Showing posts with label no planning process or public input. Show all posts
Showing posts with label no planning process or public input. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Letter to Morning Star Editor - awaiting publication


When we first moved to Coldstream some of the things that we initially noticed were probably some of the same things that you did. There were the quiet neighborhoods, the lovely scenery, the beautiful vistas, and the verdant farmlands. However, we also noticed that some things were missing. Where was all the noise, the traffic, the paved parking lots, the light pollution, the screaming fans at sporting and music festival events. Where was all the litter and garbage on the side of the road that follows such events? It didn't take us long to arrive at the same conclusion that a few others have. What this community needs is a Mega Sports Complex built on prime farmland!

Come on, let's get with the times. Everywhere from the vanishing rain forests to the vast urban sprawl of poorly planned towns and cities, everyone's doing their share. Why should Coldstream be left out?
We've heard it said that if we build this sports complex, taxes will go up and that no one really knows what all this is going to cost. We believe that there is no greater excitement than buying something without any idea of what it will cost.
When we go shopping we like to tell the sales person, "Don't tell us how much it is, surprise us! We'll give you a signed cheque today, and you can just write in the amount of your choosing at a later date.
"Besides, once this "Fun Park" becomes established property values in Coldstream will no doubt go down. For many, Coldstream will become a less desirable place to purchase a home. By "many" we mean of course those who don't like to take risks, don't like surprises and don't like "Parks". It just stands to reason that if property values go down taxes will too eventually. In the meantime, we're all for raising taxes. We didn't know what to do with all that money we have anyway.
Speaking of "Parks", we've recently learned that the word "Park" can be used for all sorts of things. It's a very nice word and we have been having fun lately finding other meanings for it. Some of them you may already be familiar with, such as "Car Park", "Shopping Park"...."Industrial Park". Though we aren't as clever as some, I'm sure if we put our minds to it we could come up with a few other uses for the word "Park" as well.
Now as for the devastating loss of prime farmland. Everyone knows that all the food for ourselves and our animals comes from the supermarket or feed store anyway, not from some field, somewhere. If the stores happen to run out we can always truck more in from someplace else. Gas is cheap, we all know that. Prime farmland is old fashioned and should all be paved over and developed as soon as possible. There's nothing that says progress like a big shiny new parking lot filled with cars and trucks. It's so much prettier than some green farmland, cleaning the air and reducing the gasses that lead to global climate change. Everyone knows that's just a hoax anyway right?
So now's your chance. If you vote "NO" on Dec. 15th, all this will never come to pass. Your children, grandchildren and future generations will know that you were one of those that took a stand against the joy that comes from having a Mega Sports Complex built in your area. They'll be able to say that you said, "NO" to the beauty of urban sprawl, paved parking lots, increased traffic, bright lights, pollution and noise that comes from a field full of screaming fans. Just think of it.... if you vote "NO" we won't be able to have our very own "Field of Screams", because remember..... if we build it, they will come.


Mr. & Mrs. Janse

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Group Rallies Against Complex - Morningstar Dec 5th, Jennifer Smith

A common interest in agricultural land preservation has banded a new group together to fight for what they believe in.

The Greater Vernon Advocates Committee is a newly formed union of 20 members in Coldstream. They have come together in opposition to the proposed sports complex on Aberdeen Road.

“One of the main purposes of our group is we’re trying to get out the facts, by ad, brochure, website, signs and word of mouth,” said member Terri Jones, adding that the committee is divided into sub-committees focusing on aspects such as costs, farm land issues, due process, research, demographics and sports tourism.

They have a wealth of information, theories and concerns which they hope to share with residents prior to Coldstream’s Dec. 15 referendum.

All of them agree that parks are great, but that what is being proposed is not suitable for the location – 118 acres of agricultural land which the Coldstream Ranch is prepared to sell to Greater Vernon Services Committee for the project.

“All kinds of people are taking an interest in it because there’s all kinds of issues that arise,” said Richard Enns.

Members question the need for the complex, which proposes fields for soccer, slo-pitch, football, rugby, baseball and dog agility. Referencing the 2004 Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Denise Berlinski points out that there are already 34 ball diamonds and 51 sports fields. “In their own words we have a very high supply of softball diamonds and baseball,” said Berlinski, adding that the report shows these numbers are high compared to other B.C. communities.

Greg Ockert wonders if they’ll ever even be a future need with an aging population and demographics showing that schools are facing declining enrolment numbers. “Plus, the people who come to this area now are not youthful, they’re older people,” said Ockert. “We have enough fields, we’re going to have a lot of under-utilized greenspaces for decades.” Since the parks master plan says that many school fields are in poor condition, Ockert suggests efforts instead be put into revamping these spaces. “You want a football field – Fulton. You want a track – VSS.”

Kelly Tymkiw agrees and says she’d rather see her kids walking or biking to schools, where most of their sporting activities already take place. “As a parent, for me that’s important.”

These factors have led Jones and the others to believe that this project is all for sports tourism. The proposed project could host a number of tournaments and events but Jones says without hotels and restaurants nearby, this is not the place for it. “You do not put sports tourism in the middle of an agricultural field, in the middle of an agricultural community.”

Another concern is what this complex could do to the agricultural land, which according to the Canada Department of Agriculture, is class two land (class one being the best). “This field can grow almost anything,” said Berlinski, citing a list of produce. Plus, she adds, the land has a long season with 150 frost-free days per year (which is considered a high number). “If we keep diminishing the agricultural land we hurt an economic engine in this community,” said Enns. “Every time you take away a piece of property you diminish that.”

Not only does the group have concerns about how the agricultural capability of the land could be impacted if developed with fields and facilities, but what the potential of a land-use change for the project could mean in the future. “The real risk now is if it goes to non-farm use, it means they could build houses,” said Maria Besso, pointing to the non-farm use designation Coldstream Meadows was granted, which now houses a seniors’ facility.

Another concern the group has is how the general public was left out of the planning process for this project. “Our mayor must have been aware of it because he’s the chairman of GVSC, but nobody in Coldstream heard about it,” said Gyula Kiss, who is a member of this new group as well as the Coldstream Ratepayers’ Association. “It’s the whole cart before the horse – they haven’t asked: do we want to head in that direction?” adds Berlinski.

Along with being left out of initial planning, the committee doesn’t understand how the public can support a project with no firm details or costs associated. “It’s completely backwards,” said Jones.
Mark Korral has come up with his own cost theory, after looking into building and servicing costs.
He says a rough $8 million figure was presented by GVSC at a Sept. 11 meeting, but did not include site servicing or landscaping. “I would say (the actual cost would be) double or more of this figure they’ve put out there and that’s very conservative,” said Korral, adding: “we’re all guessing because the project’s a moving target.”

For more information about the Greater Vernon Advocates Committee visit their website: www.complexfacts.com.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Clarification of Status of Spicer Block



There appears to be a perception that if the Spicer Block is not converted into a sports complex it may eventually become a housing development. Let’s dispel that erroneous notion once and for all.


In a letter to the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture the Chair of the Agricultural Land Commission wrote:

“The Commission notes that it has indicated to the District of Coldstream through the Official Community Plan process that it would consider the urban development of a PORTION of the Spicer Block upon consolidation of smaller lots owned by Coldstream Ranch into larger agricultural parcels. However, the Commission has not provided any support for, or outlined a framework by which it would consider the continued urbanization of the remaining Spicer Block.”

The District of Coldstream OCP shows the Spicer Block as primarily Agricultural, with a portion zoned RMC – Residential Mixed Cluster. This portion is on the South West Corner. It is however labeled – subject to ALC conditions. Those conditions are as follows (page 8):

In order to protect the long term agricultural viability of the valley bottom from possible “hobby farm” development on the existing smaller parcels of the Coldstream Ranch, the Agricultural Land commission, the District of Coldstream and the Ranch have been engaged in discussions about the potential for consolidating the smaller lots.

To offset the economic losses this consolidation would incur for the Coldstream Ranch, the District has proposed that the value of the approximately forty lots that would be lost in the consolidation be transferred to a more suitable site. These transferred parcels would be considerably smaller than the existing lots and clustered so as to reduce the impacts on the surrounding area.

After conducting an intensive development constraints and opportunities analysis, the District presented a number of potential development sites to the OCP steering committee and Coldstream Ranch for consideration. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these sites were discussed (by the whole group). All of these options were eventually deemed unsuitable, with the exception of the Spicer Block.
The Spicer block has relatively high agricultural capacity, but it is located close to existing development and sewer servicing and offers the potential of developing stronger ties to the existing and proposed residential community. The proposed cluster of single family and multi-family residential could be enhanced by recreational land which could act as a buffer separating residential from agricultural uses. Residents attending open houses in Lavington and Coldstream in march 1997 responded favorably to the consolidations and density transfer idea. 73% of Lavington respondents and 67% of Coldstream respondents agreed with the idea.
There is a whole section on how to facilitate the consolidation and density transfer. However, the Coldstream Ranch owner refused to consolidate the parcels and therefore this entire project is no longer on the books.

The Coldstream Meadows development is built on a section of land that was granted alternate use while still being classified as being in the agricultural reserve. This is proof that once the land is granted alternate use within the agricultural land reserve anything can happen to it.

The only way to ensure that the land remains productive agriculture land is by voting NO on the referendum question!

Danger Zone in Coldstream


One of the more dangerous corners in Coldstream is at the intersection of Aberdeen and Venables Roads. Increased traffic from the mega sports complex would significantly increase the number of accidents at that intersection. Reconstruction of the road would be born by Coldstream residents as demonstrated by the attached image. Residents of the area are extremely worried of the potential increase in traffic volumes if the sports complex is approved.


For further information contact Charlene Smart at 542-9694.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Complex Costs Demanded - Richard Rolke, Morning Star Nov 23 2007

Demands continue to grow for the costs for a proposed sports complex in Coldstream.

The Coldstream Ratepayers Association believes firm details figures for the project should be revealed prior to residents voting Dec. 15 on whether an application should be sent to the Agricultural Land Commission asking that the land use be changed to allow for sports facilities.

“Without it, it’s a blank cheque,” said Andy Danyliu, president.

“The people who pay have a right to know how much they will pay for those who play.”

Danyliu says the costs of the complex are directly tied to the referendum because if they are too high, there is no need to purchase the Aberdeen Road site or to build fields.

But Danyliu suspects there is a reason why the information will not been made public by GVSC prior to Dec. 15.

“If they tell us the real figures, people will defeat it,” he said.

But Greater Vernon Services Committee officials deny they are trying to hide anything.

“We honestly don’t have fixed costs because it will depend on timing,” said Gary Corner, GVSC chairman and Coldstream mayor.

A rough estimate from GVSC has been $6 to $7 million, but Corner insists that could change especially if engineering and soil work are done.

“Those can actually impact what we decide to put there,” he said.

“It will also depend on how much money the user groups provide and the project won’t happen overnight.”

Coldstream would contribute funds towards development of a sports complex but so would GVSC’s other participating jurisdictions — Vernon and Areas B and C.

In terms of purchasing the property, money would come from development cost charges (which developers pay into), the land acquisition reserve and funds from the 2005 parks borrowing referendum.

At this time, GVSC is not revealing the price of the Aberdeen Road site if the land deal proceeds.

“Coldstream Ranch (the owner) doesn’t want it disclosed and if the referendum doesn’t pass, we don’t want people with similar land knowing what we are willing to pay,” said Corner about the property negotiations.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

What, and Where is Coldstream's Official Community Plan?

In the Morning Star, Nov. 11, Kim Flick, a long range planner with the City of Vernon, states that:

“In August, mayor and council adopted the guiding principles identified by the community, which are: protect and preserve green spaces and sensitive areas;… and protect agricultural land, …These guiding principles, supported and reinforced by input from the community, represent the vision of Vernon’s future, and will guide the development of the different land use options for the OCP”.

On the same date, Richard Rolke wrote an article in the Morning Star about how the construction of a senior care facility on 4.47 acres on Star Road in the North BX was “shot down”. The North Okanagan Regional District directors unanimously voted Wednesday not to send an application to the ALR for an 18 to 20 unit extended care home. NORD staff had recommended that the application from Focus Corporation not be passed on to the ALC for consideration. They state:

“Land in the ALR is not on the table for conversion to other uses, said Rob Smailes, the manager of development services…The proposed care facility was opposed by many nearby residents stating “it would transform the country setting to a more urbanized setting” (Nov. 11).

Smailes added that such a facility would create traffic issues as seniors travel to Vernon.

Has Coldstream Council voiced any concerns about the traffic issues that this proposed mega sports complex will create for Coldstream? Has Coldstream Council voiced any concerns about how this mega sports complex could transform Coldstream’s country setting and “Rural Living At Its Best” to a much more urbanized setting, with all the ensuing problems?

One has to really question where is Coldstream’s Official Community Plan when Coldstream Council so readily is willing to send forward an application to take 118 acres of prime farm land out of the ALR, when the NORD won’t send forward an application for 4.47 acres for a senior’s home! There is a great difference between taking out 118 acres to put a 600 – 1000 car parking lot, stadium, storage, offices, washrooms, change rooms and bleachers, 2 baseball fields, 4 soccer pitchers, 6 slo-pitch/fastball fields, and 4 dog agility fields – with taking out 4.47 acres for a senior’s home. And yet which one was turned down – the senior’s home!

NORD states that land in the ALR is not on the table for conversion to other uses. In Coldstream, during the last OCP process, respondents to a survey on Agricultural Land voted 88% towards wanting to preserve Agricultural Land. Coldstream, which actually states in their OCP that they want to preserve the rural nature and agricultural land base of Coldstream, is willing, even eager, to send forward an application to the ALR to develop 118 acres of prime farm land. In Coldstream, ALR is on the table for conversion to other uses!

We need to ask:

Why is this?
What happened to the OCP of Coldstream?
Who is the main push behind this?
Where is ‘Rural Living At Its Best” heading?
Do we want to go there?

author's name withheld