Skip to content

Kootenay Lake planners recommend 30-metre lakeshore setback

But there is still room for exceptions
28286622_web1_211111-CVA-living-lakes-pilot-bay_1
A 30-metre setback for properties from the Kootenay Lake shoreline is being recommended. Photo: Kelsey Yates

by John Boivin

Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Valley Voice

People who own shoreline property around Kootenay Lake will likely be prohibited from building anything closer than 30 metres from the lakeshore in the future – though exceptions might be possible.

Regional District of Central Kootenay staff said that’s the direction they’re leaning toward after completing a study on the lakeshore for an Environmental Development Permit Area (EDPA) planned for Kootenay Lake.

The regional government is creating the EDPA for Kootenay Lake to regulate development and protect the lake from fish and wildlife habitat loss. Surveys of residents have shown strong support for such protections, prompting the planning process.

Last summer saw planners and other regional staff do a “buffer analysis” – a map search and data collection on the 1,723 private and public shoreline properties along the lake.

RDCK planner Corey Scott came to the Feb. 16 Rural Affairs Committee meeting to present findings on the foreshore’s current development and status, and how that might inform the shoreline development rules in the future.

“It is clear that there will be a small number of parcels along Kootenay Lake’s shoreline that will be unable to avoid development within the SPEA (Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area, the buffer zone),” says Scott’s report. “However, upwards of 90 per cent of shoreline parcels on Kootenay Lake could avoid development within a 30-metre-wide buffer adjacent to Kootenay Lake, depending on their size.”

Staff looked at what a 15-metre and a 30-metre buffer around the entire lake might look like. Scott says they found that the impact of a 30-metre buffer from the shore would not be much of a problem for the large majority of property owners.

Just 74 parcels, or a little over four per cent, were found to be ‘constrained’ – unable to build without impinging on the buffer zone. The largest cluster is in Ainsworth, with 11, and the rest in other parts of Areas D and E.

Of those 74 constrained lots, 50 are already developed. Seventeen parcels – less than one per cent – are the most problematic. With under 1,000 square feet in area, they would be unable to develop without damaging the SPEA.

But since up to 95 per cent of all properties could likely avoid most disturbance, the planners found, they said the plan should call for a 30-metre setback, the larger of the buffer zones.

“The goal of this ultimately is to have less loss of fish and wildlife habitat as parcels along the shoreline continue to develop,” said Scott.

Going for the smaller 15-metre buffer would not likely do enough to protect the environment, the study found.

But that doesn’t mean a small property owner can’t build, even if it infringes on the protected buffer.

“For small, constrained properties that are pre-existing, flexibility within the EDPA guidelines can help to ensure that properties unable to avoid disturbance … still have development opportunities,” the report says.

It says development might be allowed under certain criteria, such as if the property subdivision predates the new DPA, was done legally, the area’s contour problem gives no other building solution, or the area has already been disturbed by humans.

“Having flexibility within the guidelines and exemptions for constrained parcels is going to be a necessity,” it adds. The DPA process will ensure that development of all parcels ‘at some scale’ is possible.

“While we want to minimize permanent losses of fish and wildlife habitat, in some cases it will be unavoidable and we need to recognize that.”

The new guidelines will also ensure that new subdivisions don’t create new constrained lots around the lake.

Directors were concerned

While endorsing the plan, directors cautioned staff that over-regulating the area can also create problems with compliance.

“You push people back to 30 metres, everyone goes away, and in subsequent years they’ll start knocking down trees to get that wide view. If you’re at the edge of the lake you don’t have to kill any more trees…,” said Area A Director Garry Jackman. “Thirty metres is not a scientific number.”

“The property owners pay a lot of taxation for being adjacent [to the lake],” added Area F Director Tom Newell during the board discussion on the issue. “And so, it is trying to find a balance, having access to that which they are paying a lot of money for, and protecting development on our lakes. I’m just thinking out loud … we may need to have a workshop to get to the final details of the full implementation.”

Another director noted that the lake is now controlled, and that should be a consideration when setting the rules for building.

“I know the environment and foreshore protection is a major impetus, but the other consideration we have in our area is that Kootenay Lake is not technically a natural lake anymore. It’s a reservoir with [the dams] that affect those flows,” said Area D Director Aimee Watson, adding the Riparian Act doesn’t apply to Kootenay Lake.

She said staff also had to look into water, emergency and other services when determining suitability of a development.

Staff are now using the information to draft the wording for the new EDPA for the board to review later this year. They also plan further community engagement “to build the culture of shoreline stewardship” among lakeshore property owners.

The staff report was received as information.