Rural Bridesville Land Use Planning

Hello,
As a Sidley area resident you have probably received a notice in your mail of an upcoming Bridesville area land use planning meeting. The web site link says "join the conversation" but in actuality neither the rbkb/Electoral Area E/West Boundary web site managers or the area director/steering committee respond to online comments regarding general or individual property owner concerns. Yes they are now proposing a public meeting where there will likely be very limited opportunity to address or resolve individual property owner concerns. Might this be all in the name of consultation, but not really?
Note that by far the largest amount of the land from the Sidley Ridge to to West boundary is already either ALR designated land, which already has its own (use) restrictions, or is primarily forestry land. (proposed Rural Resource 2) There are numerous proposed restrictions, many particularly to the current, "rural Residential lots" that basically involves the existing Timberwolf development.
Especially irritating and of concern to me personally, is the very considerable proposed restrictions to a very few "proposed Rural 1" properties. Some of us purchased these parcels because they were outside the ALR and in some cases also included registered road easements with the obvious intent to further subdivide along the lines of the Timberwolf subdivision . The rdkb would be well aware of this. The amount of land in this overall area that could be subdivided under current regulations is very small, even if the owners chose. There is often prohibitively costly road requirements even if one wanted to subdivide. The arbitrary new proposal would dramatically change ones current options on properties proposed as RR1, which seems both extremely unfair and unnecessary.
The following is the current draft restrictions for proposed Rural Resource 1 Zone property. Arbitrarily being changed from from unlimited density and Subdivision potential to:o:
- Parcel Area for New Parcels Created by Subdivision Parcels to be created by subdivision must not be less than 8 hectares. (19.7684 acres)
- Density (per property title) Maximum one single family dwelling, one secondary suite and one guest cabin per parcel.
The brochures comments under "next steps" states "If supported". (By the area residents or RDBK powers?) But but under "What we heard" on the following page it doesn't even acknowledge the stated lack of support in this "jointheconversation" comments area.

Also "Under what heard" I might point out (#2) Okanagan area style subdividing is impossible to the the vast majority of land already being designated either AL or forestry.
(#5) This area is largely an ALR/forestry designated area and will stay that way with or without proposed zoning.
(#6) MISTRUST and RED TAPE From the comments in the "join the group" comments area.... rather than reading some people, it should read "many people".
Almost no support has been expressed in the comments.
Below is the site that locals should review.
All the best to each of you on this beautiful spring day.
cheers,
Gary and Lynette McGill

Note that there are documents and maps over on the right side that should be reviewed. You may have to register to access it?

Draft Rural Bridesville Land Use Plan, Bylaw No. 1800 (1.29 MB) (pdf) (The proposed details regarding restricted uses of land is in this document)
document iconMap 1: Draft Rural Bridesville Land Use (1.48 MB) (pdf) (
document iconMap 2: Draft Rural Bridesville Zoning (1.53 MB) (pdf)

I own three adjacent quarter sections of ranch land south of Bridesville. The ranch has been in my family for 75 years. The land has always been used for ranching and farming. A successorship plan is in place to ensure that tradition continues through subsequent generations.
All three parcels are bounded to the south by the border with the USA. Two of the three quarter sections are entirely within the ALR. About half the eastern parcel is in the ALR. The most westerly quarter section is entirely within the ALR and includes a short length of the old Railway ROW. The ROW and the land adjacent has always been used for grazing cattle. I note that the land use plan denotes the ROW as "Rail/Trail Corridor". I request that the ROW through my property remain as agricultural land so that cattle can freely graze it and the grassland adjacent. Moreover, if the intent is to create a public access corridor along the old ROW, I vehemently object. Creating a public access corridor to the border is an invitation to illegal border crossings and smuggling.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob Fouty.

I echo Heidi's previously posted comment of:

"I would like to see a clear and concise list of benefits and disadvantages for this proposed zoning change."

Specifically, how will it benefit US - the people that actually live here. If zoning will limit what we can/cannot do on our own property, that we pay taxes for (which I suppose will increase because of this, correct?), why would anybody be in favor of this? I suppose that's why I'm sensing some negativity in the other comments below.
It would be really beneficial to have one or more community meetings so both sides of this issue can be heard. If COVID is an issue, well then I'll supply masks and we can all slather on the sanitizer, let's have meetings now before the inevitable "second wave" of this virus happens and meetings are not allowed.
Jason Gray

We have owned a home up above Sidley Mtn. Road for six years. We have become a part of the community, and we love living here! In the future, we hope to purchase a corner of the property upon which our house sits. Before this happens, we will need to have our own well, at a minimum. Our driveway comes directly off of the Wolf Pack Place cul-de-sac, and does not run through anyone else's property. Talk of restrictions on land use up here make us wonder what that will mean for us. It seems that new zoning laws will only bring us grief and trouble. I would like to see a clear and concise list of benefits and disadvantages for this purposed zoning change. Before anything is put through, the people who will be directly affected by these proposed zoning changes should have a chance to meet together with those who are proposing them, so that they can be discussed -- as adults and as fellow citizens should. Christisons

So far we haven't heard from any land owners expressing support and making a case for why? Are the elected representatives listening and will they respect the local peoples wishes.? I expect there will be a few who are motivated to exclude others, since they are already here.

I totally agree with Pat could not have it said better..... "We do not agree with the rural area needing any land use plan or zoning. Let the people that own the land manage the land. Who better to manage their land than the people that make their livelihood from the land. We do not need any more government regulation than we already have."

Further to our April 14/2020 comments
We appreciate receiving your non form letter communication (Elizabeth/kbrd/ senior planner) and are sure that you are trying your best to perform your job for the kbrd. Since we strongly feel that the current draft OCP zoning designation for our property is wrong and unfair, we ask that it be reviewed. Maintaining the rural character of the West Boundary area is inevitable even without zoning, since most of the private land in the West boundary is already ALR designated and the second largest property type is crown land.

The current draft OCP zoning proposal designates our two properties as RUR 1 and would add restrictive use provisions quite similar to ALR designated property, even though our property is not agricultural. (lot C PID: 024-246-425) and (lot B PID: 024-246-417) We purchased our property adjacent to the Timer Wolf subdivision because it was not in the ALR and numerous buildings are allowed , even if not subdivided. There is only a very few proposed non ALR private RUR 1 properties ( three or four? ) and RUR 1 would allow no subdividing to less than 8ha, (19.77 acre) and effectively stop all development similar to Timer Wolf. Our property has numerous semi flat bench spots perfect for rural home sites. If a OCP is adopted our property should be zoned R1, not RUR 1 We feel that rather than only one single family dwelling per each R1 and RUR1 property as proposed, it makes more sense that there be a defined number of single family dwelling allowed per Ha (acre). Comparable to the density of Tiberwolf.

Hopefully you can appreciate our frustration with having to deal with the proposed OCP push, if only a very small percentage of the land owners are in support, and the local director doesn't truly listen to the communities wishes. A few years ago a group of people traveled to the regional district to express their disinterest of zoning and to communicated their feeling of not being listened to. Please provide us some numbers of those for and against zoning, since we only read or hear, "SOME" have indicated an interest in zoning".

It is a small community and we have heard of only several ALR property owners who might choose additional restricts on non ALR or ALR owners. Non ALR properties all combined make up a sliver of the West boundary area. ( 41 Bridesville town residential parcels, 38 Wolf subdivision lots plus 3 homes being currently built on adjoining properties)

a) Current roads and registered road easements on both our (lot C PID: 024-246-425) and (lot B PID: 024-246-417) clearly indicate subdivision intentions for the property.
b) We already have 2 homes and more home sites partially developed on (lot C PIN 024-246-425), with plans to first subdivide off the one home at the entrance with it's own driveway.
c) The land is not agricultural and should not have the proposed restrictions that are so similar to ALR land.
d) Current MOT demands could already make subdivision almost insurmountable, never mind adding further restrictive and unnecessary regional district zoning rules.

We do not agree with the rural area needing any land use plan or zoning. Let the people that own the land manage the land. Who better to manage their land than the people that make their livelihood from the land. We do not need any more government regulation than we already have.

When we purchased our land ( 80 acres in Timberwolf), seven
years ago, we bought the land due to the fact that it had no zoning. Since then, we have proceeded with an engineered topographical plan/subdivision concept, and have done extensive roadwork to accommodate a future subdivision of 5-20 acre parcels. We are just completing a home on the property. As well, when we installed underground hydro, we did so with the potential of a subdivision, which added additional costs to the hydro development. Others who purchased land at the same time also purchased land due to the zoning that existed. Now we are being told of a proposal to reduce the land development size in our area which is frustrating to the concept we had planned on. I suggest any new purchases meet with your proposal, and leave the previous land zoning as it was...None zoned.
Frank and Valery Stejskal

I am still unclear of the purpose of this. Our part of the community has many ranchers that have been struggling for generations whit the markets not supporting them at all. My wife and I moved here in 2005 and we were very excited to move to an amazing community. When we bought our property we were told that our property was not in the ALR. I did not check as this was my first home purchase and did not understand much. We now see that our property is in the ALR and there was no farming of any kind on our property prior to us purchasing the property.

We have 29 acres with maybe 15 that could have something grown on it. With no fencing or irrigation the cost would have me working until I was 150 years old to pay the setup off. Learning from our neighbours that do grow something, the challenges and red tape from the government agencies make it almost impossible to do business.

I struggle to understand the reasons for this plan to be put into place as it just creates another layer of red tape that has no real plan on how this will benefit the people that live here. I own and have run a Firefighting business for the past 22 years and under the new rules where does that leave us? We have had our equipment stollen from us when we first moved here and almost bankrupt us. No help from the police. The criminals walked away. The government that we worked for stoped paying their bills as the contract spelled it out and now we have moved on to better clients.

I have given a bit of our background for those that don’t know us. The reason is I would like someone that is a decision maker to answer me this.

1) What is the benefit to us the tax payers that you work for?
2) What does this mean for us when we decide to do something with our property? Do we now need to spend the next 5 years waiting for the 2 or 3 or how many different government groups to decide weather we can or can not do something on our property that we own and pay taxes for?
3) What is next? If a different person gets into power is something else going to be thrown at us to block and cost us more money?
4) How is this a Democrat process when the people that get voted in promise us that they have no plan to do this and within the first 6-12 months start this process?
5). What happens if we do what the local government does and say one thing and do another?
6). Are we as tax paying citizens that live in the area that has this plan being developed for US going to have an opportunity to sit down with the decision makers before any more decisions are made? A virus should not allow decisions to be made without community meetings.

My concerns are that I am struggling to keep our business working along with our neighbours and find this much more stressful than this virus.

I am a team player and have been my whole life. If this is the best thing for our community as a whole, I am in. If this benefits the few I am not going to sit down and be told what is going to happen to us like I was 8 years old.

The proposed land use plan does not fit with our current land use nor our future land use. My family own 2 parcels within the TImberwolf area. One of our largest considerations when purchasing this land was the rural community feel and the lack of an OCP. Not having an OCP is what we would like to see for the future or alternatively, to see an OCP that allows land owners to develop their land, keeping in mind that this is a rural community, not a urban area or town site. Land owners should, within reason, maintain their ability to develop their land as they wish. A residential zoning does not fit with this area. We would like to work with the RDKB to look at coming up with an OCP that allows more flexibility than residential or no OCP at all.

The zoning plan for our property doesn't fit with what is happening with our property, what we been planing, or what the previous owners also had planned. I am not aware if we have been specifically asked about intentions for our property, but of coarse there has been some general public information. The "Rural resource" (policy) as currently stated in the draft is certainly not what we have planned.

Off hand, I can't really think of much I like about the plan in comparison to what seems to be currently working in our immediate area. ALR land restrictions already acts as a form of zoning for much of the area.

Possibly on further investigation there is something to be liked about the plan. We have spend 6 summers and are currently building, so not full time in the area yet.