An application to remove lands at the Marmot Ridge Golf Course from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) saw District of 100 Mile House council in a standoff vote at the June 17 regular meeting.
Council deliberated on whether to endorse sending the request to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC).
Councillor Bill Hadden spoke against the change, and said golf courses were originally allowed in the ALR to assist farmers with diversifying their revenue streams.
“I can’t in good conscience allow this … it was very, very clear from the onset what the intent of allowing golf courses on ‘Ag’ land was for, and it hasn’t worked.”
It was not intended for later consideration of removing these golf course lands from the ALR – a concern that was raised at the time, he explained.
Coun. Dave Mingo also urged council to not endorse forwarding the application to the ALC.
“I am opposed to removing land from the ALR, whether it’s a golf course or … whatever. We are an agricultural community and I’d prefer to see that our agricultural land base is kept for the future.”
Cec Kaban, who owns the property with his wife, Shirley, was present and gained council’s permission to speak.
Kaban said he wanted council to consider approving his request as he has no agricultural prospects in mind for the property.
“I’d just like to sell it, and retire.”
There has been some interest passed through his realtor about the potential for a seniors complex or other residential development to be built on the site, but there is insufficient land to do that on the approximately 20 per cent of the property not in the ALR, he explained.
Kaban said he is aiming to get rezoning in place for that sort of development.
“The whole property wouldn’t be used as a [residential] complex, the building would go somewhere, and probably the land would still remain partially as a park or a golf course.”
Coun. Spence Henderson noted the Bridge Creek Estate had sold this agricultural land to the previous golf course owners, rather than farming it.
“I’m thinking the owner wants to do something else with it, and we are painting him into a corner where the only thing he can do is something we don’t want him to do.”
Mayor Mitch Campsall agreed that might be a valid point.
Henderson asked if there were means for council to consider removal of a smaller piece of land from the ALR to be combined with the 20 per cent of non-ALR land to facilitate a residential development.
Staff advised council it could consider that under a new application process, and it will seek clarification on due process for that.
Council directed staff to also look into what issues could result from doing this for commercial purposes, and how land much ALR land might be involved.
In highly unusual negative wording, the resulting motion was that “council does not support the proposal” to remove the lands from the ALR for purposes of residential development.
Coun. Ralph Fossum was unavoidably absent from the meeting, which left four voting members.
The result was a tie vote, which constitutes defeat under the Local Government Act (LGA).
Mingo and Hadden voted in favour of the motion, and Campsall and Henderson opposed it.
However, District chief administrative officer Roy Scott explained that despite the defeat of the motion to not support the proposal, the application is still denied.
(Even if the vote had been worded positively, it would have been defeated under a tie.)
The LGA also stipulates council is under no obligation to vote on any further motion on this application, unless the mayor requests that, he noted.
Whether that pans out into any review of a revised plan is yet to be seen.
