Focus on Housing

Share Focus on Housing on Facebook Share Focus on Housing on Twitter Share Focus on Housing on Linkedin Email Focus on Housing link

Feedback is now closed. Results are being analyzed and will be shared at a future meeting of Council.


Residents are invited to attend a series of information sessions throughout different neighbourhoods over the next serval weeks to discuss the future of housing and what building our future will look like across the city.

With big changes mandated by the Province, and recommendations from Council’s OCP Task Force on Housing, Penticton’s Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw must be updated - this is your opportunity to help shape how Penticton grows going forward.

Event details are provided in the Key Dates section. Feedback forms will be collected through to April 14, 2024.

Interactive maps are provided to help illustrate some of the proposed mapping changes. These maps are also available as pdfs in the materials section.

Maps
Current OCP vs. Proposed OCP
Current Zoning vs. Proposed Zoning
Transit-Oriented Areas

You can also comment directly on the proposed mapping changes as well as directly in the Zoning Bylaw. For a full-screen experience, use the links below.

Comment on the Proposed Zoning Map changes
Comment on the Proposed Zoning Bylaw changes


Phase 1 was completed over in the Fall of 2023. The City launched Phase 2 on March 4, 2024.

City Council identified the provision of attainable and accessible housing across the entire housing spectrum as a priority this term. A Task Force on Housing was created to review the policies of the Official Community Plan (OCP) and recommend updates to deliver on this priority. The City recently conducted the 2023 Housing Needs Assessment to understand the need and guide the work of the Task Force. The assessment showed that between 2016 to 2021, Penticton’s annual growth rate was high at 1.9%. If this trend continues, the City may have around 20,000 additional residents and 9,200 additional households by 2046. Residents are invited to follow the work of the Task Force here as it progresses.

Recognizing the impact the potential changes could have on Penticton neighbourhoods, the City is undertaking a communications and engagement program to ensure residents are aware of the work of the Task Force and have the opportunity to participate. The first phase was completed in the fall and a summary is available in the Review the materials section. The second phase will consult the community about the recommendations of the Task Force once they are prepared.

For more information on the task force created to review Penticton's housing policies, follow this link.

https://www.penticton.ca/focus-on-housing

Feedback is now closed. Results are being analyzed and will be shared at a future meeting of Council.


Residents are invited to attend a series of information sessions throughout different neighbourhoods over the next serval weeks to discuss the future of housing and what building our future will look like across the city.

With big changes mandated by the Province, and recommendations from Council’s OCP Task Force on Housing, Penticton’s Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw must be updated - this is your opportunity to help shape how Penticton grows going forward.

Event details are provided in the Key Dates section. Feedback forms will be collected through to April 14, 2024.

Interactive maps are provided to help illustrate some of the proposed mapping changes. These maps are also available as pdfs in the materials section.

Maps
Current OCP vs. Proposed OCP
Current Zoning vs. Proposed Zoning
Transit-Oriented Areas

You can also comment directly on the proposed mapping changes as well as directly in the Zoning Bylaw. For a full-screen experience, use the links below.

Comment on the Proposed Zoning Map changes
Comment on the Proposed Zoning Bylaw changes


Phase 1 was completed over in the Fall of 2023. The City launched Phase 2 on March 4, 2024.

City Council identified the provision of attainable and accessible housing across the entire housing spectrum as a priority this term. A Task Force on Housing was created to review the policies of the Official Community Plan (OCP) and recommend updates to deliver on this priority. The City recently conducted the 2023 Housing Needs Assessment to understand the need and guide the work of the Task Force. The assessment showed that between 2016 to 2021, Penticton’s annual growth rate was high at 1.9%. If this trend continues, the City may have around 20,000 additional residents and 9,200 additional households by 2046. Residents are invited to follow the work of the Task Force here as it progresses.

Recognizing the impact the potential changes could have on Penticton neighbourhoods, the City is undertaking a communications and engagement program to ensure residents are aware of the work of the Task Force and have the opportunity to participate. The first phase was completed in the fall and a summary is available in the Review the materials section. The second phase will consult the community about the recommendations of the Task Force once they are prepared.

For more information on the task force created to review Penticton's housing policies, follow this link.

https://www.penticton.ca/focus-on-housing

Questions?

Ask your questions about the proposed changes to the Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw here and we'll get back to you shortly.

loader image
Forgot password?
Didn't receive confirmation?
Register Now or Sign in with
Seems like you are already registered, please provide the password. Forgot your password? Create a new one now.
  • Share Why is question 6 in your feedback form so confusing? Its like it is a "trick" question and 2 questions with one set of answers. I have been hearing everyone saying the same thing. To be fair, the feedback form should be revised, and you should give the community more time to respond. on Facebook Share Why is question 6 in your feedback form so confusing? Its like it is a "trick" question and 2 questions with one set of answers. I have been hearing everyone saying the same thing. To be fair, the feedback form should be revised, and you should give the community more time to respond. on Twitter Share Why is question 6 in your feedback form so confusing? Its like it is a "trick" question and 2 questions with one set of answers. I have been hearing everyone saying the same thing. To be fair, the feedback form should be revised, and you should give the community more time to respond. on Linkedin Email Why is question 6 in your feedback form so confusing? Its like it is a "trick" question and 2 questions with one set of answers. I have been hearing everyone saying the same thing. To be fair, the feedback form should be revised, and you should give the community more time to respond. link

    Why is question 6 in your feedback form so confusing? Its like it is a "trick" question and 2 questions with one set of answers. I have been hearing everyone saying the same thing. To be fair, the feedback form should be revised, and you should give the community more time to respond.

    gltaylor asked 24 days ago

    Hi there. We aim to create feedback forms that are as clear as possible. In the form, there is the option for respondents to write open-answer reasons why they selected the "Somewhat" or "No" responses. That open-answer field allows respondents to explain their reasons for selecting the response they chose, or in this case outline why they may be in favour of one statement and not the other. Given the amount of feedback forms received already since March 4, we cannot reword any questions at this time, but will take the comment away for future feedback forms we create. As always, respondents are welcome to contact City staff if they have questions about any of the engagement period materials.

  • Share Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? gltaylor asked 2 days ago Thanks for your question and comments. The proposed change to the OCP "Rural Residential" land use designation is to envision lots being at least 1 hectare in size if they are on private services (well & septic) and at least 0.4 hectares in size if the lot has both municipal water and wastewater connections. We know that most of the Rural Residential designated areas do not have access to both city water and sewer services at this time. It's also noted that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. The "Rural Residential" designated areas do not overlap with any provincially-protected ALR lands. This change is proposed to address the current discrepancy between the lot size currently envisioned by the "Rural Residential" OCP designation (min. 1 hectare in all cases) and the lot size currently permitted through the most closely related zone in the city's Zoning Bylaw, which is the 'RC Country Residential' zone (min. 0.4 hectares). Staff are taking note of the community feedback and comments heard through this public engagement period to help inform the direction on this and other proposed changes, prior to Council's formal consideration over May and June. Sorry but I had to include my original questions and your response. Thanks for your response but I think I need to clarify my question. The city has very recently approved a large development at reservoir road that had Rural Residential Future Land Use minimum of 1 hectare. It was approved with ONLY water hook up with the city, and septic (not city sewage). This development was approved for 0.4 hectare lot sizes, despite being on Forestry/Grazing that had minimum of 16 ha zoning because it was in the future land use for 1 hectare minimum lots. The city and Council all approved 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots. Are you actually telling us that go forward, developments that are within the Rural Residential future land use won't be approved for 0.4 hectare lots if they are only hooked up to city water? The concern with Reservoir Road, was it set a precedent and now the city wants to make it even easier for developers by officially making the zoning 0.4 ha's. Shouldn't we Instead, be protecting the hillsides of the Bench instead of making it easier for developers? You then say that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. I hope I'm wrong and you are right, but you should put your future zoning map and your future land use map side by side. I see lots of overlap with Agricultural Land and rural residential future land use. I'm not asking or talking about ALR land, I'm asking about Agricultural land that is zoned minimum of 2 ha's in your current bylaws. Can I send you the map, as I've overlaid current zoning and future land use Rural Residential? The change proposed seems more about giving developers the ability to densify more land along the Bench into 0.4 ha lots, and making it easy for the city and Council to have to approve all of it, as it will now be officially in our OCP with no more access to public hearings. Why would the city feel they need to resolve the "discrepancy" between RC and RR? The RC zoning was put into place in the 70's, wasn't it? It was a different world. We should be moving as far from this zoning as possible. The city should also have had the courage to change RC from 0.4 hectares to one hectare, as Canadian Horizons in their information to their own investors, told their investors that OCP's change, and zoning changes. Keep the current zoning along the Bench, Forestry/Grazing and Agricultural. Why not remove the Rural Residential future land use area along the Naramata Bench all together? For 4 years the community, the PIB, environmental organizations, Interior Health, geotechnical professionals, have been telling city planners and Council to leave the hillsides above the Bench alone. Why are we still having this conversation? How many public engagements do we need for the city to hear us? on Facebook Share Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? gltaylor asked 2 days ago Thanks for your question and comments. The proposed change to the OCP "Rural Residential" land use designation is to envision lots being at least 1 hectare in size if they are on private services (well & septic) and at least 0.4 hectares in size if the lot has both municipal water and wastewater connections. We know that most of the Rural Residential designated areas do not have access to both city water and sewer services at this time. It's also noted that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. The "Rural Residential" designated areas do not overlap with any provincially-protected ALR lands. This change is proposed to address the current discrepancy between the lot size currently envisioned by the "Rural Residential" OCP designation (min. 1 hectare in all cases) and the lot size currently permitted through the most closely related zone in the city's Zoning Bylaw, which is the 'RC Country Residential' zone (min. 0.4 hectares). Staff are taking note of the community feedback and comments heard through this public engagement period to help inform the direction on this and other proposed changes, prior to Council's formal consideration over May and June. Sorry but I had to include my original questions and your response. Thanks for your response but I think I need to clarify my question. The city has very recently approved a large development at reservoir road that had Rural Residential Future Land Use minimum of 1 hectare. It was approved with ONLY water hook up with the city, and septic (not city sewage). This development was approved for 0.4 hectare lot sizes, despite being on Forestry/Grazing that had minimum of 16 ha zoning because it was in the future land use for 1 hectare minimum lots. The city and Council all approved 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots. Are you actually telling us that go forward, developments that are within the Rural Residential future land use won't be approved for 0.4 hectare lots if they are only hooked up to city water? The concern with Reservoir Road, was it set a precedent and now the city wants to make it even easier for developers by officially making the zoning 0.4 ha's. Shouldn't we Instead, be protecting the hillsides of the Bench instead of making it easier for developers? You then say that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. I hope I'm wrong and you are right, but you should put your future zoning map and your future land use map side by side. I see lots of overlap with Agricultural Land and rural residential future land use. I'm not asking or talking about ALR land, I'm asking about Agricultural land that is zoned minimum of 2 ha's in your current bylaws. Can I send you the map, as I've overlaid current zoning and future land use Rural Residential? The change proposed seems more about giving developers the ability to densify more land along the Bench into 0.4 ha lots, and making it easy for the city and Council to have to approve all of it, as it will now be officially in our OCP with no more access to public hearings. Why would the city feel they need to resolve the "discrepancy" between RC and RR? The RC zoning was put into place in the 70's, wasn't it? It was a different world. We should be moving as far from this zoning as possible. The city should also have had the courage to change RC from 0.4 hectares to one hectare, as Canadian Horizons in their information to their own investors, told their investors that OCP's change, and zoning changes. Keep the current zoning along the Bench, Forestry/Grazing and Agricultural. Why not remove the Rural Residential future land use area along the Naramata Bench all together? For 4 years the community, the PIB, environmental organizations, Interior Health, geotechnical professionals, have been telling city planners and Council to leave the hillsides above the Bench alone. Why are we still having this conversation? How many public engagements do we need for the city to hear us? on Twitter Share Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? gltaylor asked 2 days ago Thanks for your question and comments. The proposed change to the OCP "Rural Residential" land use designation is to envision lots being at least 1 hectare in size if they are on private services (well & septic) and at least 0.4 hectares in size if the lot has both municipal water and wastewater connections. We know that most of the Rural Residential designated areas do not have access to both city water and sewer services at this time. It's also noted that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. The "Rural Residential" designated areas do not overlap with any provincially-protected ALR lands. This change is proposed to address the current discrepancy between the lot size currently envisioned by the "Rural Residential" OCP designation (min. 1 hectare in all cases) and the lot size currently permitted through the most closely related zone in the city's Zoning Bylaw, which is the 'RC Country Residential' zone (min. 0.4 hectares). Staff are taking note of the community feedback and comments heard through this public engagement period to help inform the direction on this and other proposed changes, prior to Council's formal consideration over May and June. Sorry but I had to include my original questions and your response. Thanks for your response but I think I need to clarify my question. The city has very recently approved a large development at reservoir road that had Rural Residential Future Land Use minimum of 1 hectare. It was approved with ONLY water hook up with the city, and septic (not city sewage). This development was approved for 0.4 hectare lot sizes, despite being on Forestry/Grazing that had minimum of 16 ha zoning because it was in the future land use for 1 hectare minimum lots. The city and Council all approved 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots. Are you actually telling us that go forward, developments that are within the Rural Residential future land use won't be approved for 0.4 hectare lots if they are only hooked up to city water? The concern with Reservoir Road, was it set a precedent and now the city wants to make it even easier for developers by officially making the zoning 0.4 ha's. Shouldn't we Instead, be protecting the hillsides of the Bench instead of making it easier for developers? You then say that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. I hope I'm wrong and you are right, but you should put your future zoning map and your future land use map side by side. I see lots of overlap with Agricultural Land and rural residential future land use. I'm not asking or talking about ALR land, I'm asking about Agricultural land that is zoned minimum of 2 ha's in your current bylaws. Can I send you the map, as I've overlaid current zoning and future land use Rural Residential? The change proposed seems more about giving developers the ability to densify more land along the Bench into 0.4 ha lots, and making it easy for the city and Council to have to approve all of it, as it will now be officially in our OCP with no more access to public hearings. Why would the city feel they need to resolve the "discrepancy" between RC and RR? The RC zoning was put into place in the 70's, wasn't it? It was a different world. We should be moving as far from this zoning as possible. The city should also have had the courage to change RC from 0.4 hectares to one hectare, as Canadian Horizons in their information to their own investors, told their investors that OCP's change, and zoning changes. Keep the current zoning along the Bench, Forestry/Grazing and Agricultural. Why not remove the Rural Residential future land use area along the Naramata Bench all together? For 4 years the community, the PIB, environmental organizations, Interior Health, geotechnical professionals, have been telling city planners and Council to leave the hillsides above the Bench alone. Why are we still having this conversation? How many public engagements do we need for the city to hear us? on Linkedin Email Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? gltaylor asked 2 days ago Thanks for your question and comments. The proposed change to the OCP "Rural Residential" land use designation is to envision lots being at least 1 hectare in size if they are on private services (well & septic) and at least 0.4 hectares in size if the lot has both municipal water and wastewater connections. We know that most of the Rural Residential designated areas do not have access to both city water and sewer services at this time. It's also noted that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. The "Rural Residential" designated areas do not overlap with any provincially-protected ALR lands. This change is proposed to address the current discrepancy between the lot size currently envisioned by the "Rural Residential" OCP designation (min. 1 hectare in all cases) and the lot size currently permitted through the most closely related zone in the city's Zoning Bylaw, which is the 'RC Country Residential' zone (min. 0.4 hectares). Staff are taking note of the community feedback and comments heard through this public engagement period to help inform the direction on this and other proposed changes, prior to Council's formal consideration over May and June. Sorry but I had to include my original questions and your response. Thanks for your response but I think I need to clarify my question. The city has very recently approved a large development at reservoir road that had Rural Residential Future Land Use minimum of 1 hectare. It was approved with ONLY water hook up with the city, and septic (not city sewage). This development was approved for 0.4 hectare lot sizes, despite being on Forestry/Grazing that had minimum of 16 ha zoning because it was in the future land use for 1 hectare minimum lots. The city and Council all approved 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots. Are you actually telling us that go forward, developments that are within the Rural Residential future land use won't be approved for 0.4 hectare lots if they are only hooked up to city water? The concern with Reservoir Road, was it set a precedent and now the city wants to make it even easier for developers by officially making the zoning 0.4 ha's. Shouldn't we Instead, be protecting the hillsides of the Bench instead of making it easier for developers? You then say that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. I hope I'm wrong and you are right, but you should put your future zoning map and your future land use map side by side. I see lots of overlap with Agricultural Land and rural residential future land use. I'm not asking or talking about ALR land, I'm asking about Agricultural land that is zoned minimum of 2 ha's in your current bylaws. Can I send you the map, as I've overlaid current zoning and future land use Rural Residential? The change proposed seems more about giving developers the ability to densify more land along the Bench into 0.4 ha lots, and making it easy for the city and Council to have to approve all of it, as it will now be officially in our OCP with no more access to public hearings. Why would the city feel they need to resolve the "discrepancy" between RC and RR? The RC zoning was put into place in the 70's, wasn't it? It was a different world. We should be moving as far from this zoning as possible. The city should also have had the courage to change RC from 0.4 hectares to one hectare, as Canadian Horizons in their information to their own investors, told their investors that OCP's change, and zoning changes. Keep the current zoning along the Bench, Forestry/Grazing and Agricultural. Why not remove the Rural Residential future land use area along the Naramata Bench all together? For 4 years the community, the PIB, environmental organizations, Interior Health, geotechnical professionals, have been telling city planners and Council to leave the hillsides above the Bench alone. Why are we still having this conversation? How many public engagements do we need for the city to hear us? link

    Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? gltaylor asked 2 days ago Thanks for your question and comments. The proposed change to the OCP "Rural Residential" land use designation is to envision lots being at least 1 hectare in size if they are on private services (well & septic) and at least 0.4 hectares in size if the lot has both municipal water and wastewater connections. We know that most of the Rural Residential designated areas do not have access to both city water and sewer services at this time. It's also noted that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. The "Rural Residential" designated areas do not overlap with any provincially-protected ALR lands. This change is proposed to address the current discrepancy between the lot size currently envisioned by the "Rural Residential" OCP designation (min. 1 hectare in all cases) and the lot size currently permitted through the most closely related zone in the city's Zoning Bylaw, which is the 'RC Country Residential' zone (min. 0.4 hectares). Staff are taking note of the community feedback and comments heard through this public engagement period to help inform the direction on this and other proposed changes, prior to Council's formal consideration over May and June. Sorry but I had to include my original questions and your response. Thanks for your response but I think I need to clarify my question. The city has very recently approved a large development at reservoir road that had Rural Residential Future Land Use minimum of 1 hectare. It was approved with ONLY water hook up with the city, and septic (not city sewage). This development was approved for 0.4 hectare lot sizes, despite being on Forestry/Grazing that had minimum of 16 ha zoning because it was in the future land use for 1 hectare minimum lots. The city and Council all approved 0.4 hectare (1 acre) lots. Are you actually telling us that go forward, developments that are within the Rural Residential future land use won't be approved for 0.4 hectare lots if they are only hooked up to city water? The concern with Reservoir Road, was it set a precedent and now the city wants to make it even easier for developers by officially making the zoning 0.4 ha's. Shouldn't we Instead, be protecting the hillsides of the Bench instead of making it easier for developers? You then say that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. I hope I'm wrong and you are right, but you should put your future zoning map and your future land use map side by side. I see lots of overlap with Agricultural Land and rural residential future land use. I'm not asking or talking about ALR land, I'm asking about Agricultural land that is zoned minimum of 2 ha's in your current bylaws. Can I send you the map, as I've overlaid current zoning and future land use Rural Residential? The change proposed seems more about giving developers the ability to densify more land along the Bench into 0.4 ha lots, and making it easy for the city and Council to have to approve all of it, as it will now be officially in our OCP with no more access to public hearings. Why would the city feel they need to resolve the "discrepancy" between RC and RR? The RC zoning was put into place in the 70's, wasn't it? It was a different world. We should be moving as far from this zoning as possible. The city should also have had the courage to change RC from 0.4 hectares to one hectare, as Canadian Horizons in their information to their own investors, told their investors that OCP's change, and zoning changes. Keep the current zoning along the Bench, Forestry/Grazing and Agricultural. Why not remove the Rural Residential future land use area along the Naramata Bench all together? For 4 years the community, the PIB, environmental organizations, Interior Health, geotechnical professionals, have been telling city planners and Council to leave the hillsides above the Bench alone. Why are we still having this conversation? How many public engagements do we need for the city to hear us?

    gltaylor asked 24 days ago

    Thank you for your additional comments and questions. 

    The proposed wording change to the "Rural Residential" designation would require any proposed new lots to have both city water and city sewer connections in order for rezoning applications to meet the 0.4ha minimum size followed for in that designation. Otherwise, 1ha minimum lot size would apply. As you've noted, many properties within the "Rural Residential" designation are not currently zoned "RC Country Residential" and would therefore need rezoning as a first step to subdivision, unless the proposed lots met the minimum lot size requirements of their existing zones.

    This "Rural Residential" lot size wording change is one proposed way of addressing the discrepancy we know exists between the Zoning Bylaw and the OCP regarding rural residential lot sizes (i.e. "Rural Residential OCP designation and "RC Country Residential" zoning), to align those two documents better.

    We are out to the public seeking feedback on all proposed changes, including this proposed change to the "Rural Residential" OCP designation. The suite of proposed city-wide changes haven't been brought forward to the community before, so its important to give the community the opportunity through this engagement period to review the information and provide feedback - rather than staff interpreting the public's position based on past engagement alone. The comments we're hearing will help inform the final version of proposed OCP and Zoning Bylaw amendments going forward to Council consideration.

  • Share Why have you included businesses in with Child Day care for changes in neighbourhoods. While Day Care is acceptable and will drive the answers to agree then we get tire shops, real estate offices, pot shops and who knows what else . Well worded to get the answer you want. on Facebook Share Why have you included businesses in with Child Day care for changes in neighbourhoods. While Day Care is acceptable and will drive the answers to agree then we get tire shops, real estate offices, pot shops and who knows what else . Well worded to get the answer you want. on Twitter Share Why have you included businesses in with Child Day care for changes in neighbourhoods. While Day Care is acceptable and will drive the answers to agree then we get tire shops, real estate offices, pot shops and who knows what else . Well worded to get the answer you want. on Linkedin Email Why have you included businesses in with Child Day care for changes in neighbourhoods. While Day Care is acceptable and will drive the answers to agree then we get tire shops, real estate offices, pot shops and who knows what else . Well worded to get the answer you want. link

    Why have you included businesses in with Child Day care for changes in neighbourhoods. While Day Care is acceptable and will drive the answers to agree then we get tire shops, real estate offices, pot shops and who knows what else . Well worded to get the answer you want.

    my holiday asked 25 days ago

    Thanks for your question. In the Land Use Designations table of the current OCP, there are already small-scale neighbourhood commercial buildings listed as potential uses in a number of residential designations across the City. The change being proposed here is to explicitly add "childcare" as a form of commercial use that could be considered suitable for a neighbourhood. For a proposal for any small-scale business the applicant would need to demonstrate how it contributes to the neighbourhood in a positive way, rather than being a use that results in any nuisances for surrounding neighbours. Property owners and residents would still be notified of any proposal for a small-scale commercial building that requires rezoning and have the ability to provide comments (written, or through public hearing in some cases) prior to City Council voting on the project.

  • Share I am confused. My understanding is that Council’s OCP Task Force has made recommendations to revise the OCP and are recommending the Spiller Road or NE Sector be removed as a Growth Area in the OCP. Yet it seems the city is trying to get Rural Residential future land use changed from 1 hectare minimum to 0.4 hectares minimum on lands that are currently zoned Agricultural and Forestry/Grazing. Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? I don't think that is correct. Most of the area is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. So the cities presentation is not accurate and should be changed on this site and in its presentations to neighborhoods. Future Land Use as defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes" which accurately describes the NE Sector. The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, the OCP Task Force is recommending removing the NE Sector as a growth area. How does this make sense? on Facebook Share I am confused. My understanding is that Council’s OCP Task Force has made recommendations to revise the OCP and are recommending the Spiller Road or NE Sector be removed as a Growth Area in the OCP. Yet it seems the city is trying to get Rural Residential future land use changed from 1 hectare minimum to 0.4 hectares minimum on lands that are currently zoned Agricultural and Forestry/Grazing. Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? I don't think that is correct. Most of the area is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. So the cities presentation is not accurate and should be changed on this site and in its presentations to neighborhoods. Future Land Use as defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes" which accurately describes the NE Sector. The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, the OCP Task Force is recommending removing the NE Sector as a growth area. How does this make sense? on Twitter Share I am confused. My understanding is that Council’s OCP Task Force has made recommendations to revise the OCP and are recommending the Spiller Road or NE Sector be removed as a Growth Area in the OCP. Yet it seems the city is trying to get Rural Residential future land use changed from 1 hectare minimum to 0.4 hectares minimum on lands that are currently zoned Agricultural and Forestry/Grazing. Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? I don't think that is correct. Most of the area is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. So the cities presentation is not accurate and should be changed on this site and in its presentations to neighborhoods. Future Land Use as defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes" which accurately describes the NE Sector. The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, the OCP Task Force is recommending removing the NE Sector as a growth area. How does this make sense? on Linkedin Email I am confused. My understanding is that Council’s OCP Task Force has made recommendations to revise the OCP and are recommending the Spiller Road or NE Sector be removed as a Growth Area in the OCP. Yet it seems the city is trying to get Rural Residential future land use changed from 1 hectare minimum to 0.4 hectares minimum on lands that are currently zoned Agricultural and Forestry/Grazing. Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? I don't think that is correct. Most of the area is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. So the cities presentation is not accurate and should be changed on this site and in its presentations to neighborhoods. Future Land Use as defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes" which accurately describes the NE Sector. The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, the OCP Task Force is recommending removing the NE Sector as a growth area. How does this make sense? link

    I am confused. My understanding is that Council’s OCP Task Force has made recommendations to revise the OCP and are recommending the Spiller Road or NE Sector be removed as a Growth Area in the OCP. Yet it seems the city is trying to get Rural Residential future land use changed from 1 hectare minimum to 0.4 hectares minimum on lands that are currently zoned Agricultural and Forestry/Grazing. Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? I don't think that is correct. Most of the area is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. So the cities presentation is not accurate and should be changed on this site and in its presentations to neighborhoods. Future Land Use as defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes" which accurately describes the NE Sector. The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, the OCP Task Force is recommending removing the NE Sector as a growth area. How does this make sense?

    Duncan McCowan asked 26 days ago

    Hi there, please see the response to a similar question as yours in the Q&A.

  • Share Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? on Facebook Share Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? on Twitter Share Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? on Linkedin Email Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense? link

    Why is the City telling the public that the Rural Residential future land use change from 1 hectare to 0.4 hectare aligns with the current zoning in the area? It doesn't from my perspective. Canadian Horizons land is designated Country Residential zoning of 0.4 hectares. The rest of the area, hundreds of hectares, is zoned Agriculture (2 ha), Forestry and Grazing (16 ha), and lots of the farms are between 2 ha and 30 ha, NOT 0.4 hectares. This is not accurate and should be changed in the cities presentation on this site and the presentations to neighbourhoods. The reality is everyone out along the bench will be able to get water hook up at some point, and developers will be able to subdivide the Agricultural land or Forestry and Grazing large lot sizes to 0.4 hectares, WITH NO PUBLIC HEARING. Future Land Use is defined in the current OCP is "supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value and steep slopes". The suggested revision to 0.4 hectares will make this area a growth area. Yet, you are removing it as a growth area. How does this make sense?

    gltaylor asked 26 days ago

    Thanks for your question and comments. The proposed change to the OCP "Rural Residential" land use designation is to envision lots being at least 1 hectare in size if they are on private services (well & septic) and at least 0.4 hectares in size if the lot has both municipal water and wastewater connections. We know that most of the Rural Residential designated areas do not have access to both city water and sewer services at this time. It's also noted that "Rural Residential" areas are designated differently than those designated "Agriculture" in the OCP. The "Rural Residential" designated areas do not overlap with any provincially-protected ALR lands. 

    This change is proposed to address the current discrepancy between the lot size currently envisioned by the "Rural Residential" OCP designation (min. 1 hectare in all cases) and the lot size currently permitted through the most closely related zone in the city's Zoning Bylaw, which is the 'RC Country Residential' zone (min. 0.4 hectares). 

    Staff are taking note of the community feedback and comments heard through this public engagement period to help inform the direction on this and other proposed changes, prior to Council's formal consideration over May and June.

  • Share what does transit oriented area mean ? on Facebook Share what does transit oriented area mean ? on Twitter Share what does transit oriented area mean ? on Linkedin Email what does transit oriented area mean ? link

    what does transit oriented area mean ?

    janet van Dyk asked about 2 months ago

    Hi Janet, thanks for your question. 

    "Transit-oriented areas" have been designated by the Province to areas within a certain distance of a bus exchange. The Provincial rules now require cities to allow certain building heights, density, and parking requirements to apply within that certain distance of the bus exchange. 

    The underlying idea here is to support more homes to be built near transit service. 

    In Penticton, the Province has designated two "transit-oriented areas" which apply within 400m of the Penticton Plaza bus exchange, and within 400m of the Peachtree Square bus exchange. The City has the option of creating a third "transit-oriented area" around Cherry Lane Mall bus exchange, which we are looking for feedback on. 

    Please see the 'Provincial Changes' overview sheet under the 'Documents' section of the Shape Your City page for more information on "transit-oriented areas".

Page last updated: 15 Apr 2024, 11:23 AM