sensitive areas. Uh, the list goes on and on.
The plan that went forward, the concept that went for
it to the commission was flawed. So we took it
and sat down with Audrey and Michael from the engineering
development engineering and looked at it and said, you know,
what can be done here. And we basically with very
small changes in rectified that plan and presented it to
the city. And then it went forward as hopefully going
forward to the commission. We've had discussions with the commission
directly about what is being planned here. They're in support.
However, they also work quickly pointed out that because the
timeline was passed in accordance to the legislation of the
agricultural land, commission act. We had to go with another
new application. And that's what's before you hear tonight. And
what was submitted to, uh, to the planning department to
go forward to the, to the commission. And Audrey, if
you would be so kind to just flash up on
the screen, the plan, the new plan with the revision
that we. Um, so if, if you see
that, um, in front of you, the small area in
blue is the area, the additional area that's required. So
compared to the area outlined in the black line, which
was the former application that's being approved by the commission.
Conditionally approved by the commission. Um, that blue area is,
additional area. And I believe it's barely, barely, uh, but
we put much more of the land down below that
you see than the checkered green back into the ALR.
So there's more land put back in than that's taken
out. And that area that's taken out is in order
to allow the cul - de - sac, the access
road, um, the relotting of the subdivision down below to
make it work around the very steep slopes. And the,
um, on the ESA environmentally sensitive area down there. Um,
so, uh, in conclusion, there's more land that's going to
be put into the ALR than what was permitted by
the land commission. And at the same time, allows for
a very, uh, standard of subdivision that's much better than
what was presented before. And this is what we would
like to go forward to the commission for consideration. And,
um, the commission was quick to point out, as we'll
hear as we've heard from Audrey as well, the commission
was quick to point out that because there was a
little bit more ALR land affected, even though there was
more put back in, it had to go through proper
process to be considered by the commission. So I hope
that explains it. We haven't. We don't think we've done
anything untoward with regard to agricultural land protection, uh, or
that subdivision that was approved by the commission. Again, I
go back to the point that the land commission through
working with the city of Penticton. And their OCP back
in the early into the mid 90s. They were the
ones that basically said, yes, this is land that we
will release from the ALR. And that, by the way,
is typical of the way a lot of the ALR
exclusions in British Columbia Airbnb through an OCP process through
due process with councils, with staffs, um, with the public
to exclude certain areas of land that are deemed appropriate
for, uh, for urbanization as opposed to continuing to be
used for, um, agriculture. So hopefully that explains kind of
how we got to where we are today. Thank you.
And council, do you have any questions. Cancer stewart. Thank
you. Just to clarify, because I think I wasn't, uh,
crystal clear on this last one, we discussed this at
council. I understood that land was not agriculturally viable, but
then, uh, councillor Gilbert's comment caused me to question that
assumption because I think he said that it's currently planted.
Is that correct? Sorry through the chair to Councillor Stewart.
There is an existing orchard on the property. The zoning
was changed in the 90s around this area. Um, and
then again, the OCP designation was changed to low density
through a review process. Just I'd like to add that
this was the only area. I think at that time
that they would be considering taking land or as all
the DLR back in 2002, I think I mentioned, um,
that, but there is an existing orchard on appropriate. I
hope that answer your question. Follow it. And, uh, I
believe the, um, gentleman stated that ultimately this will result
in a net positive to the ALR lens. Once this
area is redesignated, but the, um, another portion is put
back in. Did I get that right? Through the chair
to councillor steward, and I think that's still on the
table here. I think the information that they were, um,
or wanted to share is that the decision that was
made previously line commission. It was roughly, um, four acres,
like I think. And now what they're looking at is
3. 38 acres. So they are moving, um, the area
so they could move the cul - de - sac.
Increase the access to the existing house because the farmhouse
is staying on the property. So it has to be
done because there is a change from the previous, you
know, application. So it is a slight smaller exclusion, but
it is still an exclusion application. So, uh, in a
way. So it's going from four acres, which was the
previous approval to 3. 38 acres. Any further questions. I
have a question for the applicant. The entire parcel in
question is of a mixed quality of land. There's some
that is suitable for orchard in the sum that is
not suitable. And so I'm just wondering, we haven't got
a better map on our computer here because our program
is not being friendly. So I don't know if we
have a map of the entire property in its current
format. Sorry, I don't think so.
I don't have anything in this presentation. I'm just wondering
what areas and what percentage of the property is currently
in orchard, if you could, maybe if the applicant could
step forward to the microphone and tell us. Where. They
can tell you is that. When the land, you have
to come to the microphone, sir, because otherwise people on
Zoom can't hear you. Good question. Um, what I can
tell you is when the commission did their work, um,
they were assessing agricultural land capability soil capability. Class one
to seven and so forth. So that is on record
somewhere. Um, we didn't get that information. Our client did
not get that information. But it is available. And we
can tell you right now, I've done, I'm not going
to brag, but I've done most of the big ALR
applications in the interior and in the open organ and
colonna. And I find that so many of the lands
that are getting released. If you dig deep and get
an agrologist in, they will tell you that there's a
lot of bedrock and the bedrock in this one here.
Um, so that has been one of the issues. And
one of the reasons why part of that land is
not farmed. And the area down below next to the
figure island that was approved by the commission at that
time was in principle wanting to be released as well.
Cause it was questionable agricultural land. Thank you. Okay. Thank
you. Any further questions. From council.
The public question period is. At an end.
One. Looking for cancer for approval to hear somebody from
the gallery again. That's the trouble. So. That's the risk.
Sarah, if you'd like to come to the podium again.
And we'll take one more comment. I understand that it's
appropriate to come for a response. I think what we're
trying to say as a community to council is that
we have a lot of good development happening in our
community. We don't see the need why counsel is going
to, um. Take land agricultural land that is viable. Out
of the ALRR. And set a priority that that is
more important in our, in our, uh, community plan bylaw
and trying to create vibrant communities which is not going
to be achieved with this. So our community is speaking
up to say you're not meeting the community goal in
terms of what you're getting out of this residential development.
And you're not balancing that out against the priority of
maintaining agricultural land that is viable and is in our
ALR. That was the point that we were trying to
make. Thank you. And maybe if you can wait at
the podium, please, because I think councillor what has a
question. Thank you, the chair. So my, my question is,
if we're hearing bedrock and not necessarily viable, but you're
suggesting it is viable. The ALR and its assessment of
the 2022 submission, uh, did an extensive analysis of the
agricultural viability of the land. There are parts of the
land that aren't viable, but overall it was a sustainable
viable agricultural operation. Drive up and take a look at
the orchard. The peaches are coming off now. The community
is blessed to have that in its area. Part of
that is the passion for coming here and providing that
feedback continuer decision making process. Thank you. Any further questions.
From council? Council is Stuart. Thanks to the chair. I'm
not sure. I guess this is more of just a
comment that we can debate it later to here. It
was just gathering information from the public. On their opinions
and the applicant. And then when we come back to
the meeting, then we get a chance to debate. Thank
you. Thank you. So. Now we've had the full
submission of comments from the public. I'm going to call
this public hearing to an end. It is now closed
and no new information can be received. Thank you for
those watching. And we will now reconvene the regular council
meeting. If you're watching the live stream, please exit the
public hearing and click on the regular council meeting live
stream link. We wait just a couple of minutes for
our technology to click through.