THAT the Regional District Board recommends to FrontCounter BC that the application to purchase approximately 0.98 hectares of Crown land by the property owner of 6864 Leighton Crescent for “Rural Residential Purposes” is not supported.
Purpose: To dispose of two sections of Crown land representing a combined area of approximately 0.98 ha and which are to be consolidated with an adjacent privately held parcel.
Owners: Crown Land Agent: Bill Ross (obo Michael & Violet Wadman) Folio: N/A
Legal: That part of Lot 2f, District Lot 2450s, SDYD, Plan 1729, except Plans 26484, 26683, 35150 and part
within the Boundaries of District Lot 3583s, known as the “Flagstaff” Mineral Claim.
FrontCounter BC has referred to the Regional District an application to purchase Crown land for “Rural Residential Purposes” involving two sections of the former “irrigation lateral” near Leighton Crescent that represent a land area of approximately 0.98 hectare (ha).
The proponent is proposing to consolidate this parcel with their property at 6864 Leighton Crescent and has stated that “the irrigation r/w would be added to my present property and I could plant fruit trees or grapes over a period of time, if I wished to.”
FrontCounterBC has referred this application to the Regional District for comment and has advised a response is required by September 15, 2017, “in order for the application and adjudication process to move ahead.”
The subject area of Crown land comprises two distinct parts, one of which runs east-west and adjoins Highway 97 immediately north of its intersection with Leighton Crescent, with the second section running north-south and situated between the proponent’s properties at 6858 & 6864 Leighton Crescent to the east and the neighbouring Pacific Silica & Rock Quarry Limited operation to the west.
This “irrigation lateral” has, in parts, been revegetated and reverted to a natural state, or been put into agricultural production or has been utilised as road access for the adjacent rock quarry. A File No: C2017.109-CROWN
structure has also been placed on part of the “irrigation lateral” and an adjacent Crown parcel (6880 Leighton Crescent), and is possibly being used for residential purposes (by whom is unknown). The proponent’s property (at 6864 Leighton Crescent) is used primarily for agricultural purposes and includes a residential dwelling near the southern boundary and a vehicle storage use near the western boundary (possibly associated with their operation of “Mike’s Automotive Services” at 6886 Highway 97).
The surrounding pattern of development is largely characterised by agricultural uses to the north, the aforementioned quarry operation to the west, and residential development within the Town of Oliverto the south.
Under the Electoral Area “C” Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw No. 2452, 2008, the subject parcel is designated as Agriculture (AG), while Zoning Bylaw No. 2453, 2008, has zoned the land as Agriculture (AG1).
It is understood that the “irrigation lateral” parcel was created in the early 1920s in relation to the construction of an irrigation canal and was subsequently decommissioned in the 1960s and has remained largely un-used over the past 50 years.
The proponent’s property (6864 Leighton Crescent) was created at the same time as the Crown land parcel (i.e. 1921) and has subsequently been subdivided a number of times, with the most recent subdivision occurring on April 4, 1960, when the adjacent property at 6858 Leighton Crescent was created.
The proponent’s properties at 6864 & 6858 Leighton Crescent and parts of the Crown land parcel are
within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
In considering this proposal, Administration has no concerns with the proposed consolidation of that part of the “irrigation lateral” that adjoins the proponent’s property along its northern side boundary.
This area already appears to be used for agricultural purposes by the proponent and its consolidation with their property is unlikely to affect public access or adjacent property owners and users (i.e. such as the Fortis power lines that run over this section of Crown land).
With regard to the remainder of the “irrigation lateral”, which runs north-south between the proponent’s property and the Pacific Silica & Rock Quarry Limited operation, Administration does have a number of concerns.
First, it appears that a significant portion of this section of the “irrigation lateral” is required by the Pacific Silica & Rock Quarry Limited operation either for access to their site or storage of equipment.
Allowing this part of the “irrigation lateral” to be added to the proponent’s property could have negative implications for the on-going viability of the quarry operation as it would remove access to the local road network.
The OCP Bylaw shows the Pacific Silica & Rock Quarry Limited site as having “primary potential” for mineral resources and speaks to protecting “lands having recoverable aggregate or mineral resources from development or adjacent uses that would limit or prohibit extractioAt a minimum, Pacific Silica should be offered an opportunity, as an adjacent property owner, to acquire those parts of this Crown land parcel required to maintain access to their quarry operation.
Alternatively, access to the quarry operation should be addressed through a statutory right-of-way of the lands should they be sold to the proponent.
A second concern is that this proposal may result in the structure/residence that appears to be straddling the parcel line separating the “irrigation lateral” and the Crown land at 6880 Leighton
Crescent being partially incorporated in the proponent’s property at 6864 Leighton Crescent. As it is unknown who constructed this building and currently uses it, Administration is concerned that this proposal could adversely affect its continued use. Accordingly, any Crown grant of this land isseen to be premature and should be deferred pending the resolution of this building’s status. A third concern is that this proposal may result in the creation of an approximately 450 m2 remnant parcel of the “irrigation lateral” immediately to the north of the aforementioned structure/residence.
Administration is concerned that the creation of such a small, un-serviced parcel is not consistent with the requirements of the zoning bylaw (i.e. 1.0 ha requirement for un-serviced parcels) and how it may attempt to be used in future (i.e. for residential purposes).
Accordingly, Administration considers that — should this application be approved by the province —
this remaining section of the “irrigation lateral” be formally consolidated into Lot 48D, Plan KAP1729, District Lot 2450S, SDYD.
Finally, Administration does not support the proposal to consolidate that part of the “irrigation lateral” which adjoins the property at 6858 Leighton Crescent into the property at 6864 Leighton Crescent. The section of the lateral is approximately 1,500 m2 in area and shares a 75 metre frontage with 6858 Leighton Crescent.
While the applicant has verbally advised Administration that it is the proponent’s intent to split the lateral between these two properties, this is not formally indicated in the application materials and Administration considers it should be a condition of any approval.
In summary, while Administration is not opposed to the province divesting itself of this section of Crown land to adjacent property owners, the implications of this proposal on the continued viability of the adjacent quarry operation suggest it is premature and should be re-considered. For these reasons,
Administration does not support the current proposal.