Homeowner as Developer is morphing into Homeowner as Drainage Scapegoat

The District of Coldstream continues to tweak Subdivision and Development Bylaw 1535 2008.

In reality, little has changed as the tweaking went on.

Coldstream's Mayor and Council haven't backed off on wanting residents to pay for works and services when a renovation or construction permit is applied for.  To suggest that a garage or bathroom reno may have "directly attributable" impacts on road infrastructure, road safety, and road ditching is a manipulation of the Local Government Act (LGA) and Community Charter, among other things.

Even though this new version of the subdivision and development bylaw is going for first, second and (yup!) third readings on Monday, March 12th, 2012, Judy Paterson's building permit to construct a garage is still being withheld.  Why?  Presumably this is so the District can impose the new "directly attributable" characteristics that Coldstream has identified as problematic to her permit.

But this isn't just about Judy's permit, folks.

Individual families should not be expected to contribute to the repair of roads, and fix safety and drainage issues created by the District in the first place.  Isn't this what our annual property taxes are for?  Like previous draft (unpassed) versions, this bylaw will adversely affect Coldstream's property values and the financial situation of its residents.  Remember:  you cannot get a mortgage or buy insurance for property you do not own, so where is residents' money for this new tax going to come from?

The District of Coldstream continues to grasp at straws.

Residents will be scapegoats for drainage work on  roads.

You know...that area below your fence on the road frontage...land you don't own. 

This Mayor and Council have been spending money like there's no tomorrow.

They've spent almost $2 million on Urban Systems consultants (of Kelowna, of all places!), they want bike paths all over the community (stating that it'll be the panacea for diabetes, global warming/carbon footprint, etc. on and on it goes!)

Even with an almost 6 per cent tax increase scheduled for 2012, it's simply not enough to fund the insatiable appetite for your money from this Mayor and Council.

So they continue to come up with novel ways to have you pay them even more of your hard-earned money.

Having seen the error of their ways with charging residents to pay for non-infrastructure items such as bike paths with the first few drafts of the bylaw, if this proposed bylaw amendment (starts on page 27 of 84...the link takes a moment to load) sees third reading on Monday night, you'll now be footing the bill for drainage improvements.  It even names roads (see page 30 of 84 at that link) on which any renovation/construction permit over $50,000 will trigger off-property drainage demands.

Huh?

Drainage?

At the northern tip of Canada's only quasi-desert where 86 per cent of precipitation evaporates?

In an area where retreating glaciers carved out drainages?

In Coldstream's rainshadow of the Coast Mountains? 

In an effort to ram this through 3 readings on Monday night, here's what your Mayor and Council have adopted so far:

"THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that staff be directed to bring forward an amendment for Council's consideration to the Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw 1535, structured with a table generally based on the City of Kelowna's 'guidelines for determining servicing requirements' modified to suit District of Coldstream infrastructure requirements and an attached schedule identifying specific roads where drainage works would be considered as well as roadways where (*)specific safety issues would be considered.  In addition, a clause where if triggered by a building permit, that the contribution to (**) necessary offsite works would be limited to a (***)pre-determined percentage of the building permit value, with a (****)cumulative maximum value being equal to the estimated total value of works required." (asterisks by blog author)

Plus "specific safety issues"?

Plus "necessary off site works ... limited to a pre-determined percentage ... with a cumulative maximum of the estimated total value of works required"???

OK, let's do an example:

Joe Blog on Buchanan Road applies for a building permit, value $50,000, to renovate his kitchen.

No increase in building footprint, no increase on infrastructure demands, no extra septic capacity...just a new kitchen.  Not a complex building (because it's under 64,600 square feet) and isn't commercial or institutional usage.

Here's what could happen (and probably would) if the bylaw gets 3 readings:

Joe Blog gets his building permit.

What are Joe Blog's actual paperwork and renovation costs?

Follow along with this folks...

Kitchen renovation $50,000, Building application $100, building permit fee $643, each inspection or reinspection $100 (for this example, we'll assume the renovator did it right the first time), occupancy permit $100.

Total so far: $50,943.  But hold on.  

Here come the additional costs with the proposed bylaw.

The Approving Officer -- Craig Broderick, a bureaucrat at Coldstream -- determines either on his own, or after discussion with other bureaucrats (none of whom are elected) that there are directly attributable costs to Coldstream's infrastructure from Joe Blog's work.   It'd be damn nice to have a bike path for the *safety of people walking/biking adjacent to a **newly-scraped out deeper drainage ditch because twice in 35 years the ditch has overflown with water.  But since the bylaw doesn't state what the predetermined percentage is (***) pre-determined percentage of the building permit value, let's assume Joe Blog is charged 50% of his building permit value.  But, on the bureaucrat's reasoning, the amount could increase to (****) cumulative maximum value being equal to the estimated total value of works required.

Revision One to Joe Blog's costs:

Expected Costs $50,943.

* Bike path along his road frontage: $200,000

** Newly-scraped out deeper ditch: $ 20,000

*** oops, says Coldstream, let's make it 100% of his building permit value because we didn't pre-determine (set) the percentage = $50,000.

**** oops, says Coldstream, since we're installing dual--separated--water lines and fire hydrants, plus curbs and catch basins for water on the road, let's get Joe Blog to pay for that cumulative max value of the estimated total value of works = $200,000.

Joe Blog's expected costs of $50,943 have--with this bylaw adopted in this form--risen to ten times what he expected:  $500,943.

And Joe Blog can't go to the bank and ask for the extra money to complete his renovation; banks don't give money for work on land you don't own...ever.  

And insurance companies won't insure work you've paid for adjacent to your building on land you don't own.

Nonsense, you say?  The District of Coldstream surely wouldn't do that.  

A whole bunch of residents on Tassie Drive would argue with you.  About 10 years ago, the District of Coldstream levied them each a charge of $12,000 for a 3-inch concrete curb along their ~80-foot road frontage.  So?  Well, if you ask any concrete curb contractor today...10 years later...that work would cost no more than $2,000.

Naturally, Joe Blog withdraws his building permit application and lives with his old kitchen.

For a while.

Until he can get the hell out of Dodge.

Or, until he can attend the meeting to fight the bylaw and this Mayor and Council's lust for our money.

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. (at Lavington School).

Then on Monday, March 17, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at Coldstream Municipal Hall Council Chambers you can attend and listen to the Mayor and Council crying that the public stopped them.

"Or see them smiling because residents didn't show up," offers Kia.

Note:  Councillor Peter McClean is the ONLY councillor who is against homeoners being charged with these horrendous extra infrastructure costs.

Non-Confidence in District of Coldstream's Mayor and Council

A scant four months after local elections, the following three letters (approved for distribution) prove momentum is gaining for a political backlash against Mayor Garlick and Council here in Coldstream.

March 4, 2012, written by Donna Anderson to Mayor Garlick, Council and Staff:
I have attached my prior letter to Councillor McClean, as it is now to be redirected to include Mayor and Council.  In my prior letter to Councillor McClean, I had pointed out various issues that would make the implementation of the Current Bylaw 1535 (2008) including single and double family dwellings, detrimental to the residents of the District of Coldstream.

The current delays by council and staff at this point in time, has damaged my ability to sell my property.

To date, I have now lost two potential sales due to Bylaw 1535 (2008) not being settled.
My house is 1900 sq. ft., but the current trend is for larger homes.  Both interested buyers, have expressed interest at adding on to the current house, as they are very pleased with the area and my property.  The realtors have done their due diligence, by advising them of the current status of Bylaw 1535 and the potential impending consequences.  With the current unknown and possible financial implications to the buyers, they have backed away, not only from my property, but others in Coldstream.  (note attached letter from my realtor).

February 29, 2012, I spoke with Mr. Stamhuis regarding this issue.  When asked what potential costs would be levied against the buyers, if they submitted a Building Permit for over $50,000.00, Mr. Stamhuis could not answer, as he did not know.  The reason he did not know is because council has still not decided on the outcome of this Bylaw 1535.  Mr. Stamhuis did state that none of the current homes on Kalavista Drive, whether building or renovating, past or present, have been levied with any charges on Works and Service on infrastructure.  So now, a precedent has been set on Kalavista Drive.  He also stated that in the case of drainage, the only time you would know what the additional costs would be is upon submission for a Building Permit.

Our council is expected to be fair and just to the community as a whole.  This is a clear indication that this is not happening.

By council not making a decision in a timely fashion, it has already affected me financially, in not being able to sell my property.  I'm sure it has already affected others.  This is far from comforting to the residents of Coldstream during these trying economic times.

My understanding from Keri-Ann would be that this issue may not be addressed until April.  I would request that council consider this issue sooner and I will expect a reply back as to what I could do in the interim.

I now urge council now to do what is right, 'DO NOT' include single and dual family dwellings in this Bylaw and do it soon, in order for people to get on with their lives."
(signed Donna Anderson, etc.).

Letter written by John Kristian, Re/max Vernon to "To Whom it May Concern" (at Council):
My name is John Kristian and I am a Realtor with Re/max Vernon.  I am also the listing Realtor on the property...on Kalavista Drive...owned by Donna Anderson.

The past 2 showings have lead me to conclude that the implications of Bylaw 1535 are having a detrimental affect on the sale of this property.  In both cases the potential Buyers had great interest in purchasing the property but would need to add more square footage to the living space of the current dwelling.  Both parties were informed of the details of this Bylaw and the costs that could be incurred because of it.  As a result, they have backed off from this and any other properties in the Coldstream area that would require renovations to suit their needs.

It is my opinion, based on these factual experiences, that Bylaw 1535 will continue to have a detrimental impact on the sale of this property, and all real estate sales in the Coldstream area.  I sincerely urge Coldstream council to consider the loss of revenues (real estate sales, construction, renovations, etc.) which will continue to result from the affects of Bylaw 1535 and to make positive amendments to mitigate such losses."
Yours truly, (signed) John Kristian.

Previous letter by Donna Anderson, addressed to Councillor Peter McClean (who--for the record--stated during the municipal elections that he would rescind the "Homeowner as Developer" designation).
(To) Peter McClean, I would like to commend you on your effort at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting of February 20, 2010, to allow Judy Paterson to obtain her Building Permit.

Given the way that Council was moving ahead, looking at Bylaw 1535, things did look very promising.  Your logic was concise, accurate and well articulated.  To say the least, the outcome was very shocking and spoke volumes of a personal vendetta.  This is not only my opinion, but also, the general consensus of the audience.

My understanding of the original change to the Bylaw in 2008 by Jim Garlick and Glenn Taylor was to put restrictions on Coldstream Meadows.  This Bylaw stayed in place until it reared its ugly head for the first time, in 2010, to stop the Patersons' Building Permit in order for Council to have a tool to achieve what they wanted from the Patersons.  This Bylaw has been twisted in every which way in order to make it sound legal and binding to achieve what they wanted for a multi-use pathway on Kidson Road in front of the Patersons'.  But the Patersons stood their ground and I commend them.

I was surprised at the meeting, as I had been away for a month.  Now, I was hearing about drainage problems and this charge being imposed on identified areas that applied for a Building Permit.  That was a new one for me.  I vaguely heard mutterings about the Patersons not negotiating with Council, and Kidston Road having a drainage problem that was the Patersons' responsibility.  Is Council now grasping at straws?

"...it will bankrupt Coldstream, thus forcing us ultimately into amalgamating with Vernon."

My personal opinion of the original direction the Bylaw had been taking, was a complete destruction of any form of improvements in Coldstream by penalizing individuals.  Since our economy has taken such a nose dive, individuals that just want to keep up their homes, either won't be able to or will be driven to doing their renovations and repairs without building permits.  Now, we have a really slippery slope!  I'm not sure I actually need to continue with an explanation of what this means in the future, in regards to insurance, resale, etc.   Hopefully we are smarter than that?

Improvements mean not only a sense of pride in a community, but a draw for new people to invest.  A place where people are proud to live, attract a growing population, and increase the value of properties, resulting in a greater tax base.  Not a difficult concept to grasp!

I must commend Judy on her effort to protect our community from the senseless, onerous tax grab that could be imposed, which would jeopardize Coldstream's ability to attract new people.  If Council continues to do this type of thing, it will bankrupt Coldstream, thus forcing us ultimately into amalgamating with Vernon.  There is no logic to continuing in this direction of self-destruction.

Yours was the voice of reason last night, clear and concise.  Your complete summarization of what was needed to give validation to your direction was greatly appreciated.

I have sat on and attended a great deal of meetings in my life.  Last night, (ed. note: CoW Meeting Feb. 20/12), I was totally put off by the tone set or complete 'body language' of the setting.  The way the tables were set, the way the audience chairs were set, to the microphones conveniently not being operational.  The topper was the so-called 'white paper' of a different unavailable recommendation distributed, which when read by the Mayor was not audible to the audience.  (Was this recommendation passed at any point in time, and if so what was it?)  This in itself is a very loud and clear message to the residents that have taken the time to become involved and attend this meeting, that their right to be present was obviously not respected.  The audience was respectful and did not speak, as required, at least in the future council could be respectful of the residents attending.  The residents are showing an interest in the direction Coldstream takes, as they 'ARE' Coldstream.

I live on Kalavista Drive and made the decision a year ago to put my home on the market.  I am an Alberta resident, own my own company and this is my second home.  I have always loved what Coldstream had to offer.  My husband passed away in 2009 and the amount of yard and home maintenance required for this size of property is too much for one person.  The logical decision was to downsize.  To date, my home has not sold for any number of reasons, location, size, price or economic downturn.  We have owned this home since the early 80's and have noticed a dramatic change in the neighborhood.  The changes are to say the least not enhancing.  My husband and I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to keep our home up to date and appealing thru renovations.  Given the same set of choices now, with the 2008 bylaw, and the negative changes made in our area, we would have moved first and possibly not invested any further in Coldstream.  I'm not sure I wish to reinvest in Coldstream, the way things have been handled over the past few years has made it very objectionable.  Residents need to be listened to and their concerns be taken into account before things are rammed down their throats against their wills.

"...it doesn't take too many people like myself leaving

to change what Coldstream could look like in the future."

I hear the negative comments made by Council and staff about the monster homes being built, what is the problem?  Do these people not invest money into our community?  Do they not pay their astronomical property taxes?  Do they not attract the type of money required to keep Coldstream running?  Is this NOT what we want?  It is always a plus to attract money into a community as opposed to driving it away!


A previous comment made by Mayor Garlick comes to mind "it's time for the rich to give back" no, it's not, it's time they paid the same as everyone else without all the extra concessions handed out at the expense of everyone else.


One comment made twice to me at different occasions by Councilor Enns sums it all up for me..."Well, if you don't like the way we do things here, maybe you should think of moving somewhere else."  This was made in regard to questions asked of Bylaw 1535.


Hmmm, when and if I sell, I'm not sure that I want to re-invest in Coldstream.  What part of a probable tax increase of over 6.5%, because of cost overruns, poor planning, and remarks like this entice me to stay?  What part of this continuous outpouring of money on non-essential items at my expense would entice me to stay?  Please don't forget the District of Coldstream is a business and I am an investor, I'm not sure I need to have my intelligence insulted further.  Food for thought, it doesn't take too many people like myself leaving to change what Coldstream could look like in the future.


Don't get me wrong, our councilors are well-educated and smart people, or should be, but what is the problem and what is this crazy new rationale they seem to have taken on?  The CoW meeting of Feb. 20, along with many others have left a lot of residents with a bad taste in their mouths.  Let's clean up our act and get back on track and back to the business at hand.  We are not children and bullies are not well tolerated."
Thank you. Donna Anderson.

Ed. note:  The residents of Coldstream are indebted to Judy Paterson, Donna Anderson and John Kristian...and to Councilor McClean.

The solution demanded by residents is this:   remove the homeowner as developer designation from Bylaw 1535 (2008) and remove off-site works and services for single and two-family homes--and NOT change the municipality's tactic to "drainage".    After all, the Municipality itself is the only drainage offender with the recent much-engineered Kidston Road Multi-Use Path.  All this while the roadfrontage of Judy Paterson's home remains dry as a bone.

In other words, leave Bylaw 1535 (2008) unamended.

Mayor Garlick and Council are damaging Coldstream's reputation, but it's not yet beyond repair if they act quickly and decisively.

"The last repair we can do ourselves," offers Kia, adding "it's called Impeachment." 

How many engineers does it take...

...to design a Multi-Use path?

Obviously more than were involved!

Recent efforts by the District of Coldstream to extort homeowners' road frontages for a  multi-use path has now been shifted to the apparently more palatable--and presumably less discriminatory--focus on drainage. 

But it's not a joke what two days of mild weather have created in Coldstream.

Despite having paid over $2 million dollars to consulting firm Urban Systems of Kelowna (designers of the Kidston Road multi-use path and the upcoming Mechanics' Shop) in the last two years--and the final sign-off by Coldstream's professional engineer Mike Stamhuis, perhaps such a project takes 4, maybe even 5, engineers to get it right.  Maybe 6 engineers would do it. 

Remember how Judy Paterson's Kidston Road property is being blamed for drainage issues?

Councillor Kiss lives across the street, so he's likely thrilled he isn't mired in mud (at least from drainage).  Here's Judy's frontage today, during early morning of Sunday, March 4th (click photos to enlarge):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry as a bone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Driving 200 feet further towards the recently-constructed Multi-Use path, evidence of ineptocracy speaks loudly.

The day after the flood, at first glance, the Multi-Use path looks fine, hugging the hillside:

A closer look shows what all these engineers have achieved: 

The District of Coldstream will need another engineer to calculate how much gravel has been lost over the other side. 

And meanwhile, on Kalamalka Lake Road at Aberdeen:

Not a politician or bureaucrat in sight, clean-up work is left to...well...the workers (likely at Sunday double pay scale).

This link takes you to some excellent active flooding photos taken at the Multi-Use Path on Saturday, March 3rd.

So...how many engineers does it take?

We honestly don't know.
But based on the photos, an engineer with a farming background would've been preferred.

Or maybe just one farmer.


"Maybe we can get a rebate from Urban Systems," suggests Kia.

It's certain that taxpayers deserve a credit...or new governance.

District of Coldstream's INEPT-OCRACY

 An Anonymous submission to this blog.
Certainly worthy of print.
 

The ‘new’ District of Coldstream Subdivision and Development Bylaw 1535 (2008) is still in development. It is likely from what I hear, that it will not be put forward to any committee including council until well into the spring. I’m not sure why exactly but it’s a challenge in more ways than one.

It doesn’t have to be difficult though. The rules and regulations are all laid out in the Local Government Act and the old bylaw – the one before 1535 was just fine. It conformed to all the expectations of government and the public. What happened?  Well it could be that we have been inundated with ineptocracy. Yes, you heard that right. Ineptocracy. It’s a new word. It’s not in the old Webster’s Dictionary but you can find it on line.

Here’s the definition:

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

How harsh is that?! Before it looks like I’m pointing fingers and name calling, there is something here. Our elected officials are not necessarily the people who are exceptionally good at business. In fact, as Dave Hrabchuk saw in the last local election, his abilities as a businessman were seen as a detriment by many voters. I recall reading about Dave as a “profit-driven developer” suggesting that Dave had ulterior, or at the least suspect motives for wanting to be Mayor of Coldstream. The truth is that Dave, as a profit-driven developer Mayor, would not be permitted by the legislation to actually have a vote on anything he might gain from. Like councilor Peter McLean, who excuses himself from discussion or voting on an issue currently before council because he might benefit from the decision. Peter’s example is how local governments are supposed to work. Anyone who might benefit financially or otherwise, is seen as biased whether they are or not. And, perception is everything.

"Dave Hrabchuck (last election's District of Coldstream mayoralty candidate), was chastised for being a 'profit-driven developer'."

So do we vote for people who have no business experience? Do we vote for people who have no real knowledge about complex issues involving the environment, government, fiscal responsibility, or policy? People take years and years to become successful in understanding some of these complex issues.

It seems we do just that!

Why the name-calling when informed people should be seen as a resource? Prime Minister Harper does this. If someone complains about the current government direction, they get called a name – labeled a whale-watcher! an environmentalist! a profit-driven developer! or simply just rich people, mean people. That makes it okay apparently.  So the word ineptocracy has something to tell us about the direction we are going. If you begin to call people names when they have a legitimate concern, then you stymie their complaint.

That’s what the ‘new’ direction in Coldstream is effectively doing – stymie-ing property rights, depressing real estate, discouraging people from contributing to the community, and pushing people out.

It doesn’t bode well and it won’t matter how beautiful the view is.

"I suppose that makes me 'kibbles-driven'," muses Kia.

Coming soon to a Google Maps satellite searchword result:  "ineptocracy".

Presto!   Pushpin atop Coldstream!

Coldstream Destroying Private Property Rights

Excellent letter from Ken and Karen Dahlen, reproduced with permission:

My name is Ken Dahlen and my wife and I own Keith Dahlen Construction located in Coldstream, and we also own 15 acres located on Aberdeen (Road).

As Council knows, we were the contractor chosen to renovate the Paterson's home on Kidston Road.  During the planning process we met Coldstream's planner, Craig Broderick, and the Building Official, Bob Bibby.  This is a common practice for most construction companies to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the bylaws, rules and regulations.  Keith Construction was very clearly advised that if we stayed within the current bylaws and required no variance, or re-zoning that the District of Coldstream would have no issue with our permit application.  We also discussed the possible proposed bike path and again Mr. Broderick advised us that if we stayed within the current regulations that the District of Coldstream would not ask for upgrades or improvements.  We all know we are now almost one year later and no building permit has been issued.  So at this time we have only two possible questions that require answering:

1. Did Mr. Broderick and Mr. Bibby act on their own and make a mistake in the interpretation of the bylaw?
2. Or was this set up as a trap for my clients so that they would have no choice but to give in to the demands of Coldstream?

"The process has not been open and transparent and makes me very, very concerned for the future of Coldstream..."

As a professional contractor it is critical that we have clear, transparent guidelines to follow.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being invested in personal homes.  For most clients this is their life savings and their last safe holdings for themselves and/or their families.

I believe it is also important for everyone to understand that the District of Coldstream started their demands with the Patersons by the following:

1. The building permit was conditional that my client upgrade Kidston Road in front of their property, some 300 lineal feet to current standards, (when this did not work)
2. The District then asked for gifting of the land required for the proposed bike path, (when this did not work)
3. The District then proposed to purchase the required land at the tax assessment value for the proposed bike path, (when this did not work)
4. The District then proposed  to purchase the required land at market value for the proposed bike path.

I would like to make sure we all understand that the Patersons were adding on a garage and renovating their home.  That was it.  Hundreds of other homeowners have done so with no issues and no requests for land, or upgrades.  There is no increase on the infrastructure as it is still a single family home and meets all the regulations of the zoning.

There is no impact on the community.  The benefit we will have is a new, improved home that would increase the District's tax base.  I believe this is a good thing, right? 

When you look at how the demands have changed by the District of Coldstream it would seem to me they are doing whatever they can to try and extort this property for a bike path and in doing so, hold up my client from their buiding permit.  The process has not been open and transparent and makes me very, very concerned for the future of Coldstream.

I would ask that Council take a moment and reflect on the property owners of Coldstream.  I believe they know what is right and what is wrong and for our community to steal property from one homeowner for the benefit of the community is wrong.  If we as a community feel we require upgrades to roads, bike paths, wheelchair access to the beach, or a new Works Yard building then we should be advised, understand the costs, negotiate a fair deal and proceed as a community.

I do not support this Council trying to change and manipulate a bylaw so we can play "Robin Hood" and take from those who choose to improve their homes and/or build a new home on property that is already zoned for that exact use!

As a building contractor I am really not sure what to tell new clients when asking about new projects.  This should be a very simple review of the bylaws and very transparent.

"I believe every single property owner in Coldstream should understand what is at risk..."

I would ask Council to open this review of the subdivision bylaw to the public.  I feel that the past "Technical Review Committee" and the new "CoW" is another way of changing bylaws without everyone knowing what is happening.  There seems to be no interest in getting professional input for this review, just Council and staff strategizing on how best to change the bylaws.  I believe every single property owner in Coldstream should understand what is at risk, and you need to be very clear and make them understand your request to change this bylaw.

As a property owner in Coldstream and in Canada, I feel the following points need to be addressed:

1. Property ownership comes with rights.  When you own your land and pay your taxes it comes with the rules and regulations that allow you to improve your property or build structures based on the zoning of your land.  I believe we live in Canada and owning property still stands for something.
2. No one can change your zoning if they don't own it, you own it and you have legal rights so stand up for your rights.
3. When you purchased your land, the roads, sidewalks, sewer and water are installed and owned by the municipality.  The land owner does not own them unless it is a strata development.  The property owner pays taxes each year for the use of and for upgrades as required to the infrastructure.
4. In your own building permit regulations it states that no permit shall be withheld as long as it meets the current regulations that are on title for this property.
5. I also believe that you cannot ask for a second development servicing charge on your property.  As long as it stays with the current zoning.
6. So knowing that land owners do not own the sidewalks, roads, sewer and water, it would seem to make sense that as a community we budget for the repair, maintenane and upgrades as the need arises.
7. Individual land owners should not be at risk of major upgrades and or gifting of land to the community just to have the right to renovate or build their home!  We already have that right to build and renovate our homes, but the District of Coldstream is trying to suggest that they want the right to check in on all building permits and see if they want upgrades, or land, etc.  I would like to be clear on this also:  A single family renovation and/or home construction is not a development.  Single family home owners are not developers.
8. How will you handle this if a home burns down and the insurance funds are for replacement of the home only and the District is now wanting curb and gutter or upgrades included?  If the client does not have the funds and the insurance company has confirmed they do not cover sidewalks, curbs and gutters, how does the homeowner rebuild?  The insurance industry has stated clearly that you cannot insure what you don't own.  So how can the District feel entitled to this requirement in their new bylaw?

In closing, we feel that we have lost focus on what is really at stake here.  It is not about one building permit for the Patersons.  It is not about the proposed bike path.  It is about the District of Coldstream using its powers to change the bylaws on our land to allow them to make standard building permits conditional as they choose to see fit.  They are twisting the current bylaw and using the Subdivision and Development bylaw and trying to apply this to a standard single family building permit.

This is an erosion of our property rights and should not be allowed as long as we own our land in its current zoning.  Banks and Appraisal companies value our land knowing we have the rights to upgrade and build on our land, they are not counting on property owners having to gift land and/or upgrade municipal infrastructure.  If you change this, how will they know how to value our property?

The property owners have rights and I believe this Council needs to understand that we did not elect them to change the bylaws on our property.

Your jobs as councillors should be simple, to ensure that the bylaws, rules and regulations are regulated fairly, openly, and honestly.

Thank you.  (Signed) Ken and Karen Dahlen

(Ed.note:  "bold" text blog author)

"Mr. Dahlen only left out that we're still a democracy ... last time we looked anyway," offers Kia.

Coldstream's Committee-of-the-Whole meeting

I'm an idiot.

I attended tonight's Coldstream meeting, pen and notebook in hand to jot down the long-anticipated resolution to the contentious Subdivision Servicing Bylaw 1535.

Plus I wanted to be present, if only to hear that Judy Paterson would, on this one year anniversary of her application for a standard building permit, be receiving her approved permit in the mail.

I actually had felt that Mayor Garlick and Council--after having received their legal opinion in this year-long fiasco--would see the error of their ways; even rescinding the bylaw in its entirety.

How utterly foolish of me to believe sanity and fair play would prevail with this bunch.

It dawned on me tonight that this Mayor and Council--with the exception of newly-arrived Councillors Cochrane and McClean--are themselves an extremely biased special interest group, made up of the founding members of the Coldstream Ratepayers Association.  Each has met the prerequisite for membership:  narrow-mindedness, honed long ago as they circled the wagons to fight Jack Borden's plans for Coldstream Meadows.

They proved tonight they still possess that trait, if not the wagons.

This little clique, this little band of wannabe elitists has its own vision for Coldstream.

What I heard tonight made me wonder why I had been optimistic.

No resolution to the bylaw. 
Indeed the bylaw's to-and-fro machinations will see it remain in Draft version for a long time yet.

No building permit approval, despite a motion by Councillor Peter McClean to grant the permit and deal with other issues of drainage and safety on the road separately.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Pat Cochrane.  With only two supporters, the motion failed.

This mayor and council have been caught with their hands in the jar of their Golden Goose...the Patersons.
And are mad that the Patersons have challenged them and won the popular vote.
So, in the style that is customary with this council, the Patersons "must pay", in more ways than having their building permit withheld.

Council appears more intent on saving face than doing what their lawyer suggested...they could request--but not demand off-site charges.  

Disgusted, I had heard enough.
I walked out after an hour of their blathering nonsense.

Meeting four other attendees in the vestibule, who said they had also heard enough, phrases such as "morons", "idiotic", "lunacy", "bullshit" spilled from strangers' mouths as, one by one, people nodded in agreement.

We left the building, shaking our heads at this abject travesty masquerading as democracy.

Coldstream is going to hell in a hand-basket.

Nulli secundus ...second to none.

"For treating residents like vassals in a feudal system," offers Kia.

 

Ken Dahlen's compelling letter for Coldstream residents

Ken is a building contractor in the North Okanagan and--after a year of seeing first-hand the effects and hearing from customers who are delaying work on their homes--is silent no longer regarding Coldstream's Subdivision Servicing Bylaw 1535.

Especially after today's Morning Star story by Jennifer Smith.

We are grateful for Ken's permission to reprint his letter to Jennifer here:

February 19, 2012

To: Jennifer Smith

I would first like to take the time to thank you for your article today in the Morning Star about Coldstream and the development and servicing bylaw. I own Keith Dahlen Construction along with 15 acres in Coldstream. I am very concerned about the District's approach to this bylaw and feel they are really trying to change rules and regulations to allow them to collect another form of tax to help with their own budget overruns. I believe if we check what is happening in the real world every single business in the North Okanagan has had to reduce spending, cut budgets and balance our budgets. However I believe if you check into their (Ed.note: Coldstream's) budgets, they are still increasing even though the economy is struggling. Business is down some 25 to 30% and the municipality's spending is up approx. 40%. This can't continue! Our jobs within the North Okanagan have drastically reduced over the past two years and we need government to understand this is not the time to make things more difficult!

In regards to the changes the District is considering I feel it is important to understand some basic points:

1. Coldstream is looking at changing rules and regulations (Bylaws) on existing property. When this happens this could affect what the owner can or can't do on his property. For some of us we purchase the property knowing we have a right to additions, 2nd buildings and/or structures and possibly have had banks, appraisers involved to give you land values, maybe even take out a mortgage knowing this. The guidelines are very clear on land usage and how to conform.

 So if they have the ability to change Bylaws that can affect your property, do they not have to have the consent of the property owners! Should the property owners all not be made aware of their new (Bylaws) and have a say? Or do we in effect rent the land from them and they can change the rules and regulations tell us what they need! Is this a Monarchy? They must inform every single property owner within Coldstream that they are considering changing the rules and regulations that could effect their own land use and possibly add thousands of dollars to their cost even if it just a small renovation. We should have a say in this!

2. I have also checked with Insurance companies and they have confirmed that when we insure a home we only insure the home. So if a home is required to be re-built due to fire, flood etc. we are only insured to re-build the home. To rebuild the home this would require a building permit. Once again this is just replacement of the home that existed. So if the District is allowed to then ask for roads and drainage upgrades the property owner is not insured for the additional cost. You cannot insure what you don't own. This is a clear message that the roads and drainage are not the owners' responsibility and have been paid by development and/or the district and that our annual taxes are paid to take care of these.

3. If road and infrastructure upgrades are required then as a community we need to understand what they are and have a say in when and how much this should cost the taxpayers and have a plan to have this work completed. This should not be on the back of a single family permit application and/or renovation that has no net effect and meets all guidelines.

I have a growing list of clients that have stopped their plans to proceed with construction during the permit issuance stage as the demands have been too great. I feel it is very important for all the citizens to be advised and understand their rights and at least have an opportunity to speak to this current bylaw review.

I wrote a letter to Coldstream in 2011 and was asked to attend a Technical Review Committee meeting when they were first discussing the change to this bylaw. However I was advised about 1 hour before I attended that I could attend but I would not be allowed to speak. So I attended the meeting only to listen to them cut up my letter and suggest it was not worth responding to! It makes you really wonder is this actually Canada? They are discussing bylaws that affect my property and I have no say! How does this work?

Once again they have renamed this group and now call it "Committee of the Whole" and meet again this Monday Feb. 20th  at 6 pm and no one knows about it. This again is a meeting you can attend but you are not allowed to speak or ask questions. They then push to move right into the next council meeting to possibly change the bylaw. On some bylaws they have even pushed them through by reading 1st, 2nd and 3rd reading in one night so no one has time to debate or ask questions!

I appreciate anything you can do to help get this information out as I believe most people really do not understand the risk at hand.

Thank you for your time.

Ken Dahlen

And thank you, Ken, for allowing us to print your powerful letter...

Coldstream meeting dates and times are (click) here

Coldstream's vague dictionary

Funny how words can be misconstrued.
Or misused.

Coldstream mayor Jim Garlick offered their lawyer's advice, "You can make this request for works to be done,"  on whether or not the district could legally charge Judy Paterson for a ~$300,000 multi-use path in front of her Kidston Road property when she applied for a standard homeowner's building permit a year ago to build a garage...yes, one year ago!

That legal advice has only recently been requested--and received--by Coldstream, and is reported in Jennifer Smith's excellent story in The Morning Star newspaper issue of February 19th, 2012.

Coldstream's lawyers need to do more work, though, and perhaps highlight the sentence to more accurately reflect their costly advice, since Coldstream Council still haven't caught on to the limitations of their much-touted "broad powers."

Future legal advice for Coldstream might then appear this way:  "You can make this request for works to be done," providing emphasis--via the bold type--to what Coldstream should be cautious about.

Hmmmmm...  "can", "request"

"Can" isn't a synonym for "should", nor is request a synonym for "demand".

It's as simple as that.
Coldstream's lawyers are saying you CAN ask Judy ... you can REQUEST that Judy build the municipality a $300,000. bicycle path.

But you can't DEMAND, which is what Coldstream's mayor and council and staff have done for an entire year.

In other words, Judy Paterson may accede to Coldstream's request for a bike path.
Or she may not, which she did last year.

Judy's lawyer has offered his advice, too (albeit earlier than the response from Coldstream's lawyer):  "In our opinion, the district has acted outside the scope of their authority.  Our opinion is that they are attempting to strong-arm you into granting the (right-of-way) for the pathway and have no legalistic basis on which to request the works and services sought," stated the letter from Farris, Vaughan, Wills and Murphy LLP.

So has getting the proverbial kick in the cargo-pants enticed Coldstream's mayor and council to apologize to Judy Paterson for the year-long Coldstream fiasco as they deliver her now-approved building permit?

No.
No apology.
No building permit.

The Morning Star article continues:  "While Coldstream maintains its right to make such requests, under the Local Government Act, council is examining its current practice." 

"It's a tough problem that we're dealing with," said Councillor Richard Enns, a lawyer by trade (prior to last November's election there were two lawyers on the district's council), adding "But I don't think at this information-gathering stage we should be making decisions about narrowing our focus just yet."

Narrowing their focus?
After one year he calls it an information-gathering stage?
Somebody check his pulse as it's obviously too slow.

Judy Paterson is concerned, as the article states, about what this could mean for other Coldstream residents wanting to renovate.

Getting up out of the dust, now Coldstream Council is adjusting/reviewing its infrastructure needs to determine if specific requests for off-site frontage works may be appropriate).  Shifting gears, the focus now is on a list of drainage requirements, since they seem--finally--to be convinced of our view that bicycle paths are NOT infrastructure! 

But rest not, folks...drainage affects virtually every one of us, every property in this hilly valley.

The next meeting is a Committee of the Whole event, 6 p.m. Monday, February 20th (tomorrow).
And remember, in this quasi-socialist system, members of the public are NOT allowed to speak to the meeting.

Or sneeze.  Or cough...without a permit.

"We should invite Judge Judy to settle this nonsense," offers Kia.

The article concludes:  "Coldstream has also compared its practices with other communities and has found that the district's are more onerous than many others."

Maybe Judy should follow (and quote) the lead recently set by the B.C. Government itself (where persons charged with crimes--but not scheduled for trial because of too-long delays in getting courtroom time-- are being let go...set free).

Quote that, Judy, as "case law".
Put a shovel in the ground and start that garage...without the permit.

Water Source Protection

The Interior Health Authority's stringent demands to filter Duteau Creek water--even after chlorination with last year's construction of the Duteau Creek Water Treatment Plant--point the finger at Greater Vernon Water, entirely missing a critical component :  impacts from current usage of the lands surrounding the reservoirs.

The IHA even ignores the recommendation of a local aquatic biologist with 30 years' experience.

"No substitute exists for source water protection," avowed Heather Larratt at last year's Water Supply Association of British Columbia.  The real clincher with that comment, though, is the bureaucratic mire caused by present and historical uses of the area.

It'd be difficult to choose the worst offenders among wildlife (including geese, deer, fish and reptiles), logging, ranching, recreational, illegal dumping, forest diseases, drought, climate change -- indeed, even privately-owned lakefront cottages -- but all have a negative impact on water quality in Duteau Creek's upland reservoirs, which is one of nine sources of water for the community.  Duteau Creek now supplies approximately 95 per cent of the area's water, as customers formerly on the Kalamalka Lake source are increasingly connected to the Duteau system.

A map of our water system's intricate distribution network is here, with source details here.

The biggest historical complaint about Duteau water has always been turbidity, but the water treatment plant's construction has virtually eliminated the incidences of cloudy, beige water.

What Heather Larratt was talking about in her presentation on source protection is pathogen contamination -- Giardia and Cryptosporidium -- principal pathogens of concern.

So it's good that Interior Health is demanding filtration, right?

You'd think so, even with the fact no Federal or Provincial infrastructure money is offered by the provincial health authority to assist in financing the $20 million anticipated cost.

But we've just spent nearly $30 million on the water treatment plant to eliminate turbidity!  Local officials admit they buckled--despite knowing that bacterial issues were more important to public health--to pressure from homeowners to provide clear -- but not necessarily safer -- water.

Back to aquatic biologist Larratt, who knows British Columbia ranks below--yes, below--Chile and China in watershed protection, who are raising the bar and purchasing back watershed lands owned by the public!
At fault is British Columbia's grandfathering philosophy, because its very principle prevents protecting the water source.  Heather feels we should be purchasing back lakefront cottages from homeowners, as these cottages are certainly not on sewer but use septic fields or approved biological waste disposal systems.

In addition, the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Health should be working together to form new policy and minimize public impacts, with a view to totally eliminating impacts from mountain bikers, snowmobilers, campers, fishers and hunters, etc.  Educating the public isn't enough to reduce contamination; perhaps eliminating those uses entirely from reservoir perimeters is the only way it can be achieved.

"Many people don't realize that their own activities in the watershed--as small as they may be--can make a huge difference to lake water quality," admits Heather.

Touchy subject, telling recreationists they may in future need to be excluded from Crown lands which they, in effect own..  Even Metro Vancouver's water use plan doesn't do that...yet.

But a great opportunity exists on Tuesday, February 28th, 2012 when officials of Interior Health and Greater Vernon Water get together at the Water Source Protection symposium in Kelowna.   

It's up to Renee Clark, our area's Water Quality Manager, to get the message across to Interior Health that more needs to be done than simply we taxpayers throwing money at filtration.  Let's reduce the prevalence of contamination.

"Maybe invite Heather Larratt along," suggests Kia.

Renee has a huge responsibility ahead...good luck on February 28th.