CSRD BOARD REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chair and Directors Christine LeFloch Development Services Assistant File No: Date: LC2512F June 27, 2016 Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Application Section 20(2) - Subdivision within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Neil and Karl Bischoff RECOMMENDATION: THAT: Application No. LC2512F, Section 20(2) Subdivision within the ALR, for The Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, Township 23, Range 10, West of the 6th Meridian, Kamloops Division Yale District be forwarded to the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission recommending approval this 21st day of July, 2016. APPROVED for Board Consideration: Meeting Date: July 21, 2016 ^/^ i^ —7^_ Charles Hamilton, CAO SHORT SUMMARY: The subject property is located in the Magna Bay area of Electoral Area 'F and is jointly owned by Karl Bischoff and Neil Bischoff. The owners would like to subdivide the property into two parcels (31.1 ha and 34.2 ha) to help facilitate estate planning. This property is partially within the ALR and the proposed subdivision is not along the ALR boundary. Approval of the Agricultural Land Commission is required. If the application is approved by the ALC the owners would need to make an application to subdivide under Section 514 of the Local Government Act (subdivision for a relative), as the proposed parcel sizes do not meet the minimum parcel size of the Agricultural Zone of Magna Bay Zoning Bylaw No. 800. VOTING: Unweighted Corporate LGA Part 14 D (Unweighted) Weighted Corporate D Stakeholder (Weighted) D Page 1 of 17 9.3
Transcript
CSRD BOARD REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Chair and Directors
Christine LeFlochDevelopment Services Assistant
File No:
Date:
LC2512F
June 27, 2016
Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) ApplicationSection 20(2) - Subdivision within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR)Neil and Karl Bischoff
RECOMMENDATION: THAT:Application No. LC2512F, Section 20(2) Subdivision within the ALR, for TheSouthwest 1/4 of Section 23, Township 23, Range 10, West of the 6thMeridian, Kamloops Division Yale District be forwarded to the ProvincialAgricultural Land Commission recommending approval this 21st day of July,2016.
APPROVED for Board Consideration:
Meeting Date: July 21, 2016
^/^ i^ —7^_Charles Hamilton, CAO
SHORT SUMMARY:
The subject property is located in the Magna Bay area of Electoral Area 'F and is jointly owned by KarlBischoff and Neil Bischoff. The owners would like to subdivide the property into two parcels (31.1 ha and34.2 ha) to help facilitate estate planning. This property is partially within the ALR and the proposedsubdivision is not along the ALR boundary. Approval of the Agricultural Land Commission is required.If the application is approved by the ALC the owners would need to make an application to subdivideunder Section 514 of the Local Government Act (subdivision for a relative), as the proposed parcelsizes do not meet the minimum parcel size of the Agricultural Zone of Magna Bay Zoning Bylaw No.800.
VOTING: Unweighted Corporate
LGA Part 14 D(Unweighted)
Weighted Corporate D Stakeholder(Weighted)
D
Page 1 of 17
9.3
Board Report LC2512F July 21, 2016
BACKGROUND:
PROPERTY OWNER:
AGENT:
ELECTORAL AREA:
CIVIC ADDRESS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
SIZE OF PROPERTY:
DESIGNATION:
ZONING:
CURRENT USE:
PROPOSED USE:
Karl Bischoff and Neil Bischoff
Browne Johnson Land Surveyors (Joe Johnson)
T - Magna Bay
2703 Bischoff Road
The SW 'A of Section 23, Township 23, Range 10, West of the 6thMeridian, Kamloops Division Yale District
65.3 ha (161.35 acres)
Agriculture - AG
Agriculture Zone - A
single family dwelling, garage, barn, beef cattle, hay, pasture, selective
logging
2 lot subdivision
SURROUNDING LANDUSE PATTERN:
North:South:East:
West:
Agriculture
Country ResidentialAgriculture
Agriculture
SITE COMMENTS:
Staff visited the property on April 27th, 2016. The property has road access off Bischoff Road near thenorthern boundary via a shared driveway across the NW 1A of Section 23 situated to the north, whichis owned by a family member. A formal easement agreement has not yet been registered on title. Thetwo owners have informally divided the property so that one brother utilizes the area north of the creekand the other utilizes the area south of the creek. They would like to subdivide the property using thecreek as the boundary in order to formalize individual titles that may be passed to their children. Thesubject property and the surrounding lands were originally settled by the Bischoff family in 1913 (NorthShuswap Historical Society website).
The parcel is situated on a benched area above Shuswap Lake and below Crowfoot Mountain.Approximately 40% of the property is located within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The subjectproperty is divided by Bischoff Creek which flows from the north and Jack Creek which flows from theeast joining Bischoff Creek approximately halfway across the property. Bischoff Creek flows througha deep ravine on the western portion of the property which creates a significant natural divisionbetween the proposed two parcels. This differs from the east side of the parcel where the creek banksare less steep.
The ALR boundary is not consistent with Bischoff/Jack Creek. The portion of the property locatedwithin the ALR includes the northeastern portion of the parcel north of the creek and a smaller portionof the property located on the south side of the creek. The area located in the ALR and south of thecreek is mostly forested. There is also a hay field that is situated partially within the ALR. The applicant
Page 2 of 17
Board Report LC2512F July21,2016
has indicated that this hay field totals around 20 acres, though the majority of these lands are locatedoutside of the ALR. The area north of the creek and within the ALR is primarily hay and pasture. Theowners currently run 35 cow/calf pairs on the property. Buildings on the property include one singlefamily dwelling, a garage, and a barn. These are located in the northwest portion of the parcel, outsideof the ALR.
Land Interests in the Community:
Karl Bischoff is a co-owner of three additional parcels in the immediate area. Of these, two areadjacent and to the west of the subject property and the other lies northwest of, but not adjacent to thesubject property. This is shown graphically on the property ownership map on Page 11 of this report.Neil Bischoff is a co-owner of a property on Mabry Road in Lee Creek.
Soils Capability:
Canada Land Inventory mapping indicates that the subject property is divided into four different soilcapability ratings. These are described below. It is noted that soils on the subject lands are notimprovable.
Soils in the northeast corner of the property are Class 4 with4 W L_ excess moisture as a limiting factor. Soils in this class have
severe limitations that restrict the range of crops or requirespecial conservation practices.
8 26T-7T
P C
Soils in the southeast portion of the property are 80% Class 6 withtopography and stoniness and 20% Class 7 with topography andadverse climate as limiting factors. Class 6 soils are capable onlyof producing perennial forage crops, and are not improvable.
Soils in the northwest portion of the property are Class 6 withtopography, soil moisture deficiency and stoniness as limiting
M p _J factors.'
Soils in the southwest comer of the property are Class 7. Class 7soils have no capacity for arable culture or permanent pasture.
Soils on the west side of the property between the Class 6 and 70 ^— soils in the vicinity of the ravine are classed as organic and are not
placed in capability classes or given further discussion as part ofthe Canada Land Inventory.
History: There have been numerous ALC applications made in the area. See ALR/History Map.
• #1133(1975) ALC refused a 2 lot subdivision of 2.8 ac and remainder because fragmentationof land for residential purposes is not desirable in an agricultural area and the proposal wouldset a precedent for more small acreage subdivision in the area; however allowed a 2nddwelling for farm use.
• #1191 (1976) application to subdivide the northern ±80 acres from the 160.3 acres wasallowed. (1996) Commission approved an adjustment to the plan to allow the extension ofBischoff/Stevens Rd.
• #1331 (1977) Application to subdivide a 2 acre parcel from the remaining 40 acres refusedon the grounds that it would set a dangerous precedent in the predominantly agricultural areaand produce increased pressure for other similar subdivisions.
Page 3 of 17
Board Report LC2512F July21,2016
• #1409 (1977) ALC allowed subdivision of a 3.6 ac lot from the 132.2 ac parcel and allowedan access road to be constructed through a neighbouring property.
• #1500 (1978) application to subdivide the property into four parcels of twenty, thirty-five, forty-five and sixty acres, respectively was refused.
• #1747 (1982) ALC refused exclusion of 6.7 ha containing an old sawmill site; but wouldconsider a subdivision of that site.
• #1837 (1981) ALC refused subdivision of 2 lots by east-west division because the proposalwould sever the ALR portion and decrease the agricultural potential, but allowed subdivisionalong the ALR boundary - 1 lot of 6 ha and 4.5 ha (1983) reconsideration refused.
• #1840 (1982) ALC allowed subdivision of one 2 ha homesite for the owner but refused asecond homesite for his son. (1983) allowed the additional lot after applicant appealed andowner sold remainder.
• #1848 (1982) application to subdivide the property into 3 lots was approved, howeverapplicant did not proceed with subdivision. (2001) applicant requested a 2 lot subdivisionbased on the previous decision. This request was approved.
• #1855 (1982) application to subdivide a ±16 ha lot from the 64.7 ha parcel was refused.
• #LC2137F (1993) application to exclude 1 ha and subdivide the remainder into four 4 ha lotsand five 2.4 ha lots refused because of agricultural potential. ALC states that small lotsubdivisions create expectations of further subdivision among surrounding land owners.
• #LC2145F (1993) subdivision of 9.4 ha into two 2 ha lots and a 5.4 ha remainder refusedbecause of agricultural potential. ALC states that subdivision causes parcelization offarmland and negatively impacts surrounding agricultural operations. (1993) reconsiderationreconfirmed refusal. (1994) refused reconsideration but allowed a different 2 lot subdivisionconfiguration.
• #LC2241F (1999) application for subdivision to create a .8 ha lot for the owner's son to liveon and help with farm operations approved. Lot was created on lands with limited agriculturalpotential.
• #LC2364F (2007) application for exclusion of 24 ac on the east side of the property with 45ac remaining in the ALR refused because the exclusion and subdivision would negativelyimpact agriculture.
• #LC2473F (2014) application to subdivide a ±4 ha lot leaving a remainder of ±24 ha wasrefused due to concerns about impacts on surrounding agricultural community, includingexpectations of further subdivision amongst surrounding land owners.
POLICY:
Policies that relate to this application include the following:
Electoral Area 'F' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 830Section 11.3 Agriculture (AG)3.10.1 Policies and Objectives
Objective 1To support the long term viability of the agricultural industry in the North Shuswap and to ensurevaluable agricultural lands are preserved for agricultural purposes and protected from inappropriatefragmentation through subdivision.
Page 4 of 17
Board Report LC2512F July21,2016
Policy 1The lands designated as Agriculture are shown on Schedules B & C. Agriculture is the primary anddominant land use, with a full range of crop and livestock production activities permissible, as well ashomes, buildings and structures associated with agricultural operations. Lands within the Provincially-designated Agricultural Land Resen/e (ALR) at the time of writing of the Plan are shown on ScheduleD.
Policy 2The minimum parcel size for new subdivision within the Agriculture land use designation is 60 hectares(148 acres).
Policy 3New subdivisions are generally discouraged, other than subdivision or parcel consolidationsdemonstrated not to have an intrusive or conflicting impact on the surrounding agricultural community.
Policy 5New lots may be created within the ALR only where authorized by the Agricultural Land Commission.
Magna Bay Zoning Bylaw No. 800
Part 5-A- Agriculture Zone
5.2(1) Permitted Uses:The uses stated in this subsection and no others are permitted in the Agriculture zone, exceptas stated in Part 3 General Regulations.
(a) agriculture(b) aquaculture(c) bed and breakfast, permitted on a parcel 1 ha (2.47 ac.) or larger(d) home business(e) home industry, permitted on a parcel 4000 m2 (0.99 ac) or larger(f) kennel, permitted on a parcel 2 ha (4.94 ac.) or larger. Buildings and structures, including
runs must be a minimum of 30 m (98.43 ft.) from a parcel boundary.(g) residential campsite(h) single family dwelling(i) standalone residential campsite(j) accessory use
5.2(2) Regulations:On a parcel zoned Agriculture, no land shall be used; no building or structure shall beconstructed, located or altered; and no plan of subdivision approved; that contravenes theregulations stated in this subsection, except as stated in Part 3 General Regulations and Part4 Off Street Parking and Off Street Loading Regulations.
(a) Minimum parcel size created by subdivision: 60 ha (148.2 ac)
(b) Maximum number of single family dwellings per parcel:• On parcels with less than 30 ha (74.1 ac.): 1 per parcel
• On parcels equal to or greater than 30 ha (74.1 ac.): 2 per parcel*
*Properties located within the ALR and in zones that permit 2 single family dwellings must haveapproval of the ALC prior to establishing a second residence or must comply with the ALC Actand Regulations.
Page 5 of 17
Board Report LC2512F July21,2016
* It is noted that the proposed subdivision does not meet the minimum parcel size for this zone. If theALC approves this application the applicant would need to make application to subdivide underSection 514 of the Local Government Act; application to provide a residence for a relative. Alternately,they could apply to rezone the property to allow a smaller minimum lot size prior to making asubdivision application.
FINANCIAL:
There are no financial implications to the CSRD.
KEY ISSUES/CONCEPTS:
The applicants have indicated that the subject property is informally divided along the creek and thateach brother farms one of the areas. Therefore they would like to subdivide using the creek as a naturaldivision. They also note that the residence and outbuildings on the property are all located outside ofthe ALR boundary on the north side of the creek, so using the ALR boundary as the dividing line wouldsever these buildings from the remainder of the lands north of the creek that are being utilized as oneparcel.
The ALR portion of the subject property includes lands south of the creek which are noted on the soilclassification mapping as having Class 6-7 soils. Class 6 lands are capable of producing forage cropsonly. They are suitable for grazing but are not improvable. A subdivision along the ALR boundary wouldalienate these lands from the rest of the ALR portion by virtue of their being located on the oppositeside of the creek. A subdivision using the creek as the boundary would not change the existing use ofthe lands and would formalize it using a naturally occurring boundary as the division between the twoparcels.
Policy 3 of Section 11.3 of the Electoral Area 'F' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 830 states that"new subdivisions are generally discouraged, other than subdivision or parcel consolidationsdemonstrated not to have an intrusive or conflicting impact on the surrounding agricultural community".In this case, the soil conditions south of the creek are marginal and the land in the ALR is not intensivelyused for agriculture. The portion of the proposed parcel south of the creek that is not in the ALR isused for bush pasture and selective logging. Staff do not feel that the proposed subdivision would havean intrusive of conflicting impact on the agricultural community.
A review of historical ALR applications in the area indicates that while the ALC has been hesitant toapprove subdivisions due to the potential impact on the farming community, there have been occasionswhere subdivisions have been approved where warranted.
IMPLEMENTATION:
If the ALC approves this application the applicant would be able to make an application for subdivisionto the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in accordance with Section 514 of the LocalGovernment Act. If the ALC does not approve this application the owner could consider makingapplication to subdivide in a configuration that leaves the ALR portion intact. Such an application wouldnot require the approval of the ALC.
Page 6 of 17
Board Report LC2512F July 21, 2016
SUMMARY:
CSRD Development Services Department is recommending that the Board forward the application tothe ALC with a recommendation of approval for subdivision in the ALR for the following reasons:
• The ALR portion of the lands proposed to be subdivided contain marginal soils;• The proposed subdivision would not change the existing use of the parcel;• The proposed subdivision along Bischoff/Jack Creek is a natural division of the subject parcel;• The proposal is not expected to have an intrusive or conflicting impact on the agricultural
community; and• Area 'F' APC recommended approval of the application.
That the Board endorse staff recommendation (Option 1).
BOARD'S OPTIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Endorse staff recommendation. A recommendation of approval of the Applicationfor Subdivision will be forwarded to the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission.
Recommend refusal to the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission.
Defer
Any other action deemed appropriate by the Board.
COMMUNICATIONS:
This application was referred to the Advisory Planning Commission 'F' who recommended that theapplication be recommended for approval. The reasons given include:
• The APC supports the applicant's desire to subdivide for estate planning reasons.
The recommendation of the Board will be forwarded to the ALC for consideration during its review ofthis application.
REVIEWED BY:
Manager, DevelopmentServices
Date Signed Off(MO/DD/YR)
07/07,,^
Approval Signature of Reviewing Manager orTeam Leader^ ^ ^
Page 7 of 17
E'E
E^ J _ v . -. ":£ Is ; —.^ z ''• • ' ''^-
"
0
7"
•c
'?.'. _ "
t ,
7
0
t
T
<0
T
.<.
\
u'
_*L
M-~J
0(d
roUl03-03!30a.
00Q
^1
OCP
Zoning
9 of 17
0Q
~3^T
^•-''
^•^"''
!i 'i
5'5^ dN)-g
y>0Q.
r:?—1^ d_>.-0
0v>0Q-
^_
>I-
?0
!l !•
d1'06w(pQ.
|a>c0-a.<:en0
^1
Soil Capability
SubjectProperty
N
s:
:~i —T/eJ
6M * M I/p I" /
.------:<->-----
/ 86T-
—-/ p~7/
///
4
4W
27T
c
N
+0D1
i0
x
11 of 17
ALR History
Lafc 50.96515° N -
Lon: 119.34366° W °
*Numbers on map refer to historic application numbers as noted in the report.
