Coldstream Acreage Owners send Council a letter

Council now wants questions received in a written format.

Okay.
The 37-member Coldstream Acreage Owners' Association has questions concerning Coldstream's proposed Ag Plan.

         

May 1, 2012

Mayor and Council

District of Coldstream

Kal Lake Road

Coldstream, BC

For distribution to Council and Agricultural Committee (Agricultural Ad Hoc) Members: Dr. Lois Philp, Doug Stevenson, Mike McMorran, Perrin Hayes, Paul Christie, Ted Osborn

Dear Mayor, Councillors, and Agricultural Committee Members,

The Coldstream Acreage Owners’ Association, comprising ~500+ acres in Coldstream, is deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed re-zoning of property in Coldstream under this council’s new re-zoning initiative. We wish to ask council, in the required written format, the following questions:

1. Has council considered the tax implications of re-zoning property in Coldstream? What are council’s plans to deal with these implications, specifically,

If no additional taxpayers can be added through the subdivision of land how does council see managing the increased debt for the community (from approximately $100,000.00 to more than $6 million dollars to date). In light of the Antwerp Springs fines, twinning of the water lines (estimated up to $147 million calculated by Councillor Kiss), plus various other projects, Coldstream Acreage Owners (CAO) are concerned that the only solution will be to raise taxes rather than add new taxpayers.

2. Has council considered the business implications of re-zoning rural lands in Coldstream?  What will Council do to encourage business investment in this community?

Any business that is considering Coldstream for their operations will be discouraged from locating here as there will be fewer opportunities for a variety of employee housing. It is unclear what the impact will be on potential new businesses and families.

3. How does Council see limiting the use of both agricultural and non-agricultural property by re-zoning?

The impetus for this re-zoning plan appears to be that council thinks that by re-zoning private property in Coldstream, agriculture will be protected. Or, is this an attempt by council to stop what has often been referred to pejoratively as “trophy” or “manor” houses on both ALR and non-ALR designated property in Coldstream?

Global studies prove that small parcel farming contributes to food security and keeps families attached to, and intact on, their lands. By forcing people to “farm” 24.7 acres, does this council think that farmers can make a viable living? We have greater than 500 acres owned by CAOs that disprove that anyone can make a living on 24.7 acres without additional income. This places a financial and social burden on some people in the community to maintain the “idea” of a farm.

As for stopping the building of “trophy/manor” houses the Local Government Act does not legislate house size and style in this manner. So-called “trophy” houses, might be houses that have a certain square footage (“footprint”), but these are called “complex” buildings and are defined and regulated the Building and Plumbing Bylaw (1442). There is an argument that the home plate model places unfair, unsafe, and onerous burdens on acreage owners with no quantified benefit to them.

4. Has council considered the impact on real estate values by this re-zoning?

It is possible that the re-zoning of acreages in Coldstream will devalue farmland and non-agricultural land. While some individuals may benefit by increasing their holdings as land becomes more affordable, this does not benefit the CAOs who invested their money in their land under the current zoning. The re-zoning bylaw creates a market of 20+ acres that cannot be subdivided and therefore must be managed as farmland (typically the solution is hay as 20+ acres is difficult for one family to farm and not large enough to create a viable living). How will a new young generation be able to become farmers if there are no smaller parcels available (20-74 acre parcels are beyond the reach of most people’s financial ability)? In addition, some of the most intensive and productive farmlands have high value crops in greenhouses that do not require large tracts of property. Smaller holdings have this potential. Has this been considered in Council’s deliberations?

It has also suggested that agritourism is a goal for this council. Agritourism consists of motor home parks and viewing smallscale agriculture as tourist opportunities. However visitors who come to Coldstream do so to admire the lake and the park and contribute little to the economy of the community, short of buying fuel for their vehicles and boats. Does council have information about small scale agritourism studies that quantify the benefit of this option taking into consideration the size and uniqueness of the Coldstream community?

5. What are the benefits to the taxpayers of Coldstream of this re-zoning?

Does council have data to suggest a benefit to all residents of Coldstream, or is this re-zoning for the benefit of some, and how do you quantify and qualify that benefit?

6.  Will council ensure that every property owner be contacted directly by mail to inform them of the pending re-zoning? 

It has come to our attention during the formation of our Association that the majority of people in Coldstream did not see the newspaper notice regarding the re-zoning proposal. The Agricultural Plan Open House on March 14, 2012, had 100 people attend over two hours. Of the approximately 10,000 taxpayers in this District, this attendance record proves that people have not been advised so as to make informed decisions. The current configuration of lands in Coldstream has been in place for the better part for two generations. This re-zoning removes property rights, devalue some properties, constrains decisions about outbuildings, barns, employee accommodations, etc., and severely limits growth, not what people bought into when they purchased land. This re-zoning many not merely “manage” land use in Coldstream as may have been intended.

Vibrant, healthy communities have managed growth and encourage responsible growth. How does this council intend to mitigate limitations that they will put on growth (“stymied” versus “managed”) through re-zoning in Coldstream?

7. Council is saying that bona fide farmers are the only ones who will get farm water. Who is paying for the water allocation and meter, irrigation pipes/sprinkers/emitters for the demonstration garden at the college demonstration garden initiative?

The demonstration garden at the Okanagan University College site needs $2,500 for seed and $10,000 for a coordinator next year. And, since no new water allocations are available unless people are bona fide farmers, which group of farmers has given up their water so that the College’s demonstration garden can have water? Are Coldstream taxpayers going to be contributing for annual seeds, coordinators, and water for this latest initiative?

8. Is council aware that this RU10 and RU30 re-zoning removes the right of access that all landowners have to the decision-making authority and adjudicators at the Agricultural Land Commission?

The only exception to this fact would be the second or third largest landowners in Coldstream who, under the new re-zoning would be able to subdivide and thus potentially have access to the Commission. The Agricultural Land Commission has always been the final authority on agricultural land. For those homeowners who are over 55 and cannot make a living here, the option is to defer taxes on their properties. While this may appear to have no impact for this council’s budgets, it does place burden on the province in transfers. If an increasing number of subsistence farmers defer their taxes in British Columbia, how does this council perceive the province will respond?

We request a letter of reply be sent to our Association members (listed below on the original).

Respectfully submitted,

(signed)