Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/valleyv/public_html/textpattern/lib/txplib_db.php on line 14

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/valleyv/public_html/textpattern/lib/txplib_db.php:14) in /home/valleyv/public_html/textpattern/lib/txplib_misc.php on line 1544

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/valleyv/public_html/textpattern/lib/txplib_db.php:14) in /home/valleyv/public_html/textpattern/publish.php on line 467
ILMB Issues Reason for Decision on proposed Seymour Ridge Road > News Archive > Valley Vision

Valley Vision | towards a comprehensive vision for the future of the Bulkley Valley

ILMB Issues Reason for Decision on proposed Seymour Ridge Road

As of March 5th 2010 ILMB has issued an Reason for Decision. Its current status is “Offered”: A decision has been made and the land use application has been allowed. An offer has been made subject to any terms and conditions that need to be met before tenure is issued.

Applicant: Petursson, Conan Olafur
File: #6405671

While there is not a new public review period for this application, it is possible for ILMB to consider public comments until a decision is made. The ILMB contact person for this file is Elizabeth Williamson elizabeth.williamson@gov.bc.ca

More info:

  • Status as of March 5th 2010: The ILMB site indicates: “OFFERED
    An offer has been made subject to any terms and conditions that need to be met before tenure is issued.”
    View the offer pdf here.

  1. Posted by Kathy, 1 April 2010, 19:21

    Did you guys put this much information on here about Allan Baxter’s approved, precedent setting, alternate road application (file #6406529)through the CORE ecosystem of the Community Forest to his private property that he then flipped for a considerable gain? I think not. I’ll be surprised if you even post this comment. Thanks anyway.

  2. Posted by Renee, 3 April 2010, 09:38

    I feel the impact on the trail and those who use it will be negative. Crown lands should not be compromised for use of the private indvidual.

  3. Posted by Kathy, 5 April 2010, 20:33

    What about the fact that a driveway would actually open up opportunities for those people that are not able to access the view and unique features now?(Which by the way, is on our PRIVATE property as are some of the trails.)(Physically challenged, daycare groups, the elderly, etc.)Plus, our covenant on the red-listed grassland ecosystem on our private property should be worth something as far as “compromising” Crown land. After all, Allan Baxter’s covenant on the wildlife corridor on his land (that Environment never protected when they had the chance to when the sub-division was being created) was apparently worth the “trade-off” according to the Community Forest Board at the time. People should research what is really going on here and not just blindly trust those who supposedly know, yet are not letting all the facts be known. By the way, thanks for posting my last comment. Good to see the hypocrisy has not reached all levels.

Share your thoughts . . . . . Contribute information



How to use this comment box -- -- Textile Help