Area C/Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw Review Project

Project Update

The initial draft of the Electoral Area C/ Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw is available (see documents tab to right). Feedback on this initial draft was received at the Oct. 1st open house, from the Steering Committee, and from other government agencies. The draft is being modified based on comments received.

A revised draft will be presented at a future in-person public meeting, as well as a virtual public meeting. There will be a 'question & answers' session at both meetings.

Project Background

The Regional District of Kootenay Boundary (RDKB) is re-writing the zoning bylaw for Electoral Area C/ Christina Lake to align with its recently updated Official Community Plan (commonly referred to as the "OCP" or "Area C OCP"). Along with translating the policy in the OCP into regulations, this project will also involve updating the zoning bylaw to make it easier to interpret and enforce.

On April 10, 2024, the (RDKB) Board of Directors adopted Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1855 for Electoral Area C/ Christina Lake. It replaced the previous Official Community Plan that had originally been adopted in 2007. The OCP is a guiding document to the RDKB, and includes policies, objectives and principles to direct and inform planning and land use decisions. A Zoning Bylaw is one of the ways to put into action the direction of the OCP.

Project Scope

After a lengthy process to adopt the updated OCP, the work for the zoning bylaw update is scoped to be done by the end of 2025. The scope is limited to:

"Must Do's"

Implementing the policy directives in the OCP that are related to zoning regulations
Updating any zoning regulations that are inconsistent with current legislation or case law

and some "Want to Do's"

Addressing key issues (emerging topics)
Updating the bylaw to simplify, clarify, and improve

Project Process

The zoning bylaw update will include items that are "must do's", and those that are optional ("want to do's"). "Must do's" are items that are necessary to align with the OCP or provincial legislation. There are also some "want to do" items. "Want to do" items are things that can be done to improve the zoning bylaw but are not required.

Public Consultation

Members of the public will be invited to provide comment on all parts of the zoning bylaw. If you want to stay informed about this project, sign up to receive email notifications (see sidebar to the right-Follow Project). If you don't want to receive emails about this project, keep your eye out for upcoming events like open houses in the Christina Lake e-blast, on our website and social media.

We will be seeking more involvement with some parts of the zoning bylaw than others. Keep in mind that the "must do's" will have less discussion than the "want to do's" because the "must do's" are either coming from clear direction in the OCP (which already had extensive public consultation) or are "not on the table" because of a legislative duty. The level of participation you can expect for each task is detailed in the table below.

#	Task	Description	Level of Participation	Opportunities for public to participate	What's Available Now
1.	Zoning Map Update	Reviewing the OCP Land Use Designation map and applying zones based on the OCP designation.	Inform	We will share the draft zoning map on this webpage and in future public meetings. You can comment on the map and we will listen to any concerns but any changes will need to be consistent with the OCP (which is a reflection of the public collaboration efforts already made during the OCP review).	DRAFT zoning map
2.	Zone Review	Aligning the text of the zoning bylaw to the OCP based on the OCP designation/zone. This includes: Reviewing each zone to the specific OCP policies in the overarching OCP designation for that zone. This includes aligning the list of uses and lot sizes for subdivision. Reviewing other policy directions under each overarching OCP designation. Considering Provincial Policy Manual for small-scale, multi-unit housing	Consult	We will share the draft bylaw text on this webpage and in future public meetings. You can comment on the drafts. We will make adjustments to the drafts as appropriate and will provide updates on what changes were/were not made based on feedback received.	DRAFT Zoning Bylaw Text You can email comments to jpeachey@rdkb.com or mail to: RDKB Planning Dept. 202-843 Rossland Ave, Trial BC V1R 4S8
3.	OCP Corrections	Making adjustments to the map or text, as needed. (This is not to re-review the OCP but to make corrections or clarify policies as their application is being translated into zoning regulations. An example for mapping updates would be correcting alignment errors that don't match parcel boundaries).	Inform	We will share any draft amendments to map or text on this webpage and future public meetings. You can provide comments. Any corrections are meant to be narrow in scope.	Summary of Proposed OCP Amendments
4.	Bylaw Update	Aligning the text of the zoning bylaw to the OCP based on policies that apply to more than one designation. The update will also include alignment with provincial legislation.	Involve & Collaborate	We will be actively seeking advice and recommendations on how to address key topics. We will be holding public events (open houses) for discussion. We will invite feedback in several ways (meetings, written comments) and will provide updates on what changes were/were not made based on what we heard. We will broadly advertise these opportunities to the community to encourage a wide spectrum of participation.	An open house was held on October 1st. A public meeting will be held at a future date (TBD). You are welcome to provide written comments or ask questions.
5.	Other Updates	As the zoning bylaw gets drafted, there will be other items that will be changed to improve the bylaw for clarity and better implementation.	Collaborate, if any major shifts	For any major shifts, we will include these topics in public events (same as #4-Bylaw Update). For minor edits, we will keep you informed.	See Summary of Bylaw Changes

Legislative Context

In addition to the OCP, and consultation with the public, interest-holders, First Nations and government agencies, there are other factors that must be kept in mind when re-writing a Zoning Bylaw. Below are some examples of the legislative framework:

Local Government Act
- This is overarching Provincial legislation that sets the stage for what a zoning bylaw can contain, the process for adopting a bylaw and the requirement to be consistent with the OCP.
Agricultural Land Commission Act
- This is overarching Provincial legislation for land within the Agricultural Land Reserve. There are associated regulations like the ALR Use Regulations, and provincial guides, like guides for edge planning
Small-scale, multi-unit housing legislation (Bill 44), including the Provincial Policy Manual
- This is overarching Provincial legislation that mandates a minimum of attached secondary suites to be allowed in any zone that was previously restricted to one single family dwelling.
- The policy manual includes suggested standards for regulations of residential zones like setbacks, parking minimums, height. These suggested standards must be considered but they are not mandated.
Transportation Act
- This is overarching Provincial legislation requiring Provincial approval before a zoning bylaw is considered in effect (In practice, this means the Ministry of Transportation and Transit signs the bylaw after 3rd reading if their interests are satisfied)

Project Update

A revised draft will be presented at a future in-person public meeting, as well as a virtual public meeting. There will be a 'question & answers' session at both meetings.

Project Background

Project Scope

After a lengthy process to adopt the updated OCP, the work for the zoning bylaw update is scoped to be done by the end of 2025. The scope is limited to:

"Must Do's"

Implementing the policy directives in the OCP that are related to zoning regulations
Updating any zoning regulations that are inconsistent with current legislation or case law

and some "Want to Do's"

Addressing key issues (emerging topics)
Updating the bylaw to simplify, clarify, and improve

Project Process

Public Consultation

#	Task	Description	Level of Participation	Opportunities for public to participate	What's Available Now
1.	Zoning Map Update	Reviewing the OCP Land Use Designation map and applying zones based on the OCP designation.	Inform	We will share the draft zoning map on this webpage and in future public meetings. You can comment on the map and we will listen to any concerns but any changes will need to be consistent with the OCP (which is a reflection of the public collaboration efforts already made during the OCP review).	DRAFT zoning map
2.	Zone Review	Aligning the text of the zoning bylaw to the OCP based on the OCP designation/zone. This includes: Reviewing each zone to the specific OCP policies in the overarching OCP designation for that zone. This includes aligning the list of uses and lot sizes for subdivision. Reviewing other policy directions under each overarching OCP designation. Considering Provincial Policy Manual for small-scale, multi-unit housing	Consult	We will share the draft bylaw text on this webpage and in future public meetings. You can comment on the drafts. We will make adjustments to the drafts as appropriate and will provide updates on what changes were/were not made based on feedback received.	DRAFT Zoning Bylaw Text You can email comments to jpeachey@rdkb.com or mail to: RDKB Planning Dept. 202-843 Rossland Ave, Trial BC V1R 4S8
3.	OCP Corrections	Making adjustments to the map or text, as needed. (This is not to re-review the OCP but to make corrections or clarify policies as their application is being translated into zoning regulations. An example for mapping updates would be correcting alignment errors that don't match parcel boundaries).	Inform	We will share any draft amendments to map or text on this webpage and future public meetings. You can provide comments. Any corrections are meant to be narrow in scope.	Summary of Proposed OCP Amendments
4.	Bylaw Update	Aligning the text of the zoning bylaw to the OCP based on policies that apply to more than one designation. The update will also include alignment with provincial legislation.	Involve & Collaborate	We will be actively seeking advice and recommendations on how to address key topics. We will be holding public events (open houses) for discussion. We will invite feedback in several ways (meetings, written comments) and will provide updates on what changes were/were not made based on what we heard. We will broadly advertise these opportunities to the community to encourage a wide spectrum of participation.	An open house was held on October 1st. A public meeting will be held at a future date (TBD). You are welcome to provide written comments or ask questions.
5.	Other Updates	As the zoning bylaw gets drafted, there will be other items that will be changed to improve the bylaw for clarity and better implementation.	Collaborate, if any major shifts	For any major shifts, we will include these topics in public events (same as #4-Bylaw Update). For minor edits, we will keep you informed.	See Summary of Bylaw Changes

Legislative Context

Local Government Act
- This is overarching Provincial legislation that sets the stage for what a zoning bylaw can contain, the process for adopting a bylaw and the requirement to be consistent with the OCP.
Agricultural Land Commission Act
- This is overarching Provincial legislation for land within the Agricultural Land Reserve. There are associated regulations like the ALR Use Regulations, and provincial guides, like guides for edge planning
Small-scale, multi-unit housing legislation (Bill 44), including the Provincial Policy Manual
- This is overarching Provincial legislation that mandates a minimum of attached secondary suites to be allowed in any zone that was previously restricted to one single family dwelling.
- The policy manual includes suggested standards for regulations of residential zones like setbacks, parking minimums, height. These suggested standards must be considered but they are not mandated.
Transportation Act
- This is overarching Provincial legislation requiring Provincial approval before a zoning bylaw is considered in effect (In practice, this means the Ministry of Transportation and Transit signs the bylaw after 3rd reading if their interests are satisfied)

Questions

Questions & Answers

Do you have any questions about the zoning bylaw update? Ask a question and we will reply shortly.

Share There have been some answers to questions posted here and also at the public meeting. For example, I was advised at the public meeting (and it is also stated in this forum) that the landscape exclusions would also apply to the new proposed setback from the natural boundary of Christina Lake. Could you please commit to provide an update to the draft bylaw before the next public meeting such that we are all reviewing and commenting on what are the most recent intentions of RDKB. on Facebook Share There have been some answers to questions posted here and also at the public meeting. For example, I was advised at the public meeting (and it is also stated in this forum) that the landscape exclusions would also apply to the new proposed setback from the natural boundary of Christina Lake. Could you please commit to provide an update to the draft bylaw before the next public meeting such that we are all reviewing and commenting on what are the most recent intentions of RDKB. on Twitter Share There have been some answers to questions posted here and also at the public meeting. For example, I was advised at the public meeting (and it is also stated in this forum) that the landscape exclusions would also apply to the new proposed setback from the natural boundary of Christina Lake. Could you please commit to provide an update to the draft bylaw before the next public meeting such that we are all reviewing and commenting on what are the most recent intentions of RDKB. on Linkedin Email There have been some answers to questions posted here and also at the public meeting. For example, I was advised at the public meeting (and it is also stated in this forum) that the landscape exclusions would also apply to the new proposed setback from the natural boundary of Christina Lake. Could you please commit to provide an update to the draft bylaw before the next public meeting such that we are all reviewing and commenting on what are the most recent intentions of RDKB. link

There have been some answers to questions posted here and also at the public meeting. For example, I was advised at the public meeting (and it is also stated in this forum) that the landscape exclusions would also apply to the new proposed setback from the natural boundary of Christina Lake. Could you please commit to provide an update to the draft bylaw before the next public meeting such that we are all reviewing and commenting on what are the most recent intentions of RDKB.

jherold asked 16 days ago

Yes, the next public meeting will have an updated draft bylaw for review/comments.
Share It's interesting that someone's daughter can't live in a 5th wheel on their property based on the building code but nothing is done about the people living full time in trailers and RVs on commercial zoned properties along Hwy 3 within Christina Lake. These RVs have permanent decks and roofs - yet the bylaw appears unenforceable. Please explain how this is allowed to continue given your response: "Thank you for your comment about meeting the need for affordable housing with living in a RV year-round. Continuing to limit the occupancy of RVs for seasonal use is based on concerns for occupant safety. 5th wheel trailers and other RVs are built for seasonal use only. They do not meet the accepted minimum standards for a permanent home (by either meeting BC Building Code or being certified to meet the CSA standard for a manufactured or modular home)." on Facebook Share It's interesting that someone's daughter can't live in a 5th wheel on their property based on the building code but nothing is done about the people living full time in trailers and RVs on commercial zoned properties along Hwy 3 within Christina Lake. These RVs have permanent decks and roofs - yet the bylaw appears unenforceable. Please explain how this is allowed to continue given your response: "Thank you for your comment about meeting the need for affordable housing with living in a RV year-round. Continuing to limit the occupancy of RVs for seasonal use is based on concerns for occupant safety. 5th wheel trailers and other RVs are built for seasonal use only. They do not meet the accepted minimum standards for a permanent home (by either meeting BC Building Code or being certified to meet the CSA standard for a manufactured or modular home)." on Twitter Share It's interesting that someone's daughter can't live in a 5th wheel on their property based on the building code but nothing is done about the people living full time in trailers and RVs on commercial zoned properties along Hwy 3 within Christina Lake. These RVs have permanent decks and roofs - yet the bylaw appears unenforceable. Please explain how this is allowed to continue given your response: "Thank you for your comment about meeting the need for affordable housing with living in a RV year-round. Continuing to limit the occupancy of RVs for seasonal use is based on concerns for occupant safety. 5th wheel trailers and other RVs are built for seasonal use only. They do not meet the accepted minimum standards for a permanent home (by either meeting BC Building Code or being certified to meet the CSA standard for a manufactured or modular home)." on Linkedin Email It's interesting that someone's daughter can't live in a 5th wheel on their property based on the building code but nothing is done about the people living full time in trailers and RVs on commercial zoned properties along Hwy 3 within Christina Lake. These RVs have permanent decks and roofs - yet the bylaw appears unenforceable. Please explain how this is allowed to continue given your response: "Thank you for your comment about meeting the need for affordable housing with living in a RV year-round. Continuing to limit the occupancy of RVs for seasonal use is based on concerns for occupant safety. 5th wheel trailers and other RVs are built for seasonal use only. They do not meet the accepted minimum standards for a permanent home (by either meeting BC Building Code or being certified to meet the CSA standard for a manufactured or modular home)." link

It's interesting that someone's daughter can't live in a 5th wheel on their property based on the building code but nothing is done about the people living full time in trailers and RVs on commercial zoned properties along Hwy 3 within Christina Lake. These RVs have permanent decks and roofs - yet the bylaw appears unenforceable. Please explain how this is allowed to continue given your response: "Thank you for your comment about meeting the need for affordable housing with living in a RV year-round. Continuing to limit the occupancy of RVs for seasonal use is based on concerns for occupant safety. 5th wheel trailers and other RVs are built for seasonal use only. They do not meet the accepted minimum standards for a permanent home (by either meeting BC Building Code or being certified to meet the CSA standard for a manufactured or modular home)."

Thallam asked 28 days ago

While I am aware that the seasonal resorts at Christina Lake include RVs with decks and roofs, the use of the RVs are meant to be seasonal only. Bylaw enforcement of zoning violations is handled on a complaint basis if you wish to submit a complaint.
With the current zoning bylaw, these situations are difficult to enforce upon because it requires proof that someone is living in an RVs for more than 6 months in a year. The draft bylaw aims to correct this enforcement issue by specifying a period of time where RVs cannot be occupied (mid-October to mid-April).
Share As a full-time and long-term resident and someone who is up to date on the ongoings in the area and well plugged in and connected, I find the opportunity under task for specifically "We will broadly advertise these opportunities to the community to encourage a wide spectrum of participation." To be false and that the rdkb planning and communications department has failed in this regard. Many individuals who I spoke to were not aware that the meeting happening tonight nor were they kept up to date on this process. If you want true community input and collaboration, you need to do a better job at informing residents. Strongly advise to actually follow through with what was written in regards to opportunities to engage versus simply posting it to try and make yourselves look like you're doing the work when you're not. on Facebook Share As a full-time and long-term resident and someone who is up to date on the ongoings in the area and well plugged in and connected, I find the opportunity under task for specifically "We will broadly advertise these opportunities to the community to encourage a wide spectrum of participation." To be false and that the rdkb planning and communications department has failed in this regard. Many individuals who I spoke to were not aware that the meeting happening tonight nor were they kept up to date on this process. If you want true community input and collaboration, you need to do a better job at informing residents. Strongly advise to actually follow through with what was written in regards to opportunities to engage versus simply posting it to try and make yourselves look like you're doing the work when you're not. on Twitter Share As a full-time and long-term resident and someone who is up to date on the ongoings in the area and well plugged in and connected, I find the opportunity under task for specifically "We will broadly advertise these opportunities to the community to encourage a wide spectrum of participation." To be false and that the rdkb planning and communications department has failed in this regard. Many individuals who I spoke to were not aware that the meeting happening tonight nor were they kept up to date on this process. If you want true community input and collaboration, you need to do a better job at informing residents. Strongly advise to actually follow through with what was written in regards to opportunities to engage versus simply posting it to try and make yourselves look like you're doing the work when you're not. on Linkedin Email As a full-time and long-term resident and someone who is up to date on the ongoings in the area and well plugged in and connected, I find the opportunity under task for specifically "We will broadly advertise these opportunities to the community to encourage a wide spectrum of participation." To be false and that the rdkb planning and communications department has failed in this regard. Many individuals who I spoke to were not aware that the meeting happening tonight nor were they kept up to date on this process. If you want true community input and collaboration, you need to do a better job at informing residents. Strongly advise to actually follow through with what was written in regards to opportunities to engage versus simply posting it to try and make yourselves look like you're doing the work when you're not. link

As a full-time and long-term resident and someone who is up to date on the ongoings in the area and well plugged in and connected, I find the opportunity under task for specifically "We will broadly advertise these opportunities to the community to encourage a wide spectrum of participation." To be false and that the rdkb planning and communications department has failed in this regard. Many individuals who I spoke to were not aware that the meeting happening tonight nor were they kept up to date on this process. If you want true community input and collaboration, you need to do a better job at informing residents. Strongly advise to actually follow through with what was written in regards to opportunities to engage versus simply posting it to try and make yourselves look like you're doing the work when you're not.

Allyson asked 27 days ago

Thanks for your comments. The best way to stay informed is to sign up to be on the email list for this project. I will also look at broadening our advertising for future meetings and look into utilizing the community reader board sign.
Share I noticed the prior response to the question about Grandfathering existing structures. I have to say it came as a complete shock to me. After participating in several other open houses surrounding recent changes to the OCP and the introduction of these new floodplain regulations. This grandfathering question has been raised at prior open houses and it was clear the RDKB’s position was always “Of course you can maintain your existing structures and renovate provided it is within the existing footprint.” This most recent response indicates the complete opposite. When the Floodplain regulations were introduced, it is clear to me that the ramifications of those bylaws were never properly understood by the community and as a result there was clearly a lack of public consultation. In my opinion, the regulations lack of clarity to even have a proper discussion/consultation. From what I understand of the floodplain mapping is that an extremely conservative approach was taken when compared to the 1 in 200-year flood event that happened in 2018. For example, in the Carol Court/Massie Road area of the lake the newly defined floodplain level is at least 5 feet higher than the 2018 lake levels. The reality is that between the floodplain mapping and the 10m setback to the natural boundary, a significant percentage of the existing lakefront properties on Christina Lake are going to be restricted from being properly maintained. I do not think this is in anyone’s best interest. I would bet that if you conducted a poll of all property owners if they knew that the floodplain bylaws created material restrictions in your ability to maintain your property that an overwhelming majority of people would say they were not aware of that. In connection with this new Bylaw update can the floodplain bylaw also be reevaluated, including a new consultation process whereby property owners can be fully informed in advance of the potential ramifications of the changes. Can these Bylaws please be updated to allow for a clear and reasonable path forward to maintain and upgrade existing structures. on Facebook Share I noticed the prior response to the question about Grandfathering existing structures. I have to say it came as a complete shock to me. After participating in several other open houses surrounding recent changes to the OCP and the introduction of these new floodplain regulations. This grandfathering question has been raised at prior open houses and it was clear the RDKB’s position was always “Of course you can maintain your existing structures and renovate provided it is within the existing footprint.” This most recent response indicates the complete opposite. When the Floodplain regulations were introduced, it is clear to me that the ramifications of those bylaws were never properly understood by the community and as a result there was clearly a lack of public consultation. In my opinion, the regulations lack of clarity to even have a proper discussion/consultation. From what I understand of the floodplain mapping is that an extremely conservative approach was taken when compared to the 1 in 200-year flood event that happened in 2018. For example, in the Carol Court/Massie Road area of the lake the newly defined floodplain level is at least 5 feet higher than the 2018 lake levels. The reality is that between the floodplain mapping and the 10m setback to the natural boundary, a significant percentage of the existing lakefront properties on Christina Lake are going to be restricted from being properly maintained. I do not think this is in anyone’s best interest. I would bet that if you conducted a poll of all property owners if they knew that the floodplain bylaws created material restrictions in your ability to maintain your property that an overwhelming majority of people would say they were not aware of that. In connection with this new Bylaw update can the floodplain bylaw also be reevaluated, including a new consultation process whereby property owners can be fully informed in advance of the potential ramifications of the changes. Can these Bylaws please be updated to allow for a clear and reasonable path forward to maintain and upgrade existing structures. on Twitter Share I noticed the prior response to the question about Grandfathering existing structures. I have to say it came as a complete shock to me. After participating in several other open houses surrounding recent changes to the OCP and the introduction of these new floodplain regulations. This grandfathering question has been raised at prior open houses and it was clear the RDKB’s position was always “Of course you can maintain your existing structures and renovate provided it is within the existing footprint.” This most recent response indicates the complete opposite. When the Floodplain regulations were introduced, it is clear to me that the ramifications of those bylaws were never properly understood by the community and as a result there was clearly a lack of public consultation. In my opinion, the regulations lack of clarity to even have a proper discussion/consultation. From what I understand of the floodplain mapping is that an extremely conservative approach was taken when compared to the 1 in 200-year flood event that happened in 2018. For example, in the Carol Court/Massie Road area of the lake the newly defined floodplain level is at least 5 feet higher than the 2018 lake levels. The reality is that between the floodplain mapping and the 10m setback to the natural boundary, a significant percentage of the existing lakefront properties on Christina Lake are going to be restricted from being properly maintained. I do not think this is in anyone’s best interest. I would bet that if you conducted a poll of all property owners if they knew that the floodplain bylaws created material restrictions in your ability to maintain your property that an overwhelming majority of people would say they were not aware of that. In connection with this new Bylaw update can the floodplain bylaw also be reevaluated, including a new consultation process whereby property owners can be fully informed in advance of the potential ramifications of the changes. Can these Bylaws please be updated to allow for a clear and reasonable path forward to maintain and upgrade existing structures. on Linkedin Email I noticed the prior response to the question about Grandfathering existing structures. I have to say it came as a complete shock to me. After participating in several other open houses surrounding recent changes to the OCP and the introduction of these new floodplain regulations. This grandfathering question has been raised at prior open houses and it was clear the RDKB’s position was always “Of course you can maintain your existing structures and renovate provided it is within the existing footprint.” This most recent response indicates the complete opposite. When the Floodplain regulations were introduced, it is clear to me that the ramifications of those bylaws were never properly understood by the community and as a result there was clearly a lack of public consultation. In my opinion, the regulations lack of clarity to even have a proper discussion/consultation. From what I understand of the floodplain mapping is that an extremely conservative approach was taken when compared to the 1 in 200-year flood event that happened in 2018. For example, in the Carol Court/Massie Road area of the lake the newly defined floodplain level is at least 5 feet higher than the 2018 lake levels. The reality is that between the floodplain mapping and the 10m setback to the natural boundary, a significant percentage of the existing lakefront properties on Christina Lake are going to be restricted from being properly maintained. I do not think this is in anyone’s best interest. I would bet that if you conducted a poll of all property owners if they knew that the floodplain bylaws created material restrictions in your ability to maintain your property that an overwhelming majority of people would say they were not aware of that. In connection with this new Bylaw update can the floodplain bylaw also be reevaluated, including a new consultation process whereby property owners can be fully informed in advance of the potential ramifications of the changes. Can these Bylaws please be updated to allow for a clear and reasonable path forward to maintain and upgrade existing structures. link

I noticed the prior response to the question about Grandfathering existing structures. I have to say it came as a complete shock to me. After participating in several other open houses surrounding recent changes to the OCP and the introduction of these new floodplain regulations. This grandfathering question has been raised at prior open houses and it was clear the RDKB’s position was always “Of course you can maintain your existing structures and renovate provided it is within the existing footprint.” This most recent response indicates the complete opposite. When the Floodplain regulations were introduced, it is clear to me that the ramifications of those bylaws were never properly understood by the community and as a result there was clearly a lack of public consultation. In my opinion, the regulations lack of clarity to even have a proper discussion/consultation. From what I understand of the floodplain mapping is that an extremely conservative approach was taken when compared to the 1 in 200-year flood event that happened in 2018. For example, in the Carol Court/Massie Road area of the lake the newly defined floodplain level is at least 5 feet higher than the 2018 lake levels. The reality is that between the floodplain mapping and the 10m setback to the natural boundary, a significant percentage of the existing lakefront properties on Christina Lake are going to be restricted from being properly maintained. I do not think this is in anyone’s best interest. I would bet that if you conducted a poll of all property owners if they knew that the floodplain bylaws created material restrictions in your ability to maintain your property that an overwhelming majority of people would say they were not aware of that. In connection with this new Bylaw update can the floodplain bylaw also be reevaluated, including a new consultation process whereby property owners can be fully informed in advance of the potential ramifications of the changes. Can these Bylaws please be updated to allow for a clear and reasonable path forward to maintain and upgrade existing structures.

KarenW asked 29 days ago

Hi Karen,
Thanks for your comments about existing structures near the lake. This is a complex and important topic that I agree needs serious consideration. I will discuss your comments (and others received) with the rest of the RDKB Planning team and I'll provide an updated response here.
Share Why can’t the open house tomorrow night be instead a proper town hall meeting with open discussion regarding these issues? My understanding (as I questioned this to a RDKB staff meeting at the last open house) is that Christina Lake is the only place that holds meetings in this format as decided by Grace McGregor. Going to different tables with RDKB staff is not fully representing our united voice of Lakefront property owners. on Facebook Share Why can’t the open house tomorrow night be instead a proper town hall meeting with open discussion regarding these issues? My understanding (as I questioned this to a RDKB staff meeting at the last open house) is that Christina Lake is the only place that holds meetings in this format as decided by Grace McGregor. Going to different tables with RDKB staff is not fully representing our united voice of Lakefront property owners. on Twitter Share Why can’t the open house tomorrow night be instead a proper town hall meeting with open discussion regarding these issues? My understanding (as I questioned this to a RDKB staff meeting at the last open house) is that Christina Lake is the only place that holds meetings in this format as decided by Grace McGregor. Going to different tables with RDKB staff is not fully representing our united voice of Lakefront property owners. on Linkedin Email Why can’t the open house tomorrow night be instead a proper town hall meeting with open discussion regarding these issues? My understanding (as I questioned this to a RDKB staff meeting at the last open house) is that Christina Lake is the only place that holds meetings in this format as decided by Grace McGregor. Going to different tables with RDKB staff is not fully representing our united voice of Lakefront property owners. link

Why can’t the open house tomorrow night be instead a proper town hall meeting with open discussion regarding these issues? My understanding (as I questioned this to a RDKB staff meeting at the last open house) is that Christina Lake is the only place that holds meetings in this format as decided by Grace McGregor. Going to different tables with RDKB staff is not fully representing our united voice of Lakefront property owners.

Loretta Lachner asked 28 days ago

Hi Loretta,
Thanks for your comments about the open house. Open house formats are widely used throughout the RDKB (and other places). They are a great way for people to view information that interests them at their own pace and ask questions directly at an early stage in a project. As we move along with this project, we will consider your comments in selecting formats for future meetings.
Share Can you please clarify what the regulations are, or will be, concerning grandfathering exisiting structures that were built by previous owners decades ago within the 10 metre setback area to the natual boundary of Christina Lake? I think it would be helpful to have better clarity on how maintenance and renovations of those existing structures can be managed. Based on prior open houses my understanding was that the intent was to allow those structures to be maintained and/or renovated as long as the foot print within the setback area does not change. It seems like when the Flood Plain related bylaws were introduced it created a lot of confusion for homeowners and even maybe the staff at RDKB, and the confusion seems to have created a lot of uncertainty for homeowners and likely a lot of rework for RDKB staff. I sense this confusion is amplified further if those existing structures are within the 10 metre setback area and also in the recently defined floodplain. In connection with this new contemplated Bylaw update can there be consideration to clarifying these items at the same time? Thank you on Facebook Share Can you please clarify what the regulations are, or will be, concerning grandfathering exisiting structures that were built by previous owners decades ago within the 10 metre setback area to the natual boundary of Christina Lake? I think it would be helpful to have better clarity on how maintenance and renovations of those existing structures can be managed. Based on prior open houses my understanding was that the intent was to allow those structures to be maintained and/or renovated as long as the foot print within the setback area does not change. It seems like when the Flood Plain related bylaws were introduced it created a lot of confusion for homeowners and even maybe the staff at RDKB, and the confusion seems to have created a lot of uncertainty for homeowners and likely a lot of rework for RDKB staff. I sense this confusion is amplified further if those existing structures are within the 10 metre setback area and also in the recently defined floodplain. In connection with this new contemplated Bylaw update can there be consideration to clarifying these items at the same time? Thank you on Twitter Share Can you please clarify what the regulations are, or will be, concerning grandfathering exisiting structures that were built by previous owners decades ago within the 10 metre setback area to the natual boundary of Christina Lake? I think it would be helpful to have better clarity on how maintenance and renovations of those existing structures can be managed. Based on prior open houses my understanding was that the intent was to allow those structures to be maintained and/or renovated as long as the foot print within the setback area does not change. It seems like when the Flood Plain related bylaws were introduced it created a lot of confusion for homeowners and even maybe the staff at RDKB, and the confusion seems to have created a lot of uncertainty for homeowners and likely a lot of rework for RDKB staff. I sense this confusion is amplified further if those existing structures are within the 10 metre setback area and also in the recently defined floodplain. In connection with this new contemplated Bylaw update can there be consideration to clarifying these items at the same time? Thank you on Linkedin Email Can you please clarify what the regulations are, or will be, concerning grandfathering exisiting structures that were built by previous owners decades ago within the 10 metre setback area to the natual boundary of Christina Lake? I think it would be helpful to have better clarity on how maintenance and renovations of those existing structures can be managed. Based on prior open houses my understanding was that the intent was to allow those structures to be maintained and/or renovated as long as the foot print within the setback area does not change. It seems like when the Flood Plain related bylaws were introduced it created a lot of confusion for homeowners and even maybe the staff at RDKB, and the confusion seems to have created a lot of uncertainty for homeowners and likely a lot of rework for RDKB staff. I sense this confusion is amplified further if those existing structures are within the 10 metre setback area and also in the recently defined floodplain. In connection with this new contemplated Bylaw update can there be consideration to clarifying these items at the same time? Thank you link

Can you please clarify what the regulations are, or will be, concerning grandfathering exisiting structures that were built by previous owners decades ago within the 10 metre setback area to the natual boundary of Christina Lake? I think it would be helpful to have better clarity on how maintenance and renovations of those existing structures can be managed. Based on prior open houses my understanding was that the intent was to allow those structures to be maintained and/or renovated as long as the foot print within the setback area does not change. It seems like when the Flood Plain related bylaws were introduced it created a lot of confusion for homeowners and even maybe the staff at RDKB, and the confusion seems to have created a lot of uncertainty for homeowners and likely a lot of rework for RDKB staff. I sense this confusion is amplified further if those existing structures are within the 10 metre setback area and also in the recently defined floodplain. In connection with this new contemplated Bylaw update can there be consideration to clarifying these items at the same time? Thank you

KarenW asked about 1 month ago

Thanks for your questions about how the 10 m setback from the lake will affect existing structures. I will work to post more in-depth info on the webpage on this topic of “grandfathering” and specifically about the 10m setback from the lake (and will also work towards having this info available at the open house). In the meantime, here are a few points:
-Existing buildings/structures that were legally constructed before the bylaw change are allowed to remain “as is”.
-If a building/structure is in a setback, the amount of work that can be done within the setback area to that existing building/structure is very limited.
- Works within a setback require additional planning approvals (like a variance and/or floodplain exemption) in most cases. This includes maintenance and renovations that involve replacement of materials.
Share The wording of section 305.5 of the draft Bylaw is a little confusing. It states in the Table item l) At-grade landscaping features including patios, pavers, paving, in-ground steps, and retaining walls less than 1.22m in height - Up to 100% of setback. Can you confirm that this draft means that those landscaping features listed in item (l) ARE permitted on the owners property within the 10m setback to the natural boundary of Christina Lake. on Facebook Share The wording of section 305.5 of the draft Bylaw is a little confusing. It states in the Table item l) At-grade landscaping features including patios, pavers, paving, in-ground steps, and retaining walls less than 1.22m in height - Up to 100% of setback. Can you confirm that this draft means that those landscaping features listed in item (l) ARE permitted on the owners property within the 10m setback to the natural boundary of Christina Lake. on Twitter Share The wording of section 305.5 of the draft Bylaw is a little confusing. It states in the Table item l) At-grade landscaping features including patios, pavers, paving, in-ground steps, and retaining walls less than 1.22m in height - Up to 100% of setback. Can you confirm that this draft means that those landscaping features listed in item (l) ARE permitted on the owners property within the 10m setback to the natural boundary of Christina Lake. on Linkedin Email The wording of section 305.5 of the draft Bylaw is a little confusing. It states in the Table item l) At-grade landscaping features including patios, pavers, paving, in-ground steps, and retaining walls less than 1.22m in height - Up to 100% of setback. Can you confirm that this draft means that those landscaping features listed in item (l) ARE permitted on the owners property within the 10m setback to the natural boundary of Christina Lake. link

The wording of section 305.5 of the draft Bylaw is a little confusing. It states in the Table item l) At-grade landscaping features including patios, pavers, paving, in-ground steps, and retaining walls less than 1.22m in height - Up to 100% of setback. Can you confirm that this draft means that those landscaping features listed in item (l) ARE permitted on the owners property within the 10m setback to the natural boundary of Christina Lake.

KarenW asked about 2 months ago

Great question and thank you for bringing this to my attention. All of the items listed in the table in Section 305.5 are what is allowed to project into a setback from a property line. These allowed projections are not allowed within setbacks to a natural boundary or a sight triangle.
That said, the landscaping features identified in item (l) were intended to be allowed within the 10m setback to the natural boundary of Christina Lake. It is a long standing interpretation of the zoning bylaw that these are landscaping features, not structures, so they were added to this table to be explicit in the bylaw about how they are handled.
I have made a note to correct the draft bylaw to allow the landscaping features identified in item (l) to project into all setbacks so you can anticipate seeing this in a future draft.
Share Will the Open House on October 1st be live streamed? There will be a lot of concerned residents that will have just left for the season. on Facebook Share Will the Open House on October 1st be live streamed? There will be a lot of concerned residents that will have just left for the season. on Twitter Share Will the Open House on October 1st be live streamed? There will be a lot of concerned residents that will have just left for the season. on Linkedin Email Will the Open House on October 1st be live streamed? There will be a lot of concerned residents that will have just left for the season. link

Will the Open House on October 1st be live streamed? There will be a lot of concerned residents that will have just left for the season.

jayne.ruttan asked about 2 months ago

The October 1st open house will not be live streamed. All of the information available at the open house will be available online. Any questions can be sent to jpeachey@rdkb.com.
There will be more public meetings for this project so, based on your comment, I will look into doing at least one meeting online.
Share Has anyone else noticed that an out-of-town rental business has been operating at Texas Creek Boat Launch WITHOUT A PERMIT, despite repeated complaints and warnings? It's baffling that this has been going on for years. Are they being fined? Who's benefiting from their operations? Certainly not the local community, not even in terms of property tax payments, at the very the least. on Facebook Share Has anyone else noticed that an out-of-town rental business has been operating at Texas Creek Boat Launch WITHOUT A PERMIT, despite repeated complaints and warnings? It's baffling that this has been going on for years. Are they being fined? Who's benefiting from their operations? Certainly not the local community, not even in terms of property tax payments, at the very the least. on Twitter Share Has anyone else noticed that an out-of-town rental business has been operating at Texas Creek Boat Launch WITHOUT A PERMIT, despite repeated complaints and warnings? It's baffling that this has been going on for years. Are they being fined? Who's benefiting from their operations? Certainly not the local community, not even in terms of property tax payments, at the very the least. on Linkedin Email Has anyone else noticed that an out-of-town rental business has been operating at Texas Creek Boat Launch WITHOUT A PERMIT, despite repeated complaints and warnings? It's baffling that this has been going on for years. Are they being fined? Who's benefiting from their operations? Certainly not the local community, not even in terms of property tax payments, at the very the least. link

Has anyone else noticed that an out-of-town rental business has been operating at Texas Creek Boat Launch WITHOUT A PERMIT, despite repeated complaints and warnings? It's baffling that this has been going on for years. Are they being fined? Who's benefiting from their operations? Certainly not the local community, not even in terms of property tax payments, at the very the least.

Concerned Citizen asked about 2 months ago

The RDKB is aware of this situation at the Texas Creek boat launch and one of our bylaw enforcement officers has previously investigated. In this case, the authorities with jurisdiction over the matter (due its location) is BC Parks, for unpermitted operations within the park (and the RCMP for boating violations on the lake).
To report a violation, you can call the RAPP line at 1-877-952-7277 or submit online on the Province’s website: https://forms.gov.bc.ca/environment/rapp/
Share Why can’t our adult daughter live on our acerage in a 5th. Wheel trailer for more than 180 days a year? There is an affordable housing shortage. These types of regulations are outdated and serve no purpose. on Facebook Share Why can’t our adult daughter live on our acerage in a 5th. Wheel trailer for more than 180 days a year? There is an affordable housing shortage. These types of regulations are outdated and serve no purpose. on Twitter Share Why can’t our adult daughter live on our acerage in a 5th. Wheel trailer for more than 180 days a year? There is an affordable housing shortage. These types of regulations are outdated and serve no purpose. on Linkedin Email Why can’t our adult daughter live on our acerage in a 5th. Wheel trailer for more than 180 days a year? There is an affordable housing shortage. These types of regulations are outdated and serve no purpose. link

Why can’t our adult daughter live on our acerage in a 5th. Wheel trailer for more than 180 days a year? There is an affordable housing shortage. These types of regulations are outdated and serve no purpose.

Daniel Messett asked 2 months ago

Thank you for your comment about meeting the need for affordable housing with living in a RV year-round. Continuing to limit the occupancy of RVs for seasonal use is based on concerns for occupant safety. 5^th wheel trailers and other RVs are built for seasonal use only. They do not meet the accepted minimum standards for a permanent home (by either meeting BC Building Code or being certified to meet the CSA standard for a manufactured or modular home).

Page last updated: 02 Oct 2025, 02:20 PM

Area C/Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw Review Project

DRAFT zoning map

DRAFT zoning map

Questions & Answers

Will the Open House on October 1st be live streamed? There will be a lot of concerned residents that will have just left for the season.

Why can’t our adult daughter live on our acerage in a 5th. Wheel trailer for more than 180 days a year? There is an affordable housing shortage. These types of regulations are outdated and serve no purpose.

Key Dates

Who's Listening

Documents

Follow Project