I think the residents were right about this plan. It is plans like this that make it harder for people that want to start legitimate tourism outfits. Clearly the only thing strategic about this plan is the cheep land, and that's a give away to the real plans IMO. If the plan was related to legitimate services that correlate with the location it would have a lot more credibility.

NIMBY's!!!!

IYBY'er

BTW, the application can be viewed on the net.

http://agenda.rdffg.bc.ca/May10/al031008.pdf

From that site:

"The applicants currently do not have an agri-tourism operation on the property and
have applied for twenty (20) cabins, which is more than the allowable ten (10) units; therefore, they do not meet the terms of the Act."

"the parcel is zoned Rural 3 (Ru3). The proposed recreation accommodation use is not permitted in the Ru3 zone. The application will require a zoning amendment if approval is received for the Non-Farm Use in the ALR."

"Northern Health Authority: “Although Northern Health would have no issues with redesignation the property as recreational, probable future development must be taken into consideration. We see recreational lots evolve into full use properties all the time. Due to local soils constraints, the surrounding developed areas in the vicinity of the subject parcel are largely serviced by individual on site sewage lagoons that would require parcels of 5 acres or more.

Further input and concerns will be expressed at the subdivision stage as well but at that time we would not support subdivision as proposed unless lot areas were significantly increased or provisions were made for a community sewerage system.”

"Ministry of Agriculture and Lands: “The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has reviewed the non-farm application for the parcel located at 9465 Chief Lake Road and do not support the application. The subject parcel is identified as 90% Class 3 lands, is partially developed and is located in an agriculture corridor immediately adjacent to rural residential lots. The development of 20 recreational units at the site will impact the agriculture development of this parcel and possibly surrounding parcels.”

----------------------

Based on that information, and the apparent total lack of any effort by the applicant to address issues or even demonstrate an awareness of the issues, I think the decision was a good one.

This is not about NIMBY. This is about planning a community and about applicants who go outside the boundaries that have been set for the present plan having a responsibility to provide a justifyable reason for what it is they wish to do.