By Lexi McFarlane, Times Chronicle
The Town of Osoyoos has formally submitted an exclusion application for some properties currently located within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) following a public hearing, the second to be held on the exclusion topic.
Submitting the application to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) culminates a process that had been ongoing for seven months, as Osoyoos Council first initiated the exclusion application process in December 2025.
The application proposed excluding a total of 178.11 hectares of land from the ALR, largely due to their usage history not aligning with what the ALR is intended to protect, that being properties primarily centred around agricultural use.
In response to questions from Councillor Johnny Cheong about the difference of a property being in the ALR as opposed to not being within it, Shannon Duong, the Town’s Planner, explained that ALR-included properties are limited in how they can be developed.
“The primary difference would be that, for those properties that are not deemed to be in exemption from the restrictions of use under the ALC Act, those restrictions would apply,” Duong said. “That could potentially contradict the zoning of the property.
“So even though Zoning says that you could potentially develop your property in some way; if that’s a restricted use under the ALC Act, you would need to get an approval from the ALC before the Town could proceed with any authorizations.”
This most recent public hearing saw a total of three correspondence forms filled out, along with four different speakers who came forward when comments were opened up to the public.
One of the speakers, Anita Hendricks, was a returning speaker who spoke in opposition at the prior Public Hearing, and in this session corrected a previously-reported detail concerning the School Tax.
“We are not exempt from school taxes (entirely); we are exempt from a portion of school taxes,” Hendricks said of her and her husband.
A major source of feedback came from the Oasis RV Resort, which provided conflicting viewpoints on how property owners at the resort feel about being excluded from the ALR. Kay Bohlen, the Chairman of the Oasis Owners Association’s zoning committee, provided a letter with reasons for opposing being excluded.
“Non-farm use alone has never been a basis for exclusion, and no capability assessment has been provided to demonstrate that the Oasis lands lack agricultural potential,” Bohlen said in the letter. She went on to point out that Oasis has co-existed with neighbouring vineyards for many years with no issues, and that there is no proof that the land they reside on cannot be restored for future agricultural use.
These concerns were echoed by a representative of the owners association in attendance, who said that “the board’s position was established democratically, through consultation with board direction”.
“The Association’s position is based on longstanding ALR status, the absence of evidence showing the land lacks agricultural capability, and the desire to maintain the protections and stability that the ALR designation provides,” the representative said.
However, Tammy Collier, an Oasis property owner in attendance, not only spoke in favour of the exclusion application, but claimed that dialogue between the association and individual owners was insufficient.
“Until a couple of weeks ago, myself and quite a few people that I know in the park, knew nothing about a committee who was representing us to stay in the ALR,” Collier said.
“I do not agree with staying in the ALR. I do not think our park is in any kind of proper zoning for the ALR, and I think the best thing for our park would be to be out of the ALR.”
The other two correspondence forms received, from Kathleen Dodd and Jonathan Hart, were in favour of the exclusion application. Dodd’s form said that her “taxes paid are for low-density residential”, and that she has not benefitted from being included in the ALR.
Ryan Liebel, the other Lakeshore Drive resident to speak at this public hearing, asked to keep his property in the ALR, saying his property received no tax relief at all.
“I pay all school taxes, I don’t get a portion off, and I don’t see any benefit for my property (being excluded),” Liebel said.
These varying perspectives continued to prove tricky for Council to balance out, as they tried to determine the best way forward with the application. Councillor Jim King asked about amending the proposed motion to remove select properties from the application.
Councillor Myers Bennett additionally inquired if land owners could approach the ALC themselves at a later date, to be removed from the exclusion application.
“Can all these land owners go to the (ALC) and ask to be excluded, after we send this in?” Bennett said.
Duong said that Council could remove properties from the application, however a private citizen’s request would be up to the ALC, ultimately.
“With respect to whether or not a private property owner could go directly to the Commission, it would largely be within the Commission’s discretion as to whether to receive that correspondence,” Duong explained.
“However, my understanding is it’s more typical for them to relay private property owners to local government, as a Council would essentially be in a better position to weigh the merits from a community standpoint.”
In a split decision, with King opposed, Council voted to advance the application to the ALC without any further edits. The application will be reviewed at a later date.
