Dear Editor:
I am writing this letter in support of the Meadow Valley residents who are opposed to a Professional Class Motocross Track which was recently constructed on ALR land at 833 Fish Lake Rd.
While there may be times when a public discussion on non-approved usages should take place, such as in developing roads, public utility corridors, and perhaps, even to facilitate the rationalization of local circumstances, I fail to see how the construction of this track, in any way, remotely resembles any of these public amenities.
In short, I am unable to find anything in the ALC Act that would permit this kind of usage.
The RDOS Area F Zoning Bylaw 2461, 2008, clearly speaks to permitted and not permitted usages in 6.0 CREATION OF ZONES 6.4.1, 6.4.2. This is further defined in the (AG1) 10.2.1 Permitted Use and (AG3) 10.3.1 Permitted Uses.
In fact, what I do find are numerous references to supporting “Right to Farm Legislation;” i.e.”the purpose of the Commission is to preserve agricultural land,” Area F OCP Bylaw No. 2460, 2008; “the Board supports the preservation and enhancement of farmland whether or not it is in the ALR.”
I am of the understanding that the ALC has a procedure for reviewing applications for non-approved usages.
Was this process followed in the case of the Motocross Track and if so, where is ALC written approval issued prior to construction of the track?
Have any studies been done to determine the impact of the noise generated by this track on the adjacent farmer’s livestock operations, in particular, the effects on lambing and calving?
If not, why not?
Has any consideration been undertaken to determine the potential negative effects caused by the operation of this track on the property values of all adjacent property owners?
Has due consideration been taken to ensure that the adjacent property owners who live in a quiet rural setting will be able to continue the peaceful enjoyment of their property as they have in the past?
While I can clearly see and appreciate Mr. Leitner’s desire to have a training facility closer to where he lives, are there not more suitable pieces of land available that could be used for such a track without resulting in the negative impact on the neighbourhood and agricultural undertakings that have been ongoing for decades, not only adjacent lands, but the property in question as well?
If one believes in the need to preserve viable productive agricultural land in a province with a very limited supply, there can only be one course of action.
The “death by a thousand cuts” of these kinds of exclusion will incrementally leave us with a greatly diminished ability to supply our own needs for food in the future.
Sandy Berry
Summerland
