Keep agriculture and recreation separate.
This wish was shared with related recommendations in a letter received by Salmon Arm council at its Jan. 13 meeting.
The letter was submitted by Scott Syme and Michael Schroeder, on behalf of a newly formed Salmon Valley commercial agricultural producer group. Schroeder and his family run Lakeland Farms and Lakeland Feeds, while Syme and his spouse operate Torpichen Farms and Syme Structural Engineering. The two are also members of the city's Agricultural Advisory Committee.
"With this producer group we're looking to bring value to agriculture in the region through advocacy, infrastructure projects and group purchases," reads the letter.
The group's members have been engaged with the city's ongoing official community plan (OCP) review process, bringing the agricultural community together to offer input. Syme and Schroeder expressed their appreciation of city staff for being accommodating, and the "permissive nature of the process and the language adopted in the recent OCP drafts."
"However, the current Active Transportation Plan (ATNP) has caused a great deal of concern with rural and agricultural residents," reads the letter.
One of those concerns is a proposed active transportation route through agricultural zones. This, "in combination with the 'developer pays' model for rural areas, has not been well conceived."
The men wrote the biggest threat to food production and security continues to be the loss of agricultural land. They said a proposed long-term active transportation corridor through the Salmon Valley would take away approximately 10 acres of agricultural land, and shared what 10 acres could produce annually:
• 60 tons of forages that can equate to 96,000 litres of milk or 4,000 lbs of butter; or
• 25 tonnes of wheat equating to 15,000 dozen eggs or 45,000 loaves of bread; or
• 200 tons of potatoes; or
•380 bins of apples; or
•150,000 ears of sweet corn.
The group also takes issue with the city's development services bylaw that they say is incompatible for rural holdings with large frontages.
"Landowners are being asked to pay for active transportation improvements on a frontage basis when initiating a building permit," reads the letter. "Some farm frontages are measured in kilometres. This can result in active transportation development service charges exceeding $400,000."
An example of this arose last year when a proposed development of a single-family residence on agricultural land triggered frontage upgrades – a 200-metre section of proposed city trail. Staff recommended the property owner pay cash-in-lieu – $62,925, which amounted to 25 per cent of the estimated cost of the trail. Council supported reducing the amount by half and, at a later meeting, voted to drop the fee altogether.
"It’s our opinion that the active transportation corridors proposed for rural areas are predominantly recreational with little benefit to agriculture. We do not feel this is equitable," wrote Syme and Schroeder.
The men also shared safety concerns related to recreational pathways encroaching on agricultural areas/work zones where heavy farm equipment may be operating.
Syme and Schroeder asked that council consider the following: 1) Amend current cost structure and service levels designated in the Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw (SDSB), omitting cost charge requirements for sidewalks/multi-use paths/bike lanes for rural areas; 2) Revise the current long-term active transportation route from the Salmon Valley floor to an alternative pathway on Crown land; 3) Provide language in the current OCP to discourage the planning of future recreational infrastructure within agriculture zones; and 4) Update and adopt an Agriculture Area Plan as put forward in 2004.
Coun. Kevin Flynn shared his gratitude for the letter, stating "I am extremely excited by the enthusiasm and the engagement of this group."
"I think it’s a huge step forward for all of us and could have nothing but positives, and having met with Mr. Schroeder and toured his facility, I have to say that he seems to have so much enthusiasm and so much desire to make a difference on behalf of agriculture," said Flynn, who shared his own concerns with the development bylaw.
"I think the biggest issue is because we have bylaws that say if you make add a house to a huge agricultural parcel, you’re responsible for all of the infrastructure – potentially trails – and having to pay for off-site improvements," commented Flynn. "I think we need to change that bylaw. I know they can apply for variances and very rarely have we as council not provided full variances for the significant cost of trails around big pieces of agricultural land, but I think it shouldn’t fall on the farmer, it shouldn’t fall on the applicant…"
Coun. Tim Lavery tabled a motion directing staff to come back with a report on the four requests, noting he wanted to make sure council is aware of any consequences. Council voted unanimously in support.
