Avro Oil – ALC decision

For many years now Mr. Feeny and his companies Avro Oil, and EZ Outdoor Storage have been and still are outstanding members of our business community and good corporate citizens. During this time variances were needed as is often the case for business to meet regulations. Where these caused no damage elsewhere, fit the intent of the official community plan or could be supported as non-invasive these variances were granted. Unfortunately, the successes there created a sense of over confidence and entitlement.

As stated, Mr. Feeny is a successful business man and as such he knew that this property was within the ALR and that the ALC is very solid in not removing land from the ALR for anything other than purposes that directly support farm practices, an example being wineries which are commercial endeavor on farm land.

To claim to not be aware of this is equivalent to saying “the dog ate my homework “in short, a non-excuse.

By the argument given for this application should a winery fail and become noncompliant a developer would be able to remove the whole vineyard from the ALR and thus pave the whole property. Mismanagement happens in farm business also and that is not a reason for removal from the ALR.

As to the size of this property just south of it is a smaller piece of detached property that has been ground cropped for many years and was recently fenced for a different agricultural adventure. To the north a much smaller property was recently cleared and planted. The increasing value of farm land has made small properties increasingly attractive to farmers. Some farms now have a large number of small properties either leased or owned in their portfolios.

As for the being “tossed under the bus” I don’t believe that disagreeing with another person’s opinion is tossing them under the bus. Had I been asked prior to the building of this “shrine” my reply would still be the same; I could not support removing this property from the ALR.

The application was not supported by the APC or myself but Mr. Feeny did make a compelling enough argument at the RDOS board to get a plus one vote and that was enough to send this application to the ALC for their decision. Had the board been the final word it is conceivable that the outcome would have been different.

Too say that this was an altruistic endeavor for the good of the community is untrue. This was a for profit endeavor that was undertaken in advance of permitted use being granted.

This was a serious and costly mistake caused by a sense of overconfidence. The post mortem is an attempt to blame others for this mistake.

As to the timetable for rectification had a request been made to me for an extension, I would have supported that as I can see the difficulty in the time frame given.

 

Rick Knodel, Rural Area Director

RDOS Area C – Oliver