×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Proposed Zoning Map Changes

Share your comments here

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 are being updated. Summaries of the changes are available in the Documents section for you to review. You can also zoom in and go through the proposed Zoning Map changes here and leave your comments. Feedback will be collected through to April 14.

File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-

Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.


in reply to Loraine Stephanson's comment
Yes height restrictions should be kept in place as well as increase setbacks. This was supposed to be a heritage area. Soon Penticton won’t be recognizable.
replies
in reply to Glenda Monts's comment
I agree with the parking statements. There should definitely be parking requirements and parking permits for residents
replies
in reply to John Lawrence's comment
General
John, great comment.

The three parcels of land current designated as future development have been planned for residential development for 40 years. Time has come. As one of the property owners, I would welcome the City and or RDOS buying me out. I am sick of this.
In 2017 the City of Kelowna purchased 140 acres of land for $11m or $78,571 per acre. The three parcels of land the City is working to devalue consist of 289 acres and has been planned for approx 600 homes. There is a further 200 units that could be built on Provincial land on Reservoir road once sewer is brought to the area. Another benefit would be the City could abandon Spiller road going through the middle of the landfill with a new access road from Naramata road. The landfill lechate pond could also tie into sewer line the developer would bring to the area saving $5m that Summerland just spent to do the same thing.
As it stands, it appears the City is attempting to devalue the land so they can expand the landfill. The landfill is already on the Provincial contaminated site registry and lechate from the landfill has been found closer to the lake than the Randolph tressel on the KVR. Only a mattter of time before it contaminates our lakewater. Now they want to cotaminate another valley rather than clean up their act. Tragic
replies
General
Approximately 82 parcels (representing 1,251.4 acres) are east of Naramata Road and include Riddle Road to the North and Reservoir Road to South. The vast majority of this land is currently zoned Agricultural or Forestry/Grazing with a handful of small Rural Residential lots.
Currently the average lot size is 15.3 acres. If the City is allowed to rezone all this land to Rural Residential those 82 parcels could potentially become 1,251.4 lots. Take out room for roads and remove the environmentally sensitive area that sill leaves the possibility to become 1,100 one acer lots. Many with two homes on them.
Going from 82 parcels to 1,100 lots is the definition of densification turning the North East sector into a growth area. This is not what was recommended by the Council’s own task force and definitely not what the people of Penticton have overwhelmingly said over and over again in multiple questionnaires, surveys and open houses.
replies
Suggestion
How about getting away from the Spiller Road development controversy by the City acquiring the land for park and recreational usage. This would be bold, innovative and long lasting. It would bring long term kudos to the Mayor, Council and Planning Department. It would create an unrivalled approach to planning have a benefit for generations to come. It would compare to bold planning by other cities; Vancouver's Stanley Park, the trails of North Vancouver and Calgary's Glenmore Park. Lets get away from being pulled into the spurious need for more houses in a pristine area for a select few.
replies
Question
I find the future land use and future zoning very confusing and unclear for most folks North of town, along the Naramata Bench. This is respecting the area that was formally called the NE Sector. I think a good part of the rural land zoned Forestry and Grazing or Agricultural Land with 16 hectare zoning and 2 hectare zoning respectfully, doesn't jive with the future land use of Rural Residential, either 1 hectare or 1 acre, depending on city services. It doesn't make sense to me why so much of this land is slated for taking Agricultural Land and Forestry Land, and making it into small parcels in the future, densifying the Naramata Bench in hillside areas that should remain as 16 hectare Forestry and Grazing, or at minimum, 2 hectare Agricultural land. Future land use by the City’s own words, is supposed to retain the character and natural areas with high ecological value, steep slopes and flood prone zones. Why arn't you removing the Agricultural and Forestry and Grazing land from future significant downsizing and development. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I've put both future land use and future zoning up on my screen, and it makes no sense to me. It will continually involve the ongoing rural community fight to preserve the hillsides along the bench. I look forward to hearing from you.
replies
Question
How was the recommendation to raise height limits on Lakeshore Drive developed? The site specific policy for part of Lakeshore Dr. was important to the future ambience of that beachfront area, and has already been violated by the controversial new structure nearing completion at 602. I look forward to your reply; thanks.
replies
in reply to Glenda Monts's comment
General
These are members of our community who need homes. Where are they supposed to go? The city is working hard to create homes for those who need them, including those who are unhoused. I'm sure they'd prefer to be in their houses if they had one, and hopefully these new changes will help that happen. Deterrents are needlessly cruel, and don't change the fact that these people need homes. Money for deterrents is better spent on homes.
replies
General
Homeless tend to congregate at this junction of Cossar and the KVR trail. This makes it hard for pedestrians to use the walkways.
replies
General
2 issues:
Parking per residential development is not adequate. There are newer developments with less than 1 parking per suite. This creates problems with neighbors!
Homeless congregate in these areas that are well known to the City and Police. No deterrents have ever been put in place over the last 5 years. Many complaints and petitions on these areas. This creates problems for residents wanting to use the walking paths.
replies