growth management strategy-mar07 - sicamous mana… · growth management strategy page 3 2.1 growth...

467-321

March 2007 (FINAL)

Growth Management Strategy

Project Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The District of Sicamous initiated a Growth Management Strategy (GMS) in 2006 in response to a rapid increase in the number of development applications submitted to the District. Development enquiries or direct applications to the District represented residential unit counts that more than doubled the existing number of dwelling units in the District. New commercial development associated with the tourism industry particularly house boating, also exhibited steady growth during this period. Faced with this burgeoning development industry the District resolved to undertake a comprehensive analysis of growth issues through a Growth Management Strategy. The Growth Management Strategy has two principle components. Phase 1 researches development trends and the impacts of projected development on the available land supply and community services. The potential impact on ALR lands is a key aspect of the Phase 1 analysis. Phase 2 researches community servicing capacity. The results of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 research are summarized in this report. The major policy directions arising from the Growth Management Strategy are:

establish a Growth Management Boundary to delineate core agricultural areas and limit future impacts of growth on agricultural lands;

develop policies to manage development in buffer areas along Growth Management Boundaries;

initiate a boundary extension application for hillside areas south of Sicamous; support ALR exclusion applications for areas on the urban side of the Growth

Management Boundary; develop an affordable housing strategy; and enhance Smart Growth policies to enhance Town Centre infill and

intensification. The Growth Management Strategy is intended to provide background information and policy direction for the update of the Official Community Plan. The GMS will be circulated to relevant agencies and will be available for community review. The results of this review will be taken into consideration when formulating final OCP policies. Accordingly, some of the recommendations from this report, particularly the location of the Growth Management Boundary, may be adjusted before final implementation in OCP policies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................... 1 1.2 Regional Context............................................................. 1 1.3 Report Format ................................................................. 2 Section 2.0 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH TRENDS................................... 3 2.1 Growth Rate .................................................................... 3 2.2 New Building Permit Activity ........................................ 5 2.3 Seasonal Recreation Development.................................. 5 2.3.1 Development Interest ......................................... 7 2.3.2 Non-Local Market.............................................. 9 2.3.3 Continued Demand ............................................ 12 2.4 Development Opportunities ............................................ 12 2.5 Projected Lot Absorption ................................................ 16 2.6 Development Constraints ................................................ 18 2.6.1 Steep Slopes South................................................ 20 2.6.2 Steep Slopes North................................................ 20 2.6.3 Agricultural Area .................................................. 20 2.6.4 Flood Plain ............................................................ 20 2.7 Growth Trend Summary ................................................. 20 Section 3.0 COMMERCIAL GROWTH TRENDS.................................. 22

3.1 Official Community Plan Policies.................................. 22 3.2 Growth Trends................................................................ 25 3.3 Commercial Land Use Summary ................................... 28

Section 4.0 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH TRENDS..................................... 29

4.1 Growth Trends and Inventory ........................................ 29 4.2 Official Community Plan Policies.................................. 29 4.3 Growth Projections......................................................... 29 4.4 Industrial Land Use Summary........................................ 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Section 5.0 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE............................................ 31

5.1 Official Community Plan Policies.................................. 31 5.2 Agricultural Suitability................................................... 31 5.3 Growth Pressures on the ALR........................................ 31

5.3.1 Growth Management Boundary ........................... 32 5.4 Agricultural Land Use Inventory.................................... 34

5.4.1 Inventory Method................................................. 34 5.4.2 Primary Land Use Activities ................................ 35 5.4.3 Agricultural Activity ............................................ 38 5.4.4 Underutilized and Undeveloped Parcels .............. 42 5.4.5 Inventory Highlights ............................................ 42

5.5 Growth Management Boundary Impact ......................... 43 5.6 Agricultural Sector Consultation.................................... 45 5.7 Strategies for Improving Conditions for Agriculture ..... 46

Section 6.0 COMMUNITY SERVICES................................................... 48 6.1 Existing Policy Context .................................................. 48 6.2 Growth Trends ................................................................ 49 6.3 Community Services....................................................... 51 6.3.1 Existing Services .................................................. 51 6.3.2 Service Gaps and Challenges................................ 53 Section 7.0 SERVICING .......................................................................... 55 7.1 Introduction..................................................................... 55 7.2 Water System .................................................................. 55 7.3 Sanitary Sewer System.................................................... 60 7.4 Stormwater Infrastructure ............................................... 65 Section 8.0 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS........................................ 65 8.1 Introduction..................................................................... 66 8.2 General Policies .............................................................. 66 8.3 Residential and Affordable Housing............................... 67 8.4 Commercial and Industrial Policies ................................ 70 8.5 Servicing ......................................................................... 70

1 INTRODUCTION

District of Sicamous Growth Management Strategy Page 1

We visualize a strong sense of community pride based on programs which include (but not be limited to) the provision of quality community services, expanded land use, infrastructure enhancement and beautification. We will practice sound environmental stewardship whilst generating new business opportunities and promoting the area as a year-round tourist destination.

1.1 Background The District of Sicamous initiated a Growth Management Strategy (GMS) in 2006 in response to a rapid increase in the number of development applications submitted to the District. Development enquiries or direct applications to the District represented residential unit counts that more than doubled the existing number of dwelling units in the District. New commercial development associated with the tourism industry particularly house boating, also exhibited steady growth during this period. Faced with this burgeoning development industry the District resolved to undertake a comprehensive analysis of growth issues through a Growth Management Strategy. The Growth Management Strategy has two principle components. Phase 1 researches development trends and the impacts of projected development on the available land supply and community services. The potential impact on ALR lands is a key aspect of the Phase 1 analysis. Phase 2 researches community servicing capacity. Phase 1 – Analysis of Growth Trends

inventory of major residential development projects analysis of residential, commercial and industrial development trends land absorption projections impact on Agricultural Land Reserve recommended ALR policy strategy

Phase 2 – Servicing Strategy

detailed servicing analysis strategies to manage growth and deliver cost effective services

1.2 Regional Context The District of Sicamous is located on the Trans Canada Highway on the shores of both Shuswap and Mara Lakes. The District has an attractive setting positioned between these two lakes and offers a gateway to a large lakeside recreation area. Marketed as the “Houseboat Capital of Canada”, the community vision as stated in the Official Community Plan is:

1 INTRODUCTION


The 2001 Canada Census reported a population for Sicamous of 2720 and BC Stats reports a population of 3043 persons for 2005. Figure 1.1 illustrates the steady and gradual growth of Sicamous since 1990. Sicamous provides small town services and has an economy dominated by the tourism sector and the houseboat industry. The attractive natural setting is also a strong draw for recreation/resort property development and has provided a major stimulus to growth. Figure 1.1 – Historical Growth 1.3 Report Format Phase 1 of the District of Sicamous Growth Management Strategy provides an analysis of growth trends through a discussion that is organized into the following sections:

residential growth trends commercial growth trends industrial growth trends agricultural land use community services policy recommendations

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Popu

latio

n

2 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH TRENDS


2.1 Growth Rate Figure 1.1 illustrated the population growth for the District of Sicamous from 1990 to 2005. Growth rates during this period fluctuated, with a high of 7.4% in 1994 and a low in 2000 that saw the population decline at a rate of 3.1%. Overall there has been an average annual increase of 1.4% over the previous 15 year period. Figure 2.1 demonstrates projected growth continuing at 1.4% and also considers the impact of higher growth rates. An increase in the growth rate from 1.4% to 2% annually, adds an extra 500 persons over the 20 year period from 2005 to 2025. Figure 2.1 – Growth Projections

Table 2.1 presents the data for a projected annual growth rate of 1.4% and indicates that a total of 443 new units will need to be constructed over the next 20 years to accommodate projected new residential growth.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Year

Popu

latio

n

1.4% 2.0% 2.7%

(5185)

(4522)

(4018)



Table 2.1: Projected Population Growth

1 Population Change = (l+r)n x P1 where: r = average annual growth rate (1.4%) n = time in years since initial population P1 = 2005 population of 3043 2 Based on census rate of 2.2 person/”occupied private dwellings”

Year Population1 Population Demand for Change New Units²

2006 3086 43 192007 3129 43 202008 3173 44 202009 3217 44 202010 3262 45 202011 3308 46 212012 3354 46 212013 3401 47 212014 3449 48 222015 3497 48 222016 3546 49 222017 3595 50 232018 3646 50 232019 3697 51 232020 3749 52 242021 3801 52 242022 3854 53 242023 3908 54 252024 3963 55 252025 4018 55 25

Total New Units 443



2.2 New Building Permit Activity Table 2.2 provides an inventory of new residential construction in Sicamous from 1996 to 2006. Building permits for multi-family units have dominated the new construction market representing 69% of all new construction activity. Most of this activity has taken place since 2003. The number of new single family residential units has exhibited a steadier rate of growth with an average of 10 new units per year from 1996 to 2006. Table 2.2: Building Permit Activity 2.3 Seasonal Recreation Development The seasonal recreation housing market in Sicamous is an important consideration in the assessment of residential growth trends. In 2001 the Canada Census reported 1599 private dwellings in Sicamous and 1215 private dwellings that were occupied by permanent residents. The difference (384 units) is likely seasonally occupied dwellings. The focus on seasonal development has intensified since 2001 with the majority of new multi-family construction in Sicamous catering to the seasonal recreation market. The significance of this sector is apparent when comparing the impact of potential population growth (opportunity for new residents in newly constructed units) to the actual population growth as summarized in Table 2.3. It is apparent from Table 2.3 that a large proportion of the growth is targeted to the seasonal residential market. In the 10 year period from 1996 to 2006 there were

Year Single Multi- Mobile Seasonal Total UnitsFamily Family Home

1996 23 0 0 0 231997 22 68 1 1 921998 8 0 4 0 121999 9 10 1 0 202000 4 0 0 0 42001 6 10 0 0 162002 6 10 4 1 212003 6 20 0 1 272004 12 60 6 0 782005 8 76 2 0 862006 (May) 4 31 0 0 35Total 108 285 18 3 414



more new units constructed than could be occupied by the District’s population growth. In Table 2.3 new units that cannot be assigned to population growth are considered to be occupied by seasonal residents, producing an average of 76 new seasonal residents per year. Table 2.3: Seasonal Residential Growth Estimates 1996 – 2006

New Units Potential Annual Potential New Year (Building Population in Population Seasonal

Permits) New Units1 Change² Residents 1996 23 51 -38 89 1997 92 202 10 192 1998 12 26 79 -53 1999 20 44 -42 86 2000 4 9 -92 101 2001 16 35 -41 76 2002 21 46 50 -4 2003 27 59 14 45 2004 78 172 119 53 2005 86 189 21 168 2006 35 77 0 77

TOTAL 414 911 80 831

1 2.2 persons/unit ² Source: BC Stats, 2006 Figure 2.2 illustrates the cumulative effect of seasonal and permanent residents in the District of Sicamous where the growth pattern experienced from 1996 – 2006 (76 new seasonal residents per year) is projected to continue over the next 20 years. Three factors suggest that this is a conservative estimate and that the District of Sicamous will continue to have a strong market for seasonal properties. These factors are:

strong development interest for recreation resort units. growth supported by non-local market. continued provincial and national demand for recreational properties, particularly

from aging/retiring baby boomers.



Figure 2.2 – Growth Projections with Seasonal Residents

2.3.1 Development Interest Figure 2.3 identifies properties where there is existing or planned development interest in Sicamous. Figure 2.3 illustrates that development interest is occurring in three areas:

waterfront existing community Agricultural Land Reserve

The most significant area of development interest is for multi-family development along the waterfront. The housing product proposed for these areas is typically a recreation/resort unit. (Source: District of Sicamous, 2006).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Year

Popu

latio

n

permanent residents seasonal & permanent residents

6760

4020



Figure 2.3 – Development Interest



“Since 1989, resort and recreation property ownership and development have formed markers on the landscape that are every bit as dramatic as previous episodes reaching back into the late 1800’s and driven by mining interests, agriculture, and forestry.

(Pringle & Owen, 2006)

2.3.2 Non-Local Market Development in Sicamous is strongly influenced by non-local demand. The importance of non-local markets is clearly evident in Table 2.4. The B.C. Assessment Authority data for properties in Sicamous has been sorted by postal code using the address of the registered property owners. The importance of the Calgary market and markets in other areas of B.C. is clearly evident in this data. Figure 2.3 maps this data and illustrates the strong attraction of waterfront areas to non-local property owners. This trend is also evident when examining residential properties only. In 2006, about 70% of all residential properties were occupied by full time residents. Table 2.4 – Property Ownership

Sicamous East Kootenay

Reg. Dist.*

Address of Registered Owner All Classes % Address of Registered Owner Sicamous 1,159 58% East Kootenay Reg. District 59% Rest of B.C. 330 17% Rest of B.C. 5% Alberta 467 23% Alberta 17% Rest of Canada 26 1% Rest of Canada 2% USA 4 0% USA 1% International 2 0% Other & Pooled Government 16% Total Assessment Folios 1,988 100% 100% Source: Pringle, T. and Owen, S. (2006) How Growth in the Recreation & Resort Property Market is Driving Change in the East Kootenay

Region. Communities in Transition & Real Estate Foundation of B.C. Note: The East Kootenay study pooled government addresses due to the large amount of rural Crown Land acreages. Crown land does

not have the same impact on properties in Sicamous because of its urban context.

Table 2.4 also provides similar data on property ownership for the East Kootenay Regional District. The East Kootenay study was undertaken because the researchers were aware that a regional real estate market (beyond the local market) was influencing community change in local communities.



Figure 2.4 – Property Ownership Distribution



The data in Table 2.4 illustrates the strength of the Calgary market in both Sicamous and the East Kootenay Regional District. The following highlights from the Kootenay study are provided to give context to the trends for Sicamous. Highlights from the Kootenay study:

in the interval between 1989 – 1996 median property prices more than doubled in the Kootenays.

purchasers from Alberta participated in 60% of the sales. non resident property owners acquired 62% of the new properties developed since

2006. positive results of the increased market demand were imported capital, tax revenues,

new property development and employment growth. a negative result of the imported inflation of real estate values was that the price of

“entry level” properties rose disproportionately to local incomes. Comprehensive analysis of real estate trends is beyond the scope of this study and has not been prepared for the Sicamous area however there is evidence of inflated real estate values in the building permit values for new construction as shown in Table 2.5. Table 2.5: Building Permit Values (Construction Only, No Land)

Year

Multi Family Units

% Change

Single Family Units

% Change

1997 $94,229 $110,516 2005 $216,266 130% $266,428 141%

Labour force incomes have not kept pace with inflated housing values during the similar timeframe, reflecting an impact on housing affordability.

Year Income % Change 1996 Average Total Income (Canada Census) $17,800 1997 Average Income (BC Stats) $21,703 22% 2001 Average Income (BC Stats) $23,230 7%



2.3.3 Continued Demand Evidence of expectations for continued demand in the growth of the seasonal recreation/ resort market is provided through the sheer number of new units planned for Sicamous (Table 2.6). This market is largely fuelled by growth in the ‘baby boomer’ population which continues to grow and bring more affluent, retiring purchasers into the market. Average prices for recreational/chalet/condominium properties increased by 19.5% from 2004 to 2005 in B.C. and “market conditions are unlikely to ease anytime soon as there will be seven prospective cottage/recreational property purchases for every two cottage/ recreational property vendors within the next three years” (Royal Lepage, 2006). 2.4 Development Opportunities Development opportunities in Sicamous are summarized in Table 2.6. The map identification numbers refer to the key on Figure 2.3. As indicated in Table 2.6 the majority of the development units and land area are located within the Recreation/Resort Development Area. This is the area and real estate product that is projected to be purchased by non-resident, second homebuyers, typically from outside of the Sicamous area. While some of these purchasers may ultimately become permanent residents in Sicamous, these properties are not expected to service the projected community growth. The two main considerations limiting marketability to local residents are: affordability and the high density design format.



Table 2.6: Development Opportunity

Table 2.7 presents an inventory of vacant residential lots in Sicamous. The inventory is based on assessment data (lots with no improvements) and was confirmed through site inspections (Figure 2.5). It is estimated that two thirds (2/3’s) of the vacant single family residential lots are considered unavailable for development because:

lots are currently in use in conjunction with neighbouring property. lots have environmental constraints (e.g. lack of opportunity for servicing or located

in environmentally sensitive area). no owner interest in sale or development.

EstimatedMulti- Single Density Total

ha Family Family units/ha UnitsFigure 2.3Map ID Recreation/Resort Development Area

1 Twin Anchors Resort Marina 92.2 6804 Three Buoys - Moore Avenue 1.0 74 72.510 Bayview 10.0 70 8.011 Tepee - Hwy 97A 1.2 25 20.312 Sable Developments - Mara Lake Lane 1.4 160 113.513 Grandview - Mara Lake Lane 0.8 40 53.314 222 - Mara Lake Lane 1.0 98 94.215 West of Buena Vista 1.4 25 17.916 Mervyn Road 0.7 80 115.917 Wiseman Creek 4.2 74 17.5

sub-total 206.2 1256 70 1326

Community Development Area:2 Old Spallumcheen Road 11.1 36 3.33 Old Spallumcheen Road 4.9 4 0.85 Temple Street 1.1 60 54.16 Hemlock Cres 3.1 45 14.39 Holly Ave - Hillside Development 20.7 50 2.418 Old Town Road North Bench 92.6 unknown

sub-total 133.6 141 54 195

TOTAL 339.8 1397 124 1521

Unit Type



Table 2.7: Vacant Residential Lot Inventory Land Use

Parcels <550m²

Parcels 550 -

1000m²

Parcels 1000 - 2000m²

Parcels

>2000m²

Total

Actual Opportunity

(33%) Medium Density Residential 0 6 3 1 10 (incl. in Table 2.6)

Single Family Residential 0 20 13 3 36 13 Total 0 26 16 4 46 13

Properties expected to accommodate future community growth (permanent residents) are outlined in Table 2.8. Table 2.8 indicates that existing residential development opportunities in Sicamous can accommodate an estimated 178 new units. Table 2.8: Community Development Opportunities – Non-Seasonal Residential Projects

0-5 years Short Term Potential

5 – 10 years Short Term Potential

Figure 2.3 Map ID

Project

Comments

Total Unit

Potential MF SF MF SF 2 Old Spallumcheen Rd. servicing issues 36 -- -- 36 -- 3 - Old Spallumcheen

Road recent subdivision 4 -- 4 -- --

5 Temple Street will also market to non-residents – 50% of 60 units

30 30 -- -- --

6 Hemlock Crescent current proposal 45 45 -- 9 Holly Ave. Extension significant servicing

issues and steep slopes

50 -- 10 -- 40

Vacant Lots

Existing 0nly 33% available for development

13 -- 13 -- --

18 Old Town Road North Slopes

density restricted by limited servicing and slope slopes

N/A

TOTAL 178 75 27 36 40



Figure 2.5 – Vacant Residential Lot Inventory



2.5 Projected Lot Absorption Population projections for Sicamous (Table 2.1) suggest approximately 20 new residential units will be required per year. Two lot absorption strategies are presented to illustrate projected development scenarios for existing lots. Table 2.9 illustrates development demand for single family only. This is based on the premise that Sicamous is a small town environment where the traditional and preferred housing format is single family. In this scenario there is an immediate need for new low density single family development opportunities. Planned developments will absorb some of this demand within the first 10 year period however there will be a period when demand cannot be supplied. A review of Table 2.9 indicates that by 2007, 12 new lots are required. From 2007-08 there is a demand for 52 new lots that cannot be met. This demand cannot even be satisfied if the new lots that are planned for the next 5-10 year period are brought on the market sooner. With full development of all identified single family residential properties, the available land supply is not projected to last beyond 2011 with supply shortages in 2007-09. Demand for new lots may be even higher because there has been a prolonged period of limited lot availability in Sicamous that has produced an existing unmet demand. With a mix of housing options (multifamily and single family) growth can be accommodated until approximately 2014 however, it will be critical over the next ten years to be considering new development options. Options may include:

expanding to new areas intensification and redevelopment strategies growth management policies (e.g. development controls)

Table 2.10 illustrates a lot absorption pattern where a mix of multi-family and single family accommodates projected development. This scenario will require some adjustment of housing preferences, however it is a trend occurring in other small municipalities and is supported in most Official Community Plans as a smart growth policy.



Table 2.9: Lot Absorption Projections – Single Family Only

Year Demand for RequiredNew Units 0-5 years 5-10 years New Lots

2006 19 19 02007 20 8 122008 20 202009 20 202010 20 20 02011 21 20 12012 21 212013 21 212014 22 222015 22 222016 22 222017 23 232018 23 232019 23 232020 24 242021 24 242022 24 242023 25 252024 25 252025 25 25

443 27 40 376

Lot Absorption Available lots



Table 2.10: Lot Absorption Projections – Single and Multi-Family 2.6 Development Constraints Options for new development are limited by three main development constraints as shown in Figure 2.6.

steep slopes Agricultural Land Reserve designation flood plain

Year Demand for RequiredNew Units 0-5 years 5-10 years New Lots

2006 19 19 02007 20 20 02008 20 20 02009 20 20 02010 20 20 02011 21 3 18 02012 21 21 02013 21 21 02014 22 16 62015 22 222016 22 222017 23 232018 23 232019 23 232020 24 242021 24 242022 24 242023 25 252024 25 252025 25 25

443 102 76 265

Lot Absorption Available lots/units



Figure 2.6 – Development Constraints



2.6.1 Steep Slopes South The steep slopes to the south of the community are considered within the assessment of planned development opportunities. Development on these slopes will be restricted to low densities. The only parcel currently in the development queue is the Bayview site (Figure 2.3 Map ID #10) where view lots are commanding premium prices. Hillside lots on Holly Ave. extension are also considered viable but will need to be priced to recognize higher servicing cost and lower densities. 2.6.2 Steep Slopes North The areas of steep slopes shown on Figure 2.6 to the north of the community (Figure 2.3 Map ID #18) may also accommodate some future development, particularly as new servicing is constructed to service the Twin Anchors Resort Marina. It is unlikely, however that these properties will be able to address short term growth demands (5-10 years) because steep terrain conditions will limit development densities and significantly increase costs. 2.6.3 Agricultural Area The District of Sicamous has substantial, continuous areas of land in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The ALR has acted as growth boundary, focusing development to the main core of the community. Development pressure, pushing against this boundary will be discussed in Section 3. 2.6.4 Flood Plain The flood plain, although potentially impacting major areas of the community, represents a constraint that can be addressed through technical design and engineering solutions. 2.7 Growth Trend Summary The following issues are significant in terms of managing future residential growth in Sicamous. 1. Impacts of non-resident seasonal recreation market.

The development market is currently dominated by projects catering to the non-resident seasonal recreation market. Most of the District’s lakeshore development is planned for this market under existing development policies. The District has little opportunity to alter this course given current policies and approvals. This development product will



create new challenges and resources for the community. Specifically, Phase II of the Growth Management Study should consider the following.

the new recreation/resort development is achieving a relatively high density, supporting Smart Growth policies of land use intensification within existing development areas.

recreation/resort units are unlikely to provide a housing product that addresses local community demands.

demand for new recreation/resort units is driven by a market from outside the community and introduces new economic and social realities including inflated land values and a growing disparity between housing sale prices and household incomes.

new residents of the recreation/resort units highly value the natural amenity features of the area and new policies may be required to protect and enhance these features as the development footprint rapidly increases (e.g. lakeshore views, foreshore quality and lake access).

the recreation/resort development area is sufficiently different from the main community area of Sicamous such that it should be evaluated and addressed independently in terms of growth projection scenarios.

2. Limited development opportunities to accommodate future community growth.

Development projections and the assessment of development opportunities indicates that the District of Sicamous has both a short and long term demand for new development that will be a challenge to meet. Constrained by steep slopes, existing development patterns and natural geographic boundaries (e.g. rivers and the lakeshore), development pressures are pushing against ALR lands. The District of Sicamous should adopt policies to protect the future of agriculture and minimize the impact of urban growth on agriculture. While some ALR lands are necessary to accommodate immediate growth needs, efforts can be made to manage future impacts on ALR lands.

3 COMMERCIAL GROWTH TRENDS


3.1 Official Community Plan Policies The Official Community provides 3 commercial land use designations in the District of Sicamous – Waterfront Commercial/Residential; Highway Commercial; and Town Centre. Figure 3.1 amalgamates these land uses into two distinct functional commercial areas – the Town Centre or central core commercial area and the Trans Canada Highway tourist commercial area. The OCP recognizes that these two areas service different markets and should be encouraged to be compatible in their development yet capable of catering to unique and separate clientele. OCP policies supporting this pattern include: Policy 7.3.4 Support high-density residential use within or adjacent to the central

commercial and waterfront commercial areas to encourage vitality, safety, after hours use and increasing pedestrian access. This type of development should not erode the supply of commercial land available in the central area but complement it by using second and/or third storey housing above commercial uses.

Policy 7.3.5 Exclude major commercial development outside of the highway,

waterfront or town center commercial areas. Policy 7.3.6 Revisit and build upon the design guidelines in collaboration with the

community, for both commercial areas as they pertain to the public realm (landscaping, signage, road and sidewalk design) and private property (building height/density, mass of buildings scale and materials).

Policy 7.3.7 Ensure all new commercial development is fully serviced. Council will

consider expanding the waterfront commercial area further south following the appropriate servicing and other studies deemed necessary.



Figure 3.1 Commercial and Industrial Lot Inventory



The current Official Community Plan policies are effective as growth management tools through a number of strategies. Existing policies are particularly effective through their support of infill development in the Town Centre. Policies encourage infill, intensification, environmental stewardship, transportation options and a mixture of diverse land uses. These policies are consistent with the Smart Growth framework that many BC Communities are supporting. Implementation of Smart Growth principles in Sicamous has faced both successes and challenges. Smart Growth Successes:

1. New comprehensive neighbourhood developments with compact footprints and mixed uses (e.g. Twin Anchors Resort Marina in Old Town Bay) making efficient use of non-agricultural lands.

2. Re-development in the waterfront adding diversity to the core area with high density

residential development adjacent to commercial, tourism and resort uses.

3. Application of new technologies and land use strategies freeing up waterfront development sites for more intensive land uses (e.g. shoreline boat storage relocated and/or replaced with vertical boat storage structures).

4. Infill development along highway frontages for new highway service commercial uses

(e.g. hotel expansion). Challenges for Smart Growth:

1. Many commercial sites, particularly along the Trans Canada Highway are underdeveloped with small building footprints. This format is necessary to maintain future options for on-site disposal systems but these lands could accommodate additional future development if more highway properties are added to the community sanitary sewer system. The District faces a challenge for sewer system extensions in that the Highway commercial area is interrupted by agricultural parcels, thereby impacting cost efficiency for future extensions. The District will need to carefully manage development along the highway to ensure that any sewer system extension is not a catalyst for future development applications.

2. Highway commercial uses, primarily catering to the traveling public, are a part of the

tourism economy that dominates business in Sicamous. Highway businesses can be anticipated to grow as highway traffic continues to rise and new market niches evolve (e.g. more bus traffic and increased winter recreation). The District has a number of commercial sites that can be more intensively developed to address this growth but will



ultimately require additional lands to create a continuous development corridor with the necessary land use and servicing connections (e.g. compatible land use, transportation, servicing).

3. The map of commercial land (Figure 3.1) illustrates that the largest supply of vacant

commercial lands is adjacent to the Town Centre and within the Town Centre there is limited vacant or underdeveloped land. Given this pattern, it is anticipated that future Town Centre development pressures will spill over into the Highway Commercial area. It is likely that regional commercial uses, particularly those requiring large building formats (mixed use or large format retail) will compete for these large vacant sites. The community may want to debate a response to these pressures, particularly in relation to Smart Growth principles.

3.2 Growth Trends

Table 3.1 summarizes commercial and industrial building permit activity for the District of Sicamous from 1997 to 2005. During this period approximately 15,000 m2 of commercial industrial floor area has been constructed. The majority of this new development activity has been commercial construction in the Town Centre. The District of Sicamous has also accommodated two large industrial projects associated with the tourism industry (houseboat manufacturing). There have been fewer new development projects in the highway commercial area and, where development has occurred, building footprints have been small.



Table 3.1: New Commercial and Industrial Building Permit Activity Year New Floor Hwy Commercial Town Centre Other/Industrial

Area - m² m² m² m²

2005 1199.7 799.0 400.8

2004 591.8 488.7 103.1

2003 1085.1 278.7 806.4

2002 3670.6 315.9 205.3 3149.4

2001 845.4 646.6 157.9 440.0

2000 799.0 799.0

1999 188.1 188.1

1998 2602.7 87.3 2515.3

1997 4043.0 118.9 2813.8 1110.2

Total 15025.4 2735.1 7886.7 4802.7

18% 52% 32%

Average m²/yr 1669 304 876 534

Table 3.2 illustrates the projected rates of absorption for commercial lands in the Town Centre based on the parcel inventory presented in Figure 3.1 and the development trends (average 876 m²/yr) presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.2: Projected Absorption of Commercial Land in the Town Centre

Potential

No. of Parcels

Total Lot Area - m²

Available for Development (75% of Total

Area) Site

Coverage Floor Area

Average New

Construction Years

Developed 100 326732 Vacant and 38 62502 46876.5 @35% 16407 876 m2/yr 19Underdeveloped @50% 23438 876 m2/yr 27

sub-total 389234

Vacant only 16 24003 18002.25 @35% 6301 876 m2/yr 7 @50% 9001 876 m2/yr 10



Table 3.2 indicates that Sicamous has an estimated 7-10 year supply of vacant land available for new development in the Town Centre if existing development trends continue. This is a relatively limited supply and the District of Sicamous needs to continue to support strategies for infill and intensification. Table 3.2 illustrates, for example, that by using underdeveloped lands the District will be able to accommodate future commercial land use needs for approximately 20-30 years.

Table 3.3: Highway Commercial Land Inventory

Land Status Parcels Area m² % of Total Area

Developed 66 244,749 67% Vacant or underdeveloped

12 120,587 33%

Total 88 365,336 100%

Table 3.3 presents an inventory of the lands designated for highway commercial use. The District of Sicamous has a relatively large supply of vacant and underdeveloped highway commercial land (12 ha or 33% of the total area designated for highway commercial use). Although the District has a significant supply of designated highway commercial land, there area a number of factors to consider in planning for future commercial land use needs.

Commercial growth typically lags behind residential growth as businesses wait for

new population and economic thresholds to be reached before new investments are made. Sicamous has significant new or planned development that will trigger new commercial demand over the next 10 year period.

The Town Centre commercial area has a limited supply of available land, and will

likely need to encroach into the Highway Commercial area, particularly if Sicamous takes on a bigger role as a regional commercial centre and accommodates large format, regional shopping facilities.

Sicamous services a regional tourist market with highway facilities such as

restaurants, hotels and automobile services. As Sicamous expands its role in this market, new facilities will be required. All of these uses are generally land extensive and could quickly absorb the existing supply of vacant commercial land.

Some of the existing developed lands can be developed more intensively, however,

community sanitary sewer system collection services would be required. The extension of the sanitary sewer system will be a costly project because there is



limited neighbouring development to partner on the project. Infilling along the highway corridor will help to make any future servicing extension projects more economically viable.

3.3 Commercial Land Use Summary

The commercial land use inventory indicates that the District of Sicamous has a sufficient supply of commercial land to accommodate future short term growth projections. Long term demand and supply patterns are harder to anticipate because demand for new commercial development is sporadic and it is difficult to predict how changes in retail formats and new tourism market niches will impact demand and supply.

In order to plan for the long term needs of the community it will be necessary to make efficient use of all commercial lands. The two key planning issues are:

Planning for the vacant highway commercial land adjacent to the Town Centre, and

Finalizing the format of the highway commercial area to minimize encroachments in

the ALR while supporting a logical highway development pattern with required servicing infrastructure (e.g. sanitary sewer collection system and highway frontage roads).

4 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH TRENDS


4.1 Growth Trends and Inventory The District of Sicamous has a relatively small inventory of industrial land, as shown on Figure 3.1 and the majority of this land is vacant. There is also a limited amount of light industrial activity occurring along the Trans Canada Highway within the highway service commercial area. Table 3.1 indicates that the building permit activity from 1997 to 2005 has been limited to two major projects. Both of these projects have been associated with the boating industry.

4.2 Official Community Plan Policies The current Official Community Plan policies anticipate future industrial development to be accommodated within existing industrially designated areas. As well, future industrial uses are encouraged to be light industry and provided with Municipal services.

4.3 Growth Projections The inventory of industrial land presented in Table 4.1 indicates that the houseboat industry (Twin Anchors) retains control over a substantial portion of the lands designated for industrial use in the District of Sicamous. The remaining inventory consists of one large subdivideable site and two smaller sites. Vacant industrially designated land may represent a significant area of land (23.3 ha) but it provides limited opportunity for future development (i.e. 7 sites for new businesses).

Table 4.1: Projected Development Scenarios for Industrial Land

Development Scenario Vacant Sites

m² Building

Footprint m² Lot Size

m² Site Coverage Number of New

Businesses

Large Format Industrial 23,954 3,150 13% Twin Anchors Expansion

Large Format Industrial 65,150 5,000 8% Twin Anchors ExpansionLarge Format Industrial (5/lots) 134,051 3,150 21,448 15% 5

Small Format Industrial 7,732 1,200 16% 1

Small Format Industrial 2,067 500 24% 1

Total 232,954 m² 7

4 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH TRENDS


4.4 Industrial Land Use Summary The District of Sicamous currently has an inventory of industrial land to accommodate new industrial business and expansion of existing business (house boat manufacturing). Although there has not been a recent short term demand for these lands, they should be retained as industrial land consistent with the current Official Community Plan. The present Official Community Plan designations for industrial use, Figure 3.1, include two industrial areas within the Agricultural Land Reserve. ALR boundary adjustments are recommended for both of these sites but there should be no further expansion of the industrial area into the ALR.

5 AGRICULTURAL LAND USE


5.1 Official Community Plan Policies The District of Sicamous contains active farming and viable agricultural land and the Official Community Plan policies support a future for agriculture. The Official Community Plan recognizes the traditional role of agriculture in the local economy and policies are generally directed towards efforts that support and enhance agricultural areas and discourage the addition of non-farm uses into the ALR. The plan does not provide a specific growth management strategy to deal with agricultural land and new policies are required to protect a future for agriculture. 5.2 Agricultural Suitability The Canada Land Inventory of Soil Capability for Agriculture rates most of the ALR lands in Sicamous (Eagle River Valley) as either Class 3 or 4. Climatically, Sicamous is able to support the existing variety of crops including corn silage, forage crops, grapes and market garden produce. There are some limitations on agriculture due to the potential of spring frosts and winter injury in the valley. 5.3 Growth Pressures on the ALR While the OCP is supportive of the ongoing enhancement of agriculture and protection of the ALR, a review of growth trends in Sicamous has indicated that there are pressures from the future growth of residential, commercial and industrial land uses on the ALR. Figure 5.1 presents an overview of ALR lands in the District of Sicamous and identifies ALR properties that are under pressure from urban growth (Table 5.1).

Existing Rural/Residential Encroachment



Table 5.1: Growth Pressures on ALR Lands

Figure 5.1 Map Site No.

Land Use Pressure

Area in

ALR

Existing Condition

Existing Use 1 Industrial 6.5 ha Property held for future

industrial business expansion Vacant

3 Highway Commercial

.8 ha Natural/treed Vacant

4 Highway Commercial

4.1 ha Abandoned pasture and small livestock barn

Mostly Vacant

6 Urban Residential 7 ha 85% abandoned pasture Partially Vacant 7 Urban Residential 0.8 ha 85% abandoned pasture Partially Vacant 8 Urban Residential 1.3 ha 85% abandoned pasture Partially Vacant 9 Urban Residential 13.9 ha 20% abandoned pasture Partially Vacant

Total New Development Pressure 34.4 ha 2 Industrial 4.4 ha Recent ALR exclusion

application Vacant

5 Existing Rural Residential

Numerous existing rural residential – < 0.8 ha/lot

Vacant

5.3.1 Growth Management Boundary A Growth Management Boundary is presented on Figure 5.1. It is recommended that this boundary be established to distinguish between urban and non-urban areas. The urban area only includes ALR properties that are currently experiencing growth pressures as identified in Table 5.1. Lands outside of the Growth Management Boundary include all remaining ALR lands and are to be designated as rural or non urban lands that are not planned for future urban development.



Figure 5.1: Growth Management Strategy



5.4 Agricultural Land Use Inventory An initial meeting between the District of Sicamous administration and Council, the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), and the consultant was held in September 2006 to review the results of the Phase 1 research, the proposed Growth Management Boundary, and the potential impacts on ALR lands. The ALC members in attendance suggested that more research was required to fully understand the impacts of the proposed growth management boundary from a rural perspective and in response to this suggestion the District engaged the consultant to conduct an agricultural land use inventory. 5.4.1 Inventory Method The agricultural land use inventory followed the methodology outlined in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries (MAFF) 2004 document entitled “AGFocus: A Guide to Agricultural Land Use Inventory” (MAFF has since been renamed Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL)). The field survey for this inventory was conducted in November 2006. A member of the consultant team travelled throughout the area with a MAL land use agrologist. The agrologist provided specific agricultural information about the parcels included in the inventory and this information was entered into the Microsoft Access database designed by MAL. Wherever possible parcels were visually surveyed. When parcels were not entirely visible from the road, survey maps including aerial photographs with ALR boundaries, legal property boundaries, and unique property identifier numbers were used to assist with the survey. The following types of data were collected for each parcel during the survey:

land use activities agricultural activities scale of agricultural activities (for livestock operations) land covers and conditions of covers practices associated with land covers descriptions of livestock (if any) percentage of parcel comprised within each land cover (wherever possible)



5.4.2 Primary Land Use Activities The primary land use activity indicates the most significant type of land use that is currently taking place on each parcel. This category does not, therefore, reflect secondary or potential land use. Parcels with underutilized or unutilized agricultural potential are also discussed separately. Table 5.2: Primary Land Use Activities within the ALR, Sicamous Land Use No of

Parcels % of

Parcels Median Parcel Size

Average Parcel Size

Total Parcel Size

% of Total Area

Agriculture 20 17.2% 10.72 11.5 230.91 46.7% Commercial/Service Use 1 0.9% 0.39 0.4 0.39 0.1% Industrial Use 1 0.9% 12.74 12.7 12.74 2.6% Recreational Use 2 1.7% 6.4 12.83 2.6% Residential Use 79 68.1% 0.3 1.9 152.55 30.8% Transportation and Communications

1 0.9% 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0%

Undeveloped - Natural Area 9 7.8% 8.77 7.6 68.21 13.8% Unused Farmland 1 0.9% 4.1 4.1 4.05 0.8% Utility 2 1.7% 6.4 12.81 2.6% Total 116 100.0% 494.69 100.0%

Table 5.2 indicates that primary agricultural use occupies more land (46.7% or 230.9 ha) than any other type of land use within the District’s ALR boundaries. Agriculture is followed by residential use, which covers the second largest portion of District land (30.8% or 152.5 ha). Undeveloped natural areas account for 13.8% (68.2 ha) and the remaining primary land uses (commercial/service, industrial, recreational, transportation and communications, unused farmland, and utility) collectively comprise only 8.6% of the ALR land base within the District. In terms of the number of parcels, however, residential uses occupy the largest proportion of the District’s ALR parcels (68.1%, representing 79 of 116 parcels). Agriculture is a distant second, being the primary land use on only 20 of the 116 parcels (17.2%). Undeveloped natural areas likewise occupy a much smaller percentage of parcels (7.8%, representing 9 parcels). The remaining land use categories each account for 1.7% or less of the total number of ALR parcels in the District.



Figure 5.2 illustrates the distribution of primary land use activities within the ALR and shows that residential uses (as a primary activity) are interspersed throughout the agricultural landscape. It should however be noted as shown in Table 5.3 that 15 of these residential parcels support agriculture as a secondary use, generally as pasture and forage production. Overall, agriculture represents a large part of the landscape in Sicamous.



Figure 5.2: Primary Land Use Activities in the ALR



5.4.3 Agricultural Activity Table 5.3 summarizes agricultural activities where agriculture was identified as a primary or secondary use land use activity. For 15 of the parcels in Table 5.2 an agricultural use was evident, but the field assessment attributed more non-farm focus to another use (usually residential). Table 5.3: Primary Agricultural Activities within the ALR, Sicamous Primary Land Use Agricultural Use Number of Average Total Size

Primary Activity Parcels Parcel Size haAgriculture Agri-tourism 1 0.36 0.4

Beef Cattle Farm 1 26.4 26.4Dairy Farm 2 19.6 39.3Field Vegetable Farm 1 3.6 3.6Forage Operation 8 11.8 94.1Pasture 7 9.6 67.2

sub-total Secondary Activity 20 230.9Residential Use Pasture 5 8.7 43.5

Forage Operation 3 2.3 7.0Beef Cattle Farm 1 8.2 8.2Horse Farm 1 22.0 22.0

Undeveloped Natural Area Pasture 3 5.1 15.3Unused Farmland Livestock facility (barn) 1 4.1 4.1Utility Pasture 1 1.0 1.1sub-total 15 101.2 1

Total 35 332.2 1Note: Where agriculture is a secondary use, only a portion of the total parcel area may be used for

agricultural use but sizes show the entire parcel. Table 5.3 reports that 35 of the 116 parcels (30.2% of parcels) within the District’s ALR boundaries currently have agricultural activity as a primary or secondary land use. These parcels represent an area of 332.2 ha, or 66% of the land inventoried and 76.5% of the land within the ALR. As shown in Table 5.4, the land use overview for the entire municipality, the agricultural parcels reviewed in the land use inventory cover approximately one third of the municipality.



Table 5.4: Municipal Land Use Summary

Overall the percentage of the land base (area) devoted to agriculture is greater than the percentage of parcels devoted to agriculture. This trend reflects the fact that parcels used for agriculture tend to be large parcels. The average area of the parcels with agricultural activity is 9.4 ha, and 11.5 ha for parcels with agriculture as the primary land use. By contrast, the average area of the 81 parcels with no agricultural activity is 2.04 ha. In other words, while the majority of the parcels within the District’s ALR boundaries demonstrate no agricultural activity, this is only a small portion of ALR land and most of the area within the ALR is devoted to agriculture. For 20 of the 35 parcels with agricultural activity, agriculture is the primary land use. These twenty parcels total 230.9 ha, which accounts for 69.5% of the total area of parcels supporting primary or secondary agricultural activities. Parcels with agriculture as a secondary land use include ten residential parcels, three identified as undeveloped natural areas, one parcel of unused farmland, and one parcel occupied by a utility. For every category of primary land use other than unused farmland, the most common primary agricultural activity was pasture and/or forage operations. This was the primary agricultural activity on fifteen of the twenty parcels with agriculture as the primary land use, eight of the ten residential parcels, all three undeveloped natural areas, and the parcel occupied by the utility. Altogether, pasture and/or forage accounted for 27 of the 35 parcels (77.1%) and 228.2 ha of 332.2 ha (69%) of area with agricultural activity. Despite the fact that pasture and/or forage was identified as the most common primary agricultural activity within the District’s ALR boundaries, it may not be the most significant in terms of agricultural income generation. Although this inventory did not include the direct measurement of agricultural (or other) income, it was readily apparent that the ‘D’ Dutchmen

Land Use Parcel % of TotalArea (ha) Municipal Area

Industrial 23.7 1.4%Commercial 36.5 2.2%Agricultural area inventoried1 494.7 30.0%Residential & Other (park, institutional) 607.5 36.9%Total Parcel Area 1162.5Other areas (lake, river, roads) 485.6 29.5%Total Muncipal Land Base 1648.1 100.0%1Incudes all parcels in ALR. Portions of some parcels may not have ALR designations. Total area of ALR landdesignation is 433.93 ha.



Dairy was larger in scale and more advanced in terms of marketing than any other agricultural operation in the District’s ALR area. The two dairy farms in the District occupy 39.3 ha, representing 11.9% of the area with agricultural activity and 7.9% of the overall inventory area. Dairy farms are thus the second-largest primary agricultural activity in terms of area. Of the primary agricultural activities, the two beef cattle farms occupied the third largest area. Totalling 34.6 ha, they cover 10.5% of the area with agricultural activity, and 7.0% of the overall inventory area. One of these farms was on a parcel designated as primarily residential, and the other was on a primarily agricultural parcel. Other primary agricultural activities include the following as shown on Figure 5.3:

a horse farm on a 22 ha, primarily residential parcel, and; a market garden (field vegetable farm) on a 3.6 ha, primarily agricultural parcel.

This parcel also included a vineyard as a secondary agricultural activity.



Figure 5.3: Agricultural Activity as a Primary or Secondary Land Use Activity in the ALR



5.4.4 Underutilized and Undeveloped Parcels The inventory of lands in the ALR also identified lands that have never been used for agriculture (undeveloped) and lands that may have been previously used for agriculture but are not supporting agriculture (underutilized). A summary of the inventory of these lands is provided as follows: No. of Parcels Comments/Use Potential Area Undeveloped Natural Area:

3 Agriculture currently occurring as a secondary use – (Table 5.3 – 15.3 ha)

0

5 Treed land – not supporting agriculture 39.8 ha 1 Undeveloped parcel (4.4 ha portion of 14.7 ha site

recently excluded from ALR – Figure 5.1 parcel no. 2) 0

Underutilized Parcels 8 Primary use is residential and there are no agricultural use

but pasture landscape shows previous and potential agricultural use.

34.5 ha

Total Agricultural Opportunity 74.3 ha 5.4.5 Inventory Highlights The inventory of agricultural lands within the ALR in Sicamous has confirmed the following. 1. The agricultural sector is dominated by a few agricultural operators.

one large and one small dairy one market garden one beef operation

2. There is limited diversity in the agricultural sector. Most of the land is either pasture or

forage. 3. There is opportunity for expansion of the agricultural sector either with new crops or onto

new lands. 4. Residential land uses have encroached into the agricultural area but the land base has largely

retained an agricultural focus. Of the 433.9 ha in the ALR, 332.2 ha currently supports primary or secondary agricultural activity and 74.3 ha has potential for agriculture resulting in 94% of ALR lands having existing or potential for agriculture.



5. Agricultural lands exist as relatively large land holdings and have not been fragmented by

recent residential expansion. 5.5 Growth Management Boundary Impact This section explores the impact of the proposed Growth Management Boundary (GMB) on the agricultural sector in Sicamous. The GMB as shown in Figure 5.1 supports incorporating several ALR parcels into the urban fabric as outlined in Table 5.1. The 34.4 ha of agricultural land on the urban side of the GMB represents 7.9% of the District’s land in the ALR (433.94 ha) and 8.5% of the area that is or could be used for agriculture (406.58 ha). These lands have potential for agriculture; however all of the lands are currently either vacant and/or undeveloped for agriculture. The present lack of agricultural development on this land is most likely the result of urban pressures rather than factors associated with agriculture. All of the lands identified for potential exclusion are on the edges of the agricultural area and will not fragment any current or future agricultural operations. As these properties are developed there is an opportunity to implement edge planning along the rural/urban fringe and to clearly define the future relationship between urban and rural areas therefore improving conditions for agriculture over the long term. While all of the properties identified in Table 5.1 will represent a loss to the agricultural land base, there is also rationale to support their positioning on the urban side of the growth management boundary. The following points review the potential exclusion properties in terms of their role as part of the urban fabric. Industrial Properties (Figure 5.1 Sites 1 & 2)

Addresses long term community needs for industrial land. Logical connection to existing development. Opportunity to be connected to municipal services. Recent ALR application for Site 2 given preliminary approval for exclusion. Currently owned and used in conjunction with existing houseboat manufacturing

business (storage) and planned for future expansion. Original top soil removed.



Highway Commercial (Figure 5.1 Site 3 & 4)

Permits infill of existing Highway Service Commercial area. Portion of lands are required for servicing infrastructure (roads, access easements,

water and sewer). Can provide buffer to define agricultural edge and discourage further urban

expansion. Provides long term growth vision for highway service commercial lands. Links existing fragmented development areas and supports logical servicing

connections. Rural Residential (Figure 5.1 Site 5 – numerous properties)

Clarifies rural residential character but discourages agricultural classifications and

taxation for non ALR properties. Consistent with ALR policies that allow exclusions for smaller lots.

Urban Residential (Figure 5.1 Site 6-9)

Represents a logical extension of the current community fabric and can maintain the small town feel of adjoining neighbourhood.

Can be serviced using existing community infrastructure. Opportunity to meet projected demand for urban residential growth. Can provide housing products that will respond to community growth needs rather

than the recreation/resort market growth. Existing and proposed network extensions (Sherlock Road and Holly Ave.) can be

designed with appropriate buffers to define the urban/rural fringe boundary. Can respond to short and long term pressures for urban residential growth while

community prepares to accommodate the complexities of future hillside development.



Other (Figure 5.1 Site 2b) The ALR exclusion of Site 2 will leave a residual ALR parcel (Site 2b) located between the industrial land, railway and Eagle River. Site 2b may be considered for exclusion from the ALR in the future due to its irregular shape and physical separation from other ALR properties. 5.6 Agricultural Sector Consultation A meeting was hosted by the District of Sicamous on January 15th, 2007 to present the results of the agricultural land use inventory and collect input on the opportunities and constraints for agriculture. Invitations to the meeting were mailed to all landowners of property in the agricultural land reserve. Property owners were also asked to comment on what could be done to improve conditions for agriculture. The agricultural sector meeting was attended by approximately 40 persons and input was received from non-farmers, active farmers and retired farmers. The following provides a brief summary of the meeting feedback. Opportunities

raise awareness of local agriculture provide local farmers with more education on local agricultural opportunities

Site 6 – 9 Existing Condition



improve connection between local farmers and MAL to raise understanding of the local opportunities, feasible farming options

enhance farmers market Constraints

new residential neighbours will impact the adjoining farm properties buffers and education of neighbouring landowners is essential agricultural does not function well within municipality – should not have ALR

designations in municipalities high cost of farming and low return rate farm parcels are small and difficult to farm

Potential Improvements for agriculture

define relationship between urban and rural areas over the long term – clear boundaries and buffers

possible diversification of existing operations (e.g. cheese manufacturing) more education of landowners on opportunities

Overall, the meeting was dominated by landowners who had an interest in agriculture but there was an overriding interest in having land excluded from the ALR. 5.7 Strategies for Improving Conditions for Agriculture Although there was public interest in ALR exclusions, the District supports the mandate of the ALC and worked with the information provided at the ALR property owner meeting to develop the following strategies for improving conditions for agriculture. The District resolved to support the following strategies at its meeting on January 24, 2007.

1. Implement requirements for edge planning on the urban side of the Growth Management Boundary to buffer farm uses from neighbouring urban uses. A Comprehensive Development Permit process for properties adjoining ALR lands will be used to implement edge planning.

2. Require covenants to be registered on all new lots near the Growth Management

Boundary. The covenant would acknowledge the existence of neighbouring agricultural uses and the right to farm in these areas. Covenants help to increase awareness of the presence of agriculture, and with this awareness the potential for future land use conflicts may be reduced.



3. Review current operations of the Sicamous Farmers Market (location, operating times,

number of participants) and work to maximize economic opportunities for local producers.

4. Contact the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to pursue opportunities for hosting local

workshops with ALR landowners and farmers. The workshop focus would be on ways to enhance opportunities for growing and marketing economically viable agricultural local products.

5. Explore opportunities to raise awareness of local agriculture. Strategies to increase

awareness may include: a community agriculture bulletin board, themed signage for agriculture (e.g. wine route signage), and strategic placement of signs to market agri-toursim and farmers market events. An additional mechanism to raise awareness could be a buy-local campaign.

6. Encourage economic development groups to continue to recognize the important role of

agriculture in the local economy. These groups could also monitor funding opportunities for farming and provide assistance to local farmers who may benefit from accessing funding programs.

6 COMMUNITY SERVICES


6.1 Existing Policy Context The Official Community Plan (OCP) includes sections addressing Community Services and Facilities, and Parks and Open Space. Each of these sections includes several policy recommendations related to the District’s servicing needs. Aside from “hard” services (roads, water, and sewer), which are addressed separately, the OCP identifies the following services as “core”:

Community Planning Parks and Recreation / Cemetery Bylaw Enforcement Economic Development Building Inspection Street Lighting Fire Protection Administrative Services Legislative Services Mosquito Control

In addition, the following services are identified by the OCP as “non-core”:

Recycling Sanitary Landfill Garbage Collection Library Curling Rink Walking Trails

The District has also identified a need to consider issues related to affordable housing, and health care, policing, and schools. Given that several of the services named above are provided by sectors external to the District, OCP policies emphasize the need for ongoing cooperation with and support for these sectors. The following OCP policies, however, identify specific actions which may be undertaken by the District in regards to “soft” services: Policy 8.2.1 Endeavour to create and adopt a Parks and Open Space Master Plan to use as a

framework for all parks, open space and linear linkage planning, design, development and maintenance.



Policy 8.2.2 Develop (in conjunction with Policy 1) a comprehensive system of off-road and

on-road trails and cycle paths to encourage community and recreational trips. Policy 8.2.4 Support the exchange or sale of District owned property only with public input

and debate. Policy 8.2.5 Priority will be given to bike and pedestrian routes that provide access to schools,

commercial centres, parks and other frequently used amenities. Policy 8.2.6 Pursue innovative ways to preserve or acquire the use of land to meet linkage and

open space needs. Avenues used to achieve this may include, but are not limited to: subdivision dedication, gifting, agreements, lease or lease to purchase, co-ownership, density bonusing, conservation covenants, community foundations or other non-profit societies, etc.

Policy 13.2.5 Encourage community facilities to be centrally located and accessible to the

majority of Sicamous residents. In addition, the OCP states that the District “will consider reciprocal, joint uses or private/public partnerships to deliver cost effective community services or facilities”. 6.2 Growth Trends As demonstrated in Section 2 of this document, the District’s population of permanent residents is projected to reach 4,020 people by the year 2025. When seasonal residents are factored in, this figure increases to 6,760. This projected growth indicates a need for expanded services in the District. An examination of demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the District’s growing population point to the need for some specific services.

With 49% of the District’s population over 45 years of age in 2001, the District can expect a growing demand for services to seniors.

The 2001 census data demonstrates that while median family incomes are lower in Sicamous ($44,188) than provincially ($57,773), low income family status is less common in the District (10.4%) than in the rest of the province (13.9%).

Housing prices in Sicamous have increased dramatically in the last few years. These increases have largely been driven by the seasonal resort/recreation market. The District’s median income level and the relative amount available for rent (Table 6.1) indicate that housing affordability is an issue in Sicamous. Table 6.1 indicates that both families and individuals will have difficulty budgeting for housing. While



families could potentially “afford” a 3-bedroom apartment, housing options are limited in Sicamous as most of the housing stock is single family and 77% of all housing is owner occupied. Families with below the median income will have difficulty purchasing housing within their relevant budget (e.g. $1,100 per month).

Table 6.1: Housing Affordability Considerations Median Income

(2001) 30% Available

for Rent 2006

Average Rent* Individual Household $16,127 $400 $530 1-bedroom apartment $651 2-bedroom apartment Family Household $44,188 $1,100 $633 3-bedroom apartment (Two or more persons) 2001 – Sicamous $674 – Avg. rent all dwellings * Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation, 2006, Research for City of Salmon Arm

While the resort/recreation market has inflated housing costs in Sicamous, it has also created employment opportunities in the tourism sector. Table 6.3 (based on 2001 census data) indicates the top five industries in Sicamous in terms of labour force participation. Given the existence of at least one houseboat manufacturing operation, along with the increase in development in the District, a portion of the manufacturing and construction jobs can be regarded as tourism-driven.

Table 6.3: Top Five Industries for Labour Force Participation

Industry

No. Employed

% of Total Labour Force (1,230 people)

Manufacturing 225 18.7 Accommodation and food services 140 11.6 Retail trade 135 11.2 Logging and forest products 135 11.2 Construction 130 10.8 Source: Statistics Canada, 2007



6.3 Community Services 6.3.1 Existing Services As noted above, many of the “soft” services offered in Sicamous are delivered by entities other than the District. Health care services are within the jurisdiction of the Interior Health Authority, and police services are provided by the RCMP. Sicamous also has access to an extensive range of services provided by numerous community groups and non-profit organizations. These services are listed below. Addictions Services

Alateen Alcoholics Anonymous Alanon Narcotics Anonymous

Community Organizations

Cambie Hall Association Citizens on Patrol Eagle Valley Community Resource Centre Eagle Valley Rescue Society Marine Patrol Salmon Arm Toastmasters Shuswap Outreach Society Swansea Point Community Association BC Cancer Society Eagle River Nature Park Society Eagle Valley Community Resource Centre and Food Bank

Faith-based Organizations

Catholic Women's League Sicamous United Church Thrift Shop



Cultural Organizations

Eagle Valley Arts Council Eagle Valley Brush & Palette Club Eagle Valley Museum & Heritage Society Keepsake Kwilters Guild Sicamous Amateur Drama Club Sicamous Choristers Sicamous Visual and Performing Arts Society Sicamous Branch of Okanagan Regional Library

Seniors’ Services

Eagle Valley Senior Citizen's Housing Eagle Valley Senior Citizen Meals Tuesday & Thursday - Haven Common Room Old Age Pensioner's Organization Sicamous Seniors Activity Centre The Haven and the Lodge

Recreation Organizations

Eagle Valley Snowmobile Club Eagle Valley Snowmobile Grooming Society Eagle Valley Sports & Leisure Moxie Ladies Tap Dancing Salmon Arm Gymnastics Club Thursday - Parkview Elementary Sicamous & District Recreation Centre & Arena Sicamous & District Minor Hockey Sicamous Curling Club Sicamous Eagles Hockey Club Sicamous Girls Minor Softball Association Sicamous Line Dancers Sicamous Mixed Ball League

Youth and Family Services

Eagle Valley Youth Community Measure Program First Sicamous Beavers & Cubs First Sicamous Sparks, Brownies, Guides & Pathfinders



Parents & Tots Rocky Mountain Rangers Cadet Corp. Sicamous Community Youth Fellowship

Service Clubs

Royal Canadian Legion BR. #99 Royal Canadian Legion BR. #99 Ladies Auxiliary Sicamous Lions Club

Economic Development Organizations

Community Futures Development Corporation of the Shuswap Sicamous and District Chamber of Commerce

Several of the categories listed above correspond to the service areas identified in Section 6.1. Not all of these areas, however, are currently being addressed by community groups in Sicamous. These areas, therefore, will require additional attention from the District. The “soft” services that are not currently provided by community groups and sectors external to the District include:

Community Planning Parks / Cemetery Bylaw Enforcement Building Inspection Street Lighting Fire Protection Administrative Services Legislative Services Mosquito Control Recycling Sanitary Landfill Garbage Collection Walking Trails Affordable Housing

6.3.2 Service Gaps and Challenges While the District of Sicamous has a diversified inventory of community services, there are also gaps in existing services and community growth will generate new demands for services. The



following service gaps were identified as part of the project research and through community consultation.

New resort/recreation housing has been specifically targeted to the aging baby boomer population. As this group ages, they will generate new demand for such services as recreational and cultural programs. Access to and affordability of services will be key elements for the District to consider.

A relatively low median household income, and rising housing costs, produces “economic stress” that may be reflected in the community in a host of different ways (e.g. more student support need at school, fewer residents volunteering for community activities). There was anecdotal evidence of pressures associated with economic stress in the input received for the growth management strategy. To address issues of “economic stress” it is recognized that Sicamous needs to grow as a diversified community with a population represented in all socio-economic groups, not only rich or poor. The need for diversity exists in terms of employment opportunities, housing options, cultural background and stage in the life cycle. Planning for diversity needs an inclusive community process, involving “all players working together (e.g. employers, administrators, service delivery agencies) and moving forward with a willingness to learn and to share the responsibility of creating solutions and strategies that will result in a balanced plan” (Social Service Agency Administrator, 2007)

The District’s natural and environmental assets and amenities are cherished by residents and visitors alike. The very popularity of these features, however, has created growth pressures that put them at risk. In order to ensure that the natural beauty and environmental integrity of the District are safeguarded into the future, certain parcels should be protected as parkland. As a further measure of protection for sensitive ecosystems, and to maximize visitors’ and residents’ enjoyment of these areas, walking trails should be established. A Parks and Recreation Master Plan is recommended and should include park acquisition policies as well as recommendations for the development of vehicle-free zones.

The growth of recreation/resort properties in Sicamous has inflated land values and created a disparity between housing prices and household incomes of year-round residents in the community. The District of Sicamous has recognized the need for affordable housing in the community and has researched Best Practices in Affordable Housing in British Columbia. City Council reviewed an affordable housing strategy on January 24th, 2007 and has adopted the recommendations of the strategy as presented in Section 7.

7 SERVICING


7.1 Introduction As described in previous sections, the District of Sicamous has experienced significant development beginning in 2004. This growth development has largely comprised recreation oriented residential units with densities ranging between single family and apartment type (high density) condominiums. Development has occurred in all lakeshore sectors of the District. Examples of in progress recreation oriented developments are:

Old Town Bay Area – Twin Anchors Resort- phased development of approximately 680 units

Riverside Drive – Three Buoys and Portside developments – approximately 100 units Mara Lake Lane area – Bayview, Sable and Grandview developments – approximately

270 units The District as a condition of development approval requires the developer at his cost to construct all necessary extensions of the District’s infrastructure including water distribution, sanitary sewer, roads and storm drainage. As a result, development activity has not represented an infrastructure extension cost to the District. This policy of necessary infrastructure extensions being a cost to the developer will continue to be applied to future development proposals anticipated to be advanced for the Two Mile and the Mara Lake Lane areas. While development does not represent a cost to the District for water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer system extensions, new development does however utilize capacity of the District’s infrastructure systems. This section provides, in overview detail, an assessment of the impacts of new development on the service capacity of the District’s water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems. With an understanding of what new development is anticipated to utilize from a capacity perspective, the District will be in a position to plan capacity improvements. 7.2 Water System The most important design criteria for water system capacity planning is the maximum day water demand. All supply components of the District’s Mara water system, i.e. intake, low lift pumps, chlorine contact basin and high lift pumphouse have to have sufficient capacity to supply the maximum day water demand of the service area. As the population within the service area increases, the maximum day water demand typically increases on a proportionate basis. Water consumption data for the District’s Mara water system have been reviewed for the period 2000 to 2006. Total annual consumption and maximum day demands for this period are presented in Table 2.1. From Table 2.1, the total annual water consumption within the service area of the Mara water system has increased by about 50% in the period 2000 to 2006. In this

7 SERVICING


period, all service population has increased as a result of both growth and extensions, i.e. extension across Sicamous Channel in 2002 to provide service to the Old Spallumcheen Road area. Table 7.1: Mara Water System Annual and Maximum Day Demands

Year Total Annual Consumption Maximum Day Demand 2000 505,800 m3 4260 m3 2001 501,100 m3 4610 m3 2002 589,800 m3 4695 m3 2003 624,100 m3 5740 m3 2004 649,300 m3 5170 m3 2005 674,500 m3 5240 m3 2006 764,600 m3 5350 m3

The maximum day demand has increased about 25% between 2000 and 2006 from 4260m3/day to 5350m3/day. The summer of 2003 was extremely dry and is not considered representative of water consumption trends. In the period 2000 to 2006, the permanent service population of the Mara water system has increased from about 2400 to 2800. Figure 7.1 illustrates the Mara water system maximum day water demand on a per capita (permanent population) basis for the period 2000 to 2006. Figure 7.1 illustrates that the maximum day demand has remained relatively constant at 2000 litres per capita. Recreation related development is largely used on a seasonal basis and does not add to the District’s permanent or census population water usage associated with recreational developments is included in the water consumption data presented in Table 7.1 but not included in the permanent or census population of the District. As water usage by seasonal or recreation oriented development increases as a percentage of overall and maximum day water use, the per capita demand calculated by dividing by the permanent population would be expected to increase. Figure 7.1 illustrates that the maximum day water demand has been relatively constant at 2000 L/capita from which it may be concluded that new recreation oriented development occupied on a seasonal basis is not significantly adding to the maximum day demand of the Mara water system.

Figure 7.1 - District of Sicamous - Maximum Day Water Demand and Data

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Max

imum

Day

Wat

er D

eman

d (L

/cap

/day

)

1,750

2,250

2,750

3,250

3,750

4,250

4,750

5,250

5,750

Popu

latio

n

Max Day Records Design Max Day DemandPermanent Serviced Population Permanent Serviced & Seasonal Resident Population

Design Max Day Demand - 2000 L/cap/day

7 SERVICING


The design capacity of the District’s Mara water system is 13.6 ML/day. This is the design capacity of the intake pipe construction in 2007; and the high lift pumphouse and chlorine contact basin constructed in 2006. Based on water consumption data presented in Figure 7.1, maximum day water demand projections can be made on the basis of the permanent population and a maximum day per capita demand of 2000L. Figure 7.2 illustrates that the District’s maximum day water demand by 2026 will increase from 5.5 ML/day to about 8.0 ML/day. The 20 year projected maximum day demand of 8.0 ML/day is about 60% of the system design capacity.

Figure 7.2 - District of Sicamous - Water Supply Capacity and Demand Projections

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Year

Wat

er S

uppl

y C

apac

ity a

nd M

ax D

ay D

eman

d (M

L/d

ay)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Popu

latio

n

Projected Max Day Demand Water Supply Capacity (13.6 ML/day)Permanent Serviced Population Permanent Serviced & Seasonal Resident Population

Water Supply Capacity = 13.6 ML/day

6,340 persons

3,706 persons

7 SERVICING


7.3 Sanitary Sewer System The District’s wastewater treatment system comprises two aerated lagoons operated in series followed by chemical addition and sedimentation for phosphorus removal and disposal to ground by infiltration. The system was constructed in 1995, and design reports state the design capacities of the system as: winter – 910m3/day summer – 1200m3/day The treatment capacity of aerated lagoons increases as the lagoon temperature increases therefore the system has a higher capacity in the summer months as compared to the winter. Influent data for the District’s wastewater treatment plant have been assessed for the period 2002 to 2006 and are illustrated graphically in Figure 7.3. Figure 7.3 illustrates that the winter period average sewage flow has remained essentially constant at 300m3/day in the period 2002 to 2006. This trend is not unexpected recognizing that new development is primarily recreation oriented and occupied on a seasonal (summer) basis. Figure 7.3 illustrates that the summer average sewage flows have decreased modestly from 750m3/day in 2002 top about 700m3/day in 2006. The trend to lower summer period sewage flows appears to be inconsistent with the number of recreation related residential units approved by the District in this period. The trend of decreasing summer period sewage flows may indicate that sewage flows from lands prior to development are higher than post development. This would be particularly applicable where a development was on a site which was previously used for a campground. In the period since July 2004, District wastewater treatment plant operations staff have included internal intercell sampling locations in the District’s monitoring programme. The intercell sample data enables the performance criteria of the system to be calculated and compared with the original design of the system. A comprehensive analysis of the intercell sampling data complied by the District concluded the following. Summer Design Capacity – 1200m3/day (USL – 1995 design) TRUE Assessment (2007) – 1600m3/day without complete mix

– 2000m3/day without complete mix Winter Design Capacity – 910m3/day (USL – 1995 design) TRUE Assessment (2007) – 910m3/day without complete mix

– 1100m3/day without complete mix

Figure 7.3 - District of Sicamous - Sewage Flow Trends

0.0

250.0

500.0

750.0

1000.0

1250.0

1500.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Act

ual A

vera

ge d

aily

Sew

age

Flow

(m3 /d

ay)

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Popu

latio

n

Summer Design Capacity - 1200 m3/day

A

A

B

B

C

D

F

E

D

E

F

Winter Design Capacity - 910 m3/day (USL 1995)

Summer Design Capacity - 1,200 m3/day (USL 1995)

C

Summer Sewage Flow - Average of Maximum 5 Day Period

Permanent Serviced Population

Average Winter Sewage Flow

Permanent Serviced & Seasonal Resident Population

*values based on daily sewage flow data recorded at District of Sicamous Wastewater Treatment Facility

7 SERVICING


The data assessment suggests that the summer period operating capacity is 1600m33/day without the complete mix basin and 2000m3/day with the complete mix basin. The summer period capacity based on actual operating data is 33% to 60% higher than the stated system capacity as stated in 1995. The winter period operational data assessment concludes that the system can be operated at up to 910m3/day with the complete mix basin and up to 1100m3/day with the complete mix basin. The operational data again suggests that 1995 reported system capacities are conservative. Figure 7.4 presents projections of the District’s summer sewage flow to year 2027. The basic assumptions of the sewage flow projections are:

between 2007 and 2017, an average of 80 existing residential units will be added to the sewer system by extensions, i.e. Phases 2 to 6 service area extensions

each new seasonal resident (from projections in Phase 1 report) will result in additional sewage flow at 0.25m3/capital/day.

The above projection criteria are considered to be conservative. Figure 7.4 illustrates that the summer sewage flow will be 1600m3/day in year 2022. At this point, the District would proceed with a complex mix basin to increase the system operating capacity to 2000m3/day. This capacity would be adequate to beyond year 2027. Recreation related development does not, based on Figure 7.3 appear to be adding to the District’s winter period sewage flow. Accordingly Figure 7.5 presents a winter period sewage flow projection based on permanent (census) population. Figure 7.5 illustrates winter period sewage flows increasing to 910m3/day by year 2025 approximately as all existing development within the Phase 2 to 6 extension areas is serviced. By year 2022, the complete mix basin would be completed and in service resulting in a winter period operating capacity of 1100m3/day. This capacity, from Figure 7.5, would be adequate to beyond year 2027.

Figure 7.4 - District of Sicamous - Summer Sewage Flow Projections

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Year

WW

TF In

fluen

t (m

3 /day

)

USL Summer Design Flow = 1,200 m3/day TRUE Summer Design Flow w/o CM = 1,600 m3/dayTRUE Summer Design Flow w/ CM = 2,000 m3/day Permanent Resident Demand (m3/day)Summer w/ Seasonal Residents (m3/day)

TRUE Summer Design Flow w/ CM = 2,000 m3/day

TRUE Summer Design Flow w/o CM = 1,600 m3/day

USL Summer Design Flow w/ CM = 1,200 m3/day

*assumptions: BOD5(IN) = 300 mg/L, BOD5(OUT) = 20mg/L,k1 = 0.35 d-1, k2 = 0.35 d-1

Figure 7.5 - District of Sicamous - Winter Sewage Flow Projections

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Year

WW

TF In

fluen

t (m

3 /day

)

USL Winter Design Flow = 910 m3/day TRUE Winter Design Flow w/o CM = 910 m3/dayTRUE Winter Design Flow w/ CM = 1,100 m3/day Permanent Resident Demand (m3/day)

TRUE Winter Design Flow w/ CM = 1,100 m3/day

TRUE Winter Design Flow w/o CM = 910 m3/dayUSL Winter Design Flow w/ CM = 910 m3/day

*assumptions: BOD5(IN) = 275 mg/L, BOD5(OUT) = 20mg/L, k1 = 0.20 d-1, k2 = 0.18 d-1

7 SERVICING


7.4 Stormwater Infrastructure In 2004, the District completed a Stormwater Management Plan with the objective of establishing principals for servicing both existing areas and new development. Recommendations of the Stormwater Management Plan are briefly summarized as follows.

with the exception of the community core area, i.e. Riverside to Shuswap, stormwater will continue to be collected to roadside ditches and swales and thereby infiltrated to ground to the greatest extent possible.

all new development will be required to retain and infiltrate onsite stormwater from

minor rainfall events. Consistent with the above stormwater principals new development approved in the period 2004 to 2007 has been required to construct onsite stormwater management systems thereby minimizing requirements for offsite stormwater infrastructure by either the developer or the District. For example, the Old Town Bay and Bayview Estates developments rely completely on onsite stormwater retention and infiltration systems . In the community core area, new development has been required to attenuate peak flows and infiltrate stormwater to the greatest extent practical. This strategy reduces stormwater quantities discharged to the receiving environment and extends the service capacity of existing piped stormwater collection systems. In the future, it is anticipated that the District, as a condition of development approval, will continue to require compliance, to the greatest extent practical, with the Stormwater Management Plan. On this basis, future development should not require significant capital expenditures by the District to upgrade and/or extend its stormwater collection infrastructure.

8 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS


8.1 Introduction Research on land use has indicated that the District is faced with accommodating growth pressures dominated by market forces occurring beyond the District’s boundaries. These forces have created pressures on utility services and resources, as well as a demand for community services and land to accommodate growth. Existing land resources are insufficient to accommodate projected demand and pressures on agricultural lands are intensifying. To lessen the impact of pressures on the ALR it is recommended that the District establish a Growth Management Boundary (Figure 5.1) that takes a long term view of land use needs and adopts strategies to minimize the encroachment of urban development into agricultural areas. Policies are also recommended to: manage lands potentially excluded from the ALR; provide for affordable housing; and to manage demand for community services. This section present policy recommendations under the following headings:

general policy residential and affordable housing commercial and industrial servicing

8.2 General Policies

8.2.1 Establish a Growth Management Boundary as identified on Figure 5.1 that

defines the extent of future urban development that may encroach into agricultural areas.

8.2.2 Establish road designs that incorporate agricultural buffer areas along the

urban/rural fringe. 8.2.3 Require all new urban development adjacent to the Growth Management

Boundary to be controlled by way of a Comprehensive Development Permit process with an Agricultural Impact Assessment as required.

8.2.4 Consider a program of pedestrian and roadway signage directed at informing the

public about the nature and significance of the agricultural industry in the community.

8.2.5 Continue to support the plans and initiatives to concentrate new urban growth

within the existing established communities in the region, and to discourage the intrusion of non-farm uses in rural areas.



8.2.6 Initiate a boundary extension application for hillside areas south of Sicamous to permit planned extension of urban development (e.g. Holly Ave. hillside development area).

8.2.7 Review existing Official Community Plan policies to ensure that current

development policies supporting infill development and intensification of land uses are sufficient to maximize effective use of urban areas.

8.2.8 Prepare a Parks and Recreation Master Plan to direct the management of natural,

environmental and recreational amenities and resources. 8.2.9 Require covenants to be registered on all new lots near the Growth Management

Boundary. The covenant would acknowledge the existence of neighbouring agricultural uses and the right to farm in these areas. Covenants help to increase awareness of the presence of agriculture, and with this awareness the potential for future land use conflicts may be reduced.

8.2.10 Review current operations of the Sicamous Farmers Market (location, operating

times, number of participants) and work to maximize economic opportunities for local producers.

8.2.11 Contact the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands to pursue opportunities for hosting

local workshops with ALR landowners and farmers. The workshop focus would be on ways to enhance opportunities for growing and marketing economically viable local agricultural products.

8.2.12 Explore opportunities to raise awareness of local agriculture. Strategies to

increase awareness may include: a community agriculture bulletin board, themed signage for agriculture (e.g. wine route signage), and strategic placement of signs to market agri-toursim and farmers market events. An additional mechanism to raise awareness could be a buy-local campaign.

8.2.13 Encourage economic development groups to continue to recognize the important

role of agriculture in the local economy. These groups could also monitor funding opportunities for farming and provide assistance to local farmers who may benefit from accessing funding programs.

8.3 Residential and Affordable Housing

8.3.1 Support ALR exclusion applications for residential land use only on identified

properties that are located on the urban side of the Growth Management Boundary and are subject to the provision of affordable housing.



8.3.2 The Local Government Act requires municipalities to provide policies relating to affordable and special needs housing. The District of Sicamous has unique needs for affordable housing that are driven by many economic, social and geographic factors. It is recommended that the Sicamous policies be expanded to include more specific direction on affordable housing strategies for lands on the urban side of the Growth Management Boundary, and specifically, ALR lands supported for exclusion.

8.3.3 The following definition of Affordable Housing is recommended for addition to

the Official Community Plan. Affordable Housing means:

rental or owned housing provided to low income households who have an affordability problem (pay in excess of 30% of their income on housing) and earn less than the median income for Sicamous, and

is typically publicly owned or owned and operated by a non-profit agency, is subsidized by senior levels of government or by a non-profit agency, which enables rent to be provided at below market rates on a “geared to income” basis; and

does not include shelters or transitional housing.

8.3.4 Establish a Social Planning and Housing Committee that will advise Council on social planning and housing issues, including recommendations for housing projects. This group should have diverse representation from within the community (e.g. social agencies, agriculture, and businesses).

8.3.5 Establish density bonusing provisions where affordable housing is the bonused

amenity. Affordable housing is to be addressed through a registered Housing Agreement that stabilizes housing cost over the long term. For example, rental housing rates would be at a fixed percentage, e.g. 15% below the rental rates reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) for the region. Regional rental rates are collected by CMHC for Salmon Arm and these would need to be discounted for Sicamous. For example, Bowen Island required housing rates to be 15% below CMHC rental survey rates from Vancouver.

8.3.6 Support ALR exclusion applications for ALR lands in residential areas on the

urban side of the Growth Management Boundary where: • a maximum of 60% of the property is zoned for compact, serviced single

family residential development. Properties should have a maximum lot size



of 400m² and a maximum site coverage of 40% to create a compact development with small building footprints; and

• on the remainder of the site residential development shall contain affordable housing units that are protected through a registered Housing Agreement. Density bonusing may be used to support provision of these affordable units.

8.3.7 Establish a Housing Reserve Fund to receive revenues for the purpose of

acquiring lands which can then be leased or purchased from the District by non-profit groups and/or developers who will provide affordable housing. The fund may also be used to provide grants towards the building and management of affordable housing that is protected through Housing Agreements or to support the non-profit sector to leverage additional funds to build new non-profit housing targeted to people in core funding need.

8.3.8 Where ALR land exclusions are not for residential development, land owners

shall be encouraged to contribute to a Housing Reserve Fund.

8.3.9 Promote programs that provide housing assistance to seniors and other groups in core housing need, e.g., RRAP (Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program), SAFER (Shelter Assistance for Elderly Renters), and Property Tax Deferral.

8.3.10 Evaluate opportunities for urban agriculture in new housing developments, e.g.,

market gardens, community gardens, farmers’ market sites.

8.3.11 Adopt a “no net loss” policy regarding existing affordable housing, including a compensation strategy for the loss of existing affordable housing that provides income to the Housing Reserve Fund.

8.3.12 Support ongoing research on Affordable Housing and assets and gaps in services

as directed through the Social Planning and Housing Committee. As part of the present study, community input has indicated a need for affordable housing for the “working poor” (incomes > 15% below the median income). Additional target groups (e.g. single parent families, seniors) should continue to be evaluated.

8.3.13 Amend the Zoning By-law to:

• establish a new affordable housing zone (to be used for ALR exclusion properties); and

• establish density bonusing provisions for affordable housing.



8.4 Commercial and Industrial Policies

8.4.1 Implement a District sanitary sewer system funding strategy to build capital reserves necessary to partner on projects to extend sewer system services into unserviced commercial areas.

8.4.2 Support highway commercial land use designations on commercial highway

frontages located on the urban side of the Growth Management Boundary as shown on Figure 5.1.

8.4.3 Support industrial land use designations adjacent to properties in the existing

industrial node at the Old Town Road & Solsqua-Sicamous Road intersection provided lands are not located within the ALR or on the agricultural side of the growth management boundary.

8.4.4 New developments adjacent to lands with Agricultural Land Reserve

designations shall provide a buffer consistent with the specifications of the Land Reserve Commission.

8.4.5 Support ALR exclusion applications for highway commercial lands on the urban

side of the Growth Management Boundary as shown on Figure 5.1 where the following conditions can be met:

Commercial lands contributing to required water and sanitary sewer system

extensions. Contributions should include required rights-of-ways, and funding or construction of required infrastructure;

potentially excluded land is alienated from other agricultural lands due to adjoining roads or existing commercial or industrial land development;

less than 2 acres in size; connects but does not extend existing highway development; and is at the request of the property owner.

8.5 Servicing

8.5.1 Continue to support municipal strategy requiring developer driven servicing

requirements to be developer funded.

8.5.2 Conduct capital planning and establish appropriate Development Cost Charge By-law to support infrastructure projects.



8.5.3 Support infill development in serviced urban areas to make efficient use of services.

growth management strategy-mar07 - sicamous mana… · growth management strategy page 3 2.1 growth...

Documents