Area C/Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw Review Project

Share Area C/Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw Review Project on Facebook Share Area C/Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw Review Project on Twitter Share Area C/Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw Review Project on Linkedin Email Area C/Christina Lake Zoning Bylaw Review Project link

Project Update

Save the Date: Upcoming public meetings are scheduled for January!

  • In person meeting: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 - Christina Lake Community Hall (Doors at 5:30, Presentation at 6pm, Q&A to follow)
  • Virtual meeting: Thursday, January 22, 2026 - Via Teams (Presentation at 7pm, Q&A to follow)

The draft is being modified based on comments received and a revised draft will be presented at the upcoming public meetings.

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.

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.

#TaskDescriptionLevel of ParticipationOpportunities for public to participateWhat's Available Now
1.Zoning Map UpdateReviewing the OCP Land Use Designation map and applying zones based on the OCP designation.InformWe 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 ReviewAligning 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
ConsultWe 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 CorrectionsMaking 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).InformWe 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 UpdateAligning 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 & CollaborateWe 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. What We Heard

A second set of public meetings will be held on January 21 and 22, 2026.

You are welcome to provide written comments or ask questions.
5.Other UpdatesAs 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 shiftsFor 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

Save the Date: Upcoming public meetings are scheduled for January!

  • In person meeting: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 - Christina Lake Community Hall (Doors at 5:30, Presentation at 6pm, Q&A to follow)
  • Virtual meeting: Thursday, January 22, 2026 - Via Teams (Presentation at 7pm, Q&A to follow)

The draft is being modified based on comments received and a revised draft will be presented at the upcoming public meetings.

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.

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.

#TaskDescriptionLevel of ParticipationOpportunities for public to participateWhat's Available Now
1.Zoning Map UpdateReviewing the OCP Land Use Designation map and applying zones based on the OCP designation.InformWe 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 ReviewAligning 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
ConsultWe 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 CorrectionsMaking 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).InformWe 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 UpdateAligning 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 & CollaborateWe 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. What We Heard

A second set of public meetings will be held on January 21 and 22, 2026.

You are welcome to provide written comments or ask questions.
5.Other UpdatesAs 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 shiftsFor 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)

Questions & Answers

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

loader image
Forgot password?
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share Thank you for providing responses to our questions. However, there was one suggestion that I had made previously that went unanswered. The suggestion was as follows: "Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw." The RDKB can easily accommodate this request which would ensure reasonable in-person participation by a significant proportion of Christina Lake residents as was originally intended. Please provide a commitment to undertake this inclusive process or clearly explain why it cannot be done. Thank you on Facebook Share Thank you for providing responses to our questions. However, there was one suggestion that I had made previously that went unanswered. The suggestion was as follows: "Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw." The RDKB can easily accommodate this request which would ensure reasonable in-person participation by a significant proportion of Christina Lake residents as was originally intended. Please provide a commitment to undertake this inclusive process or clearly explain why it cannot be done. Thank you on Twitter Share Thank you for providing responses to our questions. However, there was one suggestion that I had made previously that went unanswered. The suggestion was as follows: "Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw." The RDKB can easily accommodate this request which would ensure reasonable in-person participation by a significant proportion of Christina Lake residents as was originally intended. Please provide a commitment to undertake this inclusive process or clearly explain why it cannot be done. Thank you on Linkedin Email Thank you for providing responses to our questions. However, there was one suggestion that I had made previously that went unanswered. The suggestion was as follows: "Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw." The RDKB can easily accommodate this request which would ensure reasonable in-person participation by a significant proportion of Christina Lake residents as was originally intended. Please provide a commitment to undertake this inclusive process or clearly explain why it cannot be done. Thank you link

    Thank you for providing responses to our questions. However, there was one suggestion that I had made previously that went unanswered. The suggestion was as follows: "Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw." The RDKB can easily accommodate this request which would ensure reasonable in-person participation by a significant proportion of Christina Lake residents as was originally intended. Please provide a commitment to undertake this inclusive process or clearly explain why it cannot be done. Thank you

    jherold asked 12 days ago

    While we agree that it is important for seasonal property owners have the opportunity to participate in the process, we disagree with a blanket delay to the project for an in-person meeting during summer.  We are offering a virtual meeting to accommodate those that can’t or don’t wish to attend the in-person meeting in January, along with the opportunity to write-in.  

  • Share Thank you for scheduling the public engagement meetings coming in January, especially the virtual meeting allowing seasonal residents and those with reduced mobility to be included in this important process. A revised draft is being presented at these meetings based on previous input. Would it be possible for the RDKB to release the revised draft in advance of the meeting in January so we may have some time to digest the changes and be better able to provide feedback at these meetings? These are lengthy and detailed documents and it would be enormously valuable to be able to have the documents in advance in order for us to have the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback. Thank you on Facebook Share Thank you for scheduling the public engagement meetings coming in January, especially the virtual meeting allowing seasonal residents and those with reduced mobility to be included in this important process. A revised draft is being presented at these meetings based on previous input. Would it be possible for the RDKB to release the revised draft in advance of the meeting in January so we may have some time to digest the changes and be better able to provide feedback at these meetings? These are lengthy and detailed documents and it would be enormously valuable to be able to have the documents in advance in order for us to have the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback. Thank you on Twitter Share Thank you for scheduling the public engagement meetings coming in January, especially the virtual meeting allowing seasonal residents and those with reduced mobility to be included in this important process. A revised draft is being presented at these meetings based on previous input. Would it be possible for the RDKB to release the revised draft in advance of the meeting in January so we may have some time to digest the changes and be better able to provide feedback at these meetings? These are lengthy and detailed documents and it would be enormously valuable to be able to have the documents in advance in order for us to have the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback. Thank you on Linkedin Email Thank you for scheduling the public engagement meetings coming in January, especially the virtual meeting allowing seasonal residents and those with reduced mobility to be included in this important process. A revised draft is being presented at these meetings based on previous input. Would it be possible for the RDKB to release the revised draft in advance of the meeting in January so we may have some time to digest the changes and be better able to provide feedback at these meetings? These are lengthy and detailed documents and it would be enormously valuable to be able to have the documents in advance in order for us to have the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback. Thank you link

    Thank you for scheduling the public engagement meetings coming in January, especially the virtual meeting allowing seasonal residents and those with reduced mobility to be included in this important process. A revised draft is being presented at these meetings based on previous input. Would it be possible for the RDKB to release the revised draft in advance of the meeting in January so we may have some time to digest the changes and be better able to provide feedback at these meetings? These are lengthy and detailed documents and it would be enormously valuable to be able to have the documents in advance in order for us to have the opportunity to provide meaningful feedback. Thank you

    Scout asked 22 days ago

    Hi Scout,

    Yes, thanks for asking.  We will post the revised draft on this Join the Conversation page in advance of the meeting, along with a summary of what has changed since the last draft.  

  • Share I asked a question 2 months ago and you had committed to consult with your peers and respond, but I do not see any response to-date. Since my original question, based on conversations with residents that were able to attend the open house on Oct 1/25 that the initial answer to this same question was again that it is “complicated”. On further digging at the open house I understand it became apparent that the preferred intention is to not really allow work on these existing structures and the preference of the RDKB is really to have all those structures removed or fall into disrepair. If that is the case this seems like land expropriation and can you please confirm whether property taxes will be reduced accordingly. If this issue really is as complicated as you have indicated, do you really think the regulations are worded as clearly as they need to be, and as such was proper public consultation on this issue ever completed. Can you confirm when these regulations were introduced? From what I understand now, a floodplain exemption would be required which I understand involes QEP reports, surveys etc. So from my understanding to even apply for an exemption it would cost over $10,000 to even make the application and then given how impractical the floodplain bylaws are, it seems this would never get approved. So it seems if I have a broken window or a leaky roof I would have to leave it like that until I navigate this "process", is that right? Can you also please clarify, very clearly what the path is for obtaining “a variance and/or floodplain exemption” and can you confirm if the RDKB is actually granting these? If you could also advise how many variance or floodplain exemption requests have been requested and how many have been denied versus granted? Can you also please confirm where the definition of “legally constructed” can be found? on Facebook Share I asked a question 2 months ago and you had committed to consult with your peers and respond, but I do not see any response to-date. Since my original question, based on conversations with residents that were able to attend the open house on Oct 1/25 that the initial answer to this same question was again that it is “complicated”. On further digging at the open house I understand it became apparent that the preferred intention is to not really allow work on these existing structures and the preference of the RDKB is really to have all those structures removed or fall into disrepair. If that is the case this seems like land expropriation and can you please confirm whether property taxes will be reduced accordingly. If this issue really is as complicated as you have indicated, do you really think the regulations are worded as clearly as they need to be, and as such was proper public consultation on this issue ever completed. Can you confirm when these regulations were introduced? From what I understand now, a floodplain exemption would be required which I understand involes QEP reports, surveys etc. So from my understanding to even apply for an exemption it would cost over $10,000 to even make the application and then given how impractical the floodplain bylaws are, it seems this would never get approved. So it seems if I have a broken window or a leaky roof I would have to leave it like that until I navigate this "process", is that right? Can you also please clarify, very clearly what the path is for obtaining “a variance and/or floodplain exemption” and can you confirm if the RDKB is actually granting these? If you could also advise how many variance or floodplain exemption requests have been requested and how many have been denied versus granted? Can you also please confirm where the definition of “legally constructed” can be found? on Twitter Share I asked a question 2 months ago and you had committed to consult with your peers and respond, but I do not see any response to-date. Since my original question, based on conversations with residents that were able to attend the open house on Oct 1/25 that the initial answer to this same question was again that it is “complicated”. On further digging at the open house I understand it became apparent that the preferred intention is to not really allow work on these existing structures and the preference of the RDKB is really to have all those structures removed or fall into disrepair. If that is the case this seems like land expropriation and can you please confirm whether property taxes will be reduced accordingly. If this issue really is as complicated as you have indicated, do you really think the regulations are worded as clearly as they need to be, and as such was proper public consultation on this issue ever completed. Can you confirm when these regulations were introduced? From what I understand now, a floodplain exemption would be required which I understand involes QEP reports, surveys etc. So from my understanding to even apply for an exemption it would cost over $10,000 to even make the application and then given how impractical the floodplain bylaws are, it seems this would never get approved. So it seems if I have a broken window or a leaky roof I would have to leave it like that until I navigate this "process", is that right? Can you also please clarify, very clearly what the path is for obtaining “a variance and/or floodplain exemption” and can you confirm if the RDKB is actually granting these? If you could also advise how many variance or floodplain exemption requests have been requested and how many have been denied versus granted? Can you also please confirm where the definition of “legally constructed” can be found? on Linkedin Email I asked a question 2 months ago and you had committed to consult with your peers and respond, but I do not see any response to-date. Since my original question, based on conversations with residents that were able to attend the open house on Oct 1/25 that the initial answer to this same question was again that it is “complicated”. On further digging at the open house I understand it became apparent that the preferred intention is to not really allow work on these existing structures and the preference of the RDKB is really to have all those structures removed or fall into disrepair. If that is the case this seems like land expropriation and can you please confirm whether property taxes will be reduced accordingly. If this issue really is as complicated as you have indicated, do you really think the regulations are worded as clearly as they need to be, and as such was proper public consultation on this issue ever completed. Can you confirm when these regulations were introduced? From what I understand now, a floodplain exemption would be required which I understand involes QEP reports, surveys etc. So from my understanding to even apply for an exemption it would cost over $10,000 to even make the application and then given how impractical the floodplain bylaws are, it seems this would never get approved. So it seems if I have a broken window or a leaky roof I would have to leave it like that until I navigate this "process", is that right? Can you also please clarify, very clearly what the path is for obtaining “a variance and/or floodplain exemption” and can you confirm if the RDKB is actually granting these? If you could also advise how many variance or floodplain exemption requests have been requested and how many have been denied versus granted? Can you also please confirm where the definition of “legally constructed” can be found? link

    I asked a question 2 months ago and you had committed to consult with your peers and respond, but I do not see any response to-date. Since my original question, based on conversations with residents that were able to attend the open house on Oct 1/25 that the initial answer to this same question was again that it is “complicated”. On further digging at the open house I understand it became apparent that the preferred intention is to not really allow work on these existing structures and the preference of the RDKB is really to have all those structures removed or fall into disrepair. If that is the case this seems like land expropriation and can you please confirm whether property taxes will be reduced accordingly. If this issue really is as complicated as you have indicated, do you really think the regulations are worded as clearly as they need to be, and as such was proper public consultation on this issue ever completed. Can you confirm when these regulations were introduced? From what I understand now, a floodplain exemption would be required which I understand involes QEP reports, surveys etc. So from my understanding to even apply for an exemption it would cost over $10,000 to even make the application and then given how impractical the floodplain bylaws are, it seems this would never get approved. So it seems if I have a broken window or a leaky roof I would have to leave it like that until I navigate this "process", is that right? Can you also please clarify, very clearly what the path is for obtaining “a variance and/or floodplain exemption” and can you confirm if the RDKB is actually granting these? If you could also advise how many variance or floodplain exemption requests have been requested and how many have been denied versus granted? Can you also please confirm where the definition of “legally constructed” can be found?

    KarenW asked 27 days ago

    Hi Karen,
    Thanks for the follow up; your previous question has not been disregarded but I acknowledge that I am late to respond.  I am working on an Info Sheet about buildings in setbacks that I will share once it is ready (and it will hopefully answer your questions and explain the current situation).  I have also been consulting with my peers to see what options we have available for handling existing situations in a way that is more streamlined.    

  • Share In the March 11, 2025 Steering Committee 1, RDKB proposed a reasonable public consultation process that had public workshops in June, a public open house in July and Community Group participation throughout June to August with revisions to the bylaw in September, public review in October and a Public Hearing in November. The summer consultation period is extremely important for waterfront property owners as it allows maximum in person participation since many are not at their homes in fall and winter. Unfortunately, none of the proposed summer consultation happened and the first opportunity for the public to review the proposed bylaw was online in September and in person October 1. This means that a large proportion of the community has not been provided a reasonable in person opportunity to consult with RDKB staff as originally envisioned by RDKB. Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw. on Facebook Share In the March 11, 2025 Steering Committee 1, RDKB proposed a reasonable public consultation process that had public workshops in June, a public open house in July and Community Group participation throughout June to August with revisions to the bylaw in September, public review in October and a Public Hearing in November. The summer consultation period is extremely important for waterfront property owners as it allows maximum in person participation since many are not at their homes in fall and winter. Unfortunately, none of the proposed summer consultation happened and the first opportunity for the public to review the proposed bylaw was online in September and in person October 1. This means that a large proportion of the community has not been provided a reasonable in person opportunity to consult with RDKB staff as originally envisioned by RDKB. Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw. on Twitter Share In the March 11, 2025 Steering Committee 1, RDKB proposed a reasonable public consultation process that had public workshops in June, a public open house in July and Community Group participation throughout June to August with revisions to the bylaw in September, public review in October and a Public Hearing in November. The summer consultation period is extremely important for waterfront property owners as it allows maximum in person participation since many are not at their homes in fall and winter. Unfortunately, none of the proposed summer consultation happened and the first opportunity for the public to review the proposed bylaw was online in September and in person October 1. This means that a large proportion of the community has not been provided a reasonable in person opportunity to consult with RDKB staff as originally envisioned by RDKB. Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw. on Linkedin Email In the March 11, 2025 Steering Committee 1, RDKB proposed a reasonable public consultation process that had public workshops in June, a public open house in July and Community Group participation throughout June to August with revisions to the bylaw in September, public review in October and a Public Hearing in November. The summer consultation period is extremely important for waterfront property owners as it allows maximum in person participation since many are not at their homes in fall and winter. Unfortunately, none of the proposed summer consultation happened and the first opportunity for the public to review the proposed bylaw was online in September and in person October 1. This means that a large proportion of the community has not been provided a reasonable in person opportunity to consult with RDKB staff as originally envisioned by RDKB. Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw. link

    In the March 11, 2025 Steering Committee 1, RDKB proposed a reasonable public consultation process that had public workshops in June, a public open house in July and Community Group participation throughout June to August with revisions to the bylaw in September, public review in October and a Public Hearing in November. The summer consultation period is extremely important for waterfront property owners as it allows maximum in person participation since many are not at their homes in fall and winter. Unfortunately, none of the proposed summer consultation happened and the first opportunity for the public to review the proposed bylaw was online in September and in person October 1. This means that a large proportion of the community has not been provided a reasonable in person opportunity to consult with RDKB staff as originally envisioned by RDKB. Would you please schedule some public meetings in summer 2026 with a Public Hearing Late summer 2026 to ensure all Christina Lake property owners have had a reasonable opportunity to provide in person feedback on the proposed bylaw.

    jherold asked 2 months ago

    Thanks for your comments.   Due to delays in the project, the public consultation timeline got shifted and we had to adjust.  We agree it is important for seasonal property owners to have a reasonable opportunity to participate.  We will be scheduling an online meeting so that those that are not in Christina Lake can participate virtually.  There is also the option to provide written comments at anytime (up until the end of the public hearing).

  • Share I asked a question two weeks ago about why no public consultation over the summer when more waterfront property owners are in town as was originally planned by RDKB but have not seen a response. Can you please post the question and response. on Facebook Share I asked a question two weeks ago about why no public consultation over the summer when more waterfront property owners are in town as was originally planned by RDKB but have not seen a response. Can you please post the question and response. on Twitter Share I asked a question two weeks ago about why no public consultation over the summer when more waterfront property owners are in town as was originally planned by RDKB but have not seen a response. Can you please post the question and response. on Linkedin Email I asked a question two weeks ago about why no public consultation over the summer when more waterfront property owners are in town as was originally planned by RDKB but have not seen a response. Can you please post the question and response. link

    I asked a question two weeks ago about why no public consultation over the summer when more waterfront property owners are in town as was originally planned by RDKB but have not seen a response. Can you please post the question and response.

    jherold asked about 2 months ago

    My apologies for the delayed response and I thank you for following up on this as my previous response did not post.  Unfortunately, we were not far enough along with the project during the summer months to hold a public meeting then.  While we cannot commit to delaying the project until next summer, we will be hosting an online meeting so that those that are away can attend a meeting virtually.  

  • Share The definition of Building has been changed to remove the descriptor that it provide some kind of roof or shelter. It has also removed the exclusion for tents. Why was the definition changed and is it the RDKB's intent to prohibit the use of temporary tents or structures (say that might be used for a wedding or family event) within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? on Facebook Share The definition of Building has been changed to remove the descriptor that it provide some kind of roof or shelter. It has also removed the exclusion for tents. Why was the definition changed and is it the RDKB's intent to prohibit the use of temporary tents or structures (say that might be used for a wedding or family event) within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? on Twitter Share The definition of Building has been changed to remove the descriptor that it provide some kind of roof or shelter. It has also removed the exclusion for tents. Why was the definition changed and is it the RDKB's intent to prohibit the use of temporary tents or structures (say that might be used for a wedding or family event) within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? on Linkedin Email The definition of Building has been changed to remove the descriptor that it provide some kind of roof or shelter. It has also removed the exclusion for tents. Why was the definition changed and is it the RDKB's intent to prohibit the use of temporary tents or structures (say that might be used for a wedding or family event) within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? link

    The definition of Building has been changed to remove the descriptor that it provide some kind of roof or shelter. It has also removed the exclusion for tents. Why was the definition changed and is it the RDKB's intent to prohibit the use of temporary tents or structures (say that might be used for a wedding or family event) within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake?

    jherold asked about 2 months ago

    The definition was updated to align with the BC Building Code and to defer to the definition in the BC Building Code.  The intention is to align the zoning bylaw with the existing Floodplain Bylaw, which prohibits structures (including temporary structures) within 10m of the lake.   We anticipate that the issue of exceptions to the setback will require more discussion with the public.    

  • Share A new definition of Structure has been added that is so broadly written, it includes everything that is not a retaining wall less than 1.2m high, paving or landscaping. Please advise whether items such as a flagpole, awning, trellis, clothes hanger, picnic table, umbrella, etc. are intended to be Structures as currently defined and whether it is RDKB's intent to prohibit them within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake. on Facebook Share A new definition of Structure has been added that is so broadly written, it includes everything that is not a retaining wall less than 1.2m high, paving or landscaping. Please advise whether items such as a flagpole, awning, trellis, clothes hanger, picnic table, umbrella, etc. are intended to be Structures as currently defined and whether it is RDKB's intent to prohibit them within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake. on Twitter Share A new definition of Structure has been added that is so broadly written, it includes everything that is not a retaining wall less than 1.2m high, paving or landscaping. Please advise whether items such as a flagpole, awning, trellis, clothes hanger, picnic table, umbrella, etc. are intended to be Structures as currently defined and whether it is RDKB's intent to prohibit them within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake. on Linkedin Email A new definition of Structure has been added that is so broadly written, it includes everything that is not a retaining wall less than 1.2m high, paving or landscaping. Please advise whether items such as a flagpole, awning, trellis, clothes hanger, picnic table, umbrella, etc. are intended to be Structures as currently defined and whether it is RDKB's intent to prohibit them within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake. link

    A new definition of Structure has been added that is so broadly written, it includes everything that is not a retaining wall less than 1.2m high, paving or landscaping. Please advise whether items such as a flagpole, awning, trellis, clothes hanger, picnic table, umbrella, etc. are intended to be Structures as currently defined and whether it is RDKB's intent to prohibit them within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake.

    jherold asked about 2 months ago

    The new definition in the draft bylaw is meant align with the existing Floodplain Bylaw and is meant to be broad.  Any exceptions to a setback, like a flagpole or awning, are meant to be explicitly identified in the zoning bylaw.  Other items that aren’t fixed to a building or in the ground, like a picnic tables or an umbrella, are not listed because they are typically out of the scope of what would be enforced upon.  

    We are working on some adjustments to the draft zoning bylaw about setback exceptions, based on comments at the open house and will share them when they are ready.  

  • Share Many waterfront property owners have access to the waterfront over stairs or ramps. Are these considered landscaping or Structures? If Structures, is it RDKB's intent to prohibit the installation and replacement of these items within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? If any existing ramps or stairs need repair, will a variance permit be required? on Facebook Share Many waterfront property owners have access to the waterfront over stairs or ramps. Are these considered landscaping or Structures? If Structures, is it RDKB's intent to prohibit the installation and replacement of these items within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? If any existing ramps or stairs need repair, will a variance permit be required? on Twitter Share Many waterfront property owners have access to the waterfront over stairs or ramps. Are these considered landscaping or Structures? If Structures, is it RDKB's intent to prohibit the installation and replacement of these items within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? If any existing ramps or stairs need repair, will a variance permit be required? on Linkedin Email Many waterfront property owners have access to the waterfront over stairs or ramps. Are these considered landscaping or Structures? If Structures, is it RDKB's intent to prohibit the installation and replacement of these items within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? If any existing ramps or stairs need repair, will a variance permit be required? link

    Many waterfront property owners have access to the waterfront over stairs or ramps. Are these considered landscaping or Structures? If Structures, is it RDKB's intent to prohibit the installation and replacement of these items within 10m of the natural boundary of Christina Lake? If any existing ramps or stairs need repair, will a variance permit be required?

    jherold asked about 2 months ago

    The current draft includes stairs and ramps as structures; however, we anticipate that this issue will require more discussion with the public and has been flagged for review since it was brought up at the open house.    

  • 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 2 months 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 3 months 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).

Page last updated: 04 Dec 2025, 03:32 PM