In behind the museum, the District’s lot expansion policy is being tested for the first time.
Dennise Carlstrom owns a house that borders on the green space behind the museum. She’s been coming to Tumbler Ridge since it was nothing more than a bunch of ATCO trailers, and has owned property here in the past, but finally moved to town about five years ago.
“When we moved to Tumbler, we bought the biggest lot that we possibly could at the time,” says Carlstrom. “And you think that it’s big enough, but then you put a garage on it, and then you put a garden shed. And then you realize, if you have quads or a trailer or a boat, you have nowhere to put them.”
While they have rented storage space for some of their stuff, she says it wouldn’t take much to be able to fit everything on their property. “We thought it would be great,” she says. “There’s nothing going on behind us, with the Dinosaur Museum and the Community Gardens there. If we could, you know, buy another 20 feet or something off the back, then maybe we’d have a little bit more room to park things like a boat or something.”
So she approached the District this summer to see what could be done. She started the process in June, and sent in a letter in August. “I finally got to a council meeting in October,” she says.
In 2016, Council decided to evaluate each lot expansion proposal on a case by case basis. However, in that time, many members of council have changed, as has general attitude. “Is this going to come back to us for every single resident?” asked Councillor Miedzinski. “If so, how much staff time is going to be eaten up? And will council have to deal with it every time?”
Yes, says CAO Jennifer Thompson, that is how it was set up in 2016. “Unless we have a strong policy that’s how it would have to be dealt with. Each case would come before council. Council of the day ultimately chose not to pursue the lot expansion option. Instead, they directed that any future resident applications to purchase municipal land be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than a district-wide basis. Council also put the onus on the property owner to satisfy the District that their lot expansion and development would not cause unintended damage.”
Councillor Howe says the whole thinking back then was that each case would be different. “We have direction from 2016 that we gave to staff that any future resident application to purchase municipal land be dealt with on a case by case basis, rather than a district wide basis. We already decided in 2016 that this was the way to do it. The debate of the day that it would be too encompassing to set up a “what’s good for one is good for all,” because there could be a slough of different problems. The whole idea of this was to look at it on a case by case basis. We’ve had one person come in,” he says. “But I’ve talked to about 20, 25 people who say they have a serious interest in purchasing land. The benefits are immediate. We get immediate revenue from the sale of the land. We get ongoing revenue in taxation on the increased value of the property, every year forever. There’s a potential to create jobs: surveying, land clearing, brush cutting, new fences, shop builds, heavy equipment operating jobs clearing land, auguring, gravel sales…
“There is spin-off revenue to local businesses. Lumber for fences and shops and equipment rental to build. This allows the District to provide bylaw an option to homeowners that are currently encroaching on District property making bylaw’s job much easier. There is a process for people to buy that land. If they don’t want to do it, they have to move their stuff from District Land. I have two spare lots next to my house. Mayor Bertrand bought a spare lot next to his house. Councillor Kirby has two lots. A lot of people want it, and we should give them the option to do it. We should move forward on this. This is a low risk area. We had no idea what we wanted to do with it. Someone wants to carve a piece off the corner of it? I don’t see any downfall with doing this. Let’s get the process going, and let staff run with it as a test case.”
Councillor Miedzinski, however, is still not convinced it is the best idea. “When an individual purchases a property, they know what they’re getting into. I worry about it encroaching on a green space. We have cookie cutter lots for site lines. For the visual aspects of it. If somebody is not falling the proper rules and there are piles of vehicles and ATVs in the green space, how does bylaw know if they own that space? It makes it harder on bylaw, because now they can’t tell whose property extends farther than the other.”
But that’s the thing, says Carlstrom. The lots aren’t cookie cutter. Both her neighbour’s lots extend past her; all she is looking to do is make her property even with those lots.
Councillor Krakowka is in favour of moving forward with this, pointing out that Mackenzie already has a policy in place, and Tumbler Ridge might want to look at their policy.
Councillor Norbury says he’s worried that if everything is reviewed on a case by case basis, it can lead to bias, either for or against the landowner. “We should have a policy in place,” he says. “I think we might be painting rosier picture that it is. People are already encroaching on green space. I have spoken with residents who say everybody is backing up into the green space. There’s a don’t ask don’t tell policy now. I would hate for someone to not be able to expand their lot because of political feelings.”
Councillor Kirby agrees there should be a policy in place. What happens in the future, when there is a new council, or new staff members. “How do we address the next issue and the next, when council has to say, ‘no it doesn’t work.’ What are the policies?”
Councillor Lehmann agrees. “We need some sort of policies. We need have to have guidelines: this is where you can do it, this is where you can’t. We can do it on a case by case basis, but we should have a policy so people know beforehand what the restrictions are and what they can and cannot do. I just want to make sure everyone is treated the same. Granted, it is case by case. In some cases, you’re not going to be able to do that, but I want to make sure everyone is dealt with equally.”
Mayor Bertrand agrees that selling land without a policy in place is like putting the cart before the horse. “I’m sympathetic to land owners. There are some small lots, but I don’t believe council is in the position to make a decision on everything that comes forward without a policy.”
Ultimately, the motion to go forward was defeated. Instead, staff was directed to create a policy for lot expansion and all necessary changes, including revising the Official Community Plan.
Carlstrom says as long as they keep moving forward, she’s happy. “I actually thought that they would go for it because I mean, my property really isn’t going to affect anything. We would follow the fence line and essentially what I wanted to do with mine was plant trees. I just wanted to put some division between me and the playground. But there’s lots of people that would definitely want to build a garage or whatever.”
“I don’t think I’m being unreasonable,” she says. “And I don’t even care if they sell me the land. If they want to lease me that land for 99 years and keep it in Tumbler Ridge’s coffers, that’s their business. But I think that they would make their town look a lot better, if they would consider doing this kind of an option.”
She points out that there are a number of people who are just storing their stuff on District land. “How many people do you know in town don’t have either at least a boat or a fifth wheel or quad or sled. And where do they put it? Tumbler Ridge now has a lot more garages than it’s ever had, but there’s still not enough room for most people. I’m not against green space and I understand people might not want it there, but I just think this might be the better way to do it. You’re going to collect taxes which is good for the town. This is a win-win for the town. They sell the land, they don’t have any expenses and they collect the money on taxes year after year. I just don’t understand why it’s a big issue. I felt good coming out of that meeting that they were actually going to do a policy. And whether or not I get the land I want, at least they will do a policy and there’ll be something in place so that people can apply. If nobody ever brings these questions up and says, ‘Why can’t we try something different?’ It’s not gonna change. I don’t mind being the test case if it brings some change.
It will be great even if they decide just rent that land. Or if they say, ‘you want to park your stuff back there? That’s fine, but it’s going to cost you this much a year to use that space.’ Or you have to buy that space. They have a couple of different options. I just think it’s a good idea to open up the topic and let’s see where we can go with it.”
Trent is the publisher of Tumbler RidgeLines.
