Part 2.5: Okanagan Panel Region

Members: Sue Irvine (Vice-Chair), Sharon McCoubrey, Sid Sidhu

• Message from the Vice-Chair
• Map of Interior Panel Region
• Panel Statistics (April 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007)
• Applications of Interest
• Issues of Interest

Message from the Vice-Chair

Many Okanagan Valley communities are constrained by the ALR. During 2006/07, the Panel has been frequently petitioned by urban communities seeking places to grow. A significant portion of Panel time has been spent meeting and discussing urban growth options with local communities as it relates to the ALR.

Many communities are facing a strong demand for retirement and recreational residences. Also there are specific local pressures on lands for industry and commerce. These lands are deemed essential for Okanagan communities in order to balance and/or enhance the work/resident ratio, and to ensure complete communities with a mix of ages, jobs and services. At the same time, the agricultural sector is seeking affordable land on which to expand. Intense residential development pressures have contributed to the significantly increasing price of farmland rising beyond the means of many farmers.

The Panel has been in discussions within the past year with the Town of Osoyoos, the District of Sicamous, the Town of Oliver and the Regional District of Central Okanagan (re: Westbank) about accommodating urban growth pressures in the ALR. Each community is surrounded by the ALR. The Panel takes the general approach that incremental expansion of urban areas into the ALR cannot be sustained in the long term and encourages local governments to approach these pressures on a regional basis, and to directing urban growth to communities with the capacity to absorb growth. Councils are also encouraged to consider what benefits for agriculture can be achieved through community investment or planning processes.

In general, the Panel has been able to successfully work with communities to achieve a balanced response to urban pressures that respects the purposes of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. However, it continues to caution mayors and councils that it may not accede to urban pressures in some areas, believing that expansion onto farmlands must cease to be an option in the face of current biophysical and cultural realities supporting the necessity to preserve and protect farmlands.
Farmlands are also under pressure from within. The Commission continues to be concerned about the number, scale of residential dwellings allowed on farm properties, and urges local governments to more carefully address the need for additional dwellings for farm help.
Intergenerational transfers of farms to children has also emerged as an issue as the pool of qualified applicants (pre-1972 landowners) for homesite severance shrinks. Farmers who purchased, or inherited their properties after the ALR was established in the mid- to late-1970s are retiring. They want their family members to take over the farm, but find farmland values to be excessive, and subdivision options constrained. The Commission appreciates the need for farmers to address family and financial interests at retirement, but it also believes that the resource cannot be compromised each time a generation passes on the farm to the next. Farm families need to be more creative in their proposals to transfer the farmland resource at retirement.

Map of Okanagan Panel Region

Area of Panel Region: 4,408,822 hectares

Area of ALR: 225,209 hectares

Panel Statistics (April 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007)

Applications of Interest

The following selected examples illustrate how the Agricultural Land Commission panels responded to proposals to change the ALR boundary or to requests for subdivision or non-farm use of ALR lands. Applications are considered on the merits of each case at hand in the context of the Commission's mandate and take into account an assessment of factors related to agricultural capability and suitability and impact upon the ALR.

In 1988 the Commission of the day considered an application on land near Kelowna to exclude 181 ha for the purpose of developing a golf course and residential development. At that time the Commission agreed in principle to the use of the land as it held the view that community expansion at Kelowna should avoid lands suitable for tree fruit production. The subject lands were believed to be at an elevation which would not sustain commercial tree fruit production and it was noted that golf courses were an allowed use of ALR lands as per the ALR regulations of the day.

The Commission believed that in order for the development to occur for the intended purpose and in such a way as to limit impact on adjoining ALR lands, mitigation measures such as fencing, buffering, cattle guards, restrictive covenants and farm land sensitive site and density planning and road design should be developed and implemented. As there was no time limit imposed by the Commission, after several years the proponent activated the proposal and carried through with a development plan acceptable to the Commission.

In 2007, the proponent filed the subdivision plans and the Panel finalized the decision which excluded 76 ha comprising the residential component of the Tower Ranch Golf Course development.

In 2006/07 the Panel considered a number of requests to subdivide ALR land in order to provide land for family members to build homes. In some cases two homes were in place or there were as many as four or more family members and arguments were made to sever the interests in the land to provide each family a separate title.

The Panel had concerns with many of the proposals and did not grant approval noting that in most cases there would be a negative impact on the long-term agricultural potential of the land. In some cases the application was in keeping with the Commission's Homesite Severance Policy (HSP) and those applications were approved. In many cases the land was acquired by the applicants well after the ALR had been designated and they did not meet the intent of the HSP.

The Panel recognizes the interest in maintaining family units and that population growth in the valley is lending to increases in residential land costs. However, the Panel is very cautious when it comes to responding to subdivision requests as there is a finite supply of suitable land for farming.

In December 2006, a non-farm use application was submitted by the Township of Spallumcheen on behalf of 12 landowners representing 15 unauthorized non-farm uses in the ALR. The application arose from a home occupation "amnesty" program initiated by the Township. Over the years a number of non-conforming home based businesses were developed. These businesses were for the most part inconsistent with the zoning bylaw and unknown to Township staff and Council. At present, the ALR Regulation permits the following in the ALR "a home occupation use, that is accessory to a dwelling, of not more than 100 m2 or such other area as specified in a local government bylaw: " The purpose of the application was for the Panel to review home based businesses in the ALR that exceed the Township's bylaw standards.

Commission and Township staff worked collaboratively to review the bylaw, the purpose of which was to examine options on how to expand the home occupation footprint and bring many on the non-conforming uses into compliance with a new community standard. An amended bylaw increased the size of the home occupation footprint from the previous standard of 100 m2 to a maximum of 185 m2 and permits up to four non- resident employees. Some businesses still exceeded this threshold and as part of the application a proposal was made to place covenants on those lands to require both the Panel's approval and a zoning amendment if expansion was contemplated in the future.

After visiting the sites of the home-based businesses the Panel approved all the existing non-farm uses as requested. The Panel noted that generally the businesses either occupied properties with marginal agricultural capability, or they had little impact on agricultural utility because of their small footprint, or they occupied abandoned farming structures. In agreeing to the application, the Panel emphasized that it did not support the expansion of any of the facilities without the submission of a non-farm use application.

This application was the second of two "batch" applications, the former of which was in 2005 and considered and approved eleven non-conforming home businesses.

Issues of Interest

The following selected example illustrates how the integration and coordination of interests regarding land use planning and resource management require ongoing dialogue and collaboration between local governments and the Agricultural Land Commission.

In 2006/07, the Panel worked collaboratively with the Town of Osoyoos, in assessing its community growth and long-term land use requirements through its official community plan review process. The Town has limited growth options due to biophysical constraints (mountains and lake), the U.S. border, ALR boundaries, and provincial Crown lands managed for environmental values. Recent growth rates experienced by the Town suggest that land use pressures may result in the Town soon having lesser access to new lands to accommodate urban expansion. Through consultation and co-operation with the Panel the Town identified new lands for development, and developed a policy framework that more efficiently used existing urban land. The Panel agreed to non-farm use designations in an ALR area which had limited suitability for agriculture due to existing subdivision patterns and biophysical constraints.