Table of Contents
Publication Details ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
PARCEL DETAILS...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
GIS MAPPING ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Map 1: Genelle parcel ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Map 2: Travel times ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
Map 3: Amenities in Trail and Castlegar ....................................................................................................................... 8
ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT EXERCISE: AGRIHOOD, A PLANNED COMMUNITY IN GENELLE ........................................................................ 10
FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10
SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12

2

Publication Details
Project Team
•
•
•
•
•

Tara Howse
Ingrid Liepa
Blake Glassford
Lauren Rethoret
Sarah-Patricia Breen

Publication Date: April 29, 2021

Acknowledgements

This report was conducted as part of the Local Government Economic Development Research and Capacity Building
program, a regional-scale economic development initiative focused on business attraction, land development, and
economic resilience for the Kootenay/Lower Columbia and Boundary regions. Funded by the Province of British
Columbia’s Rural Dividend Fund in 2019, a total of $500,000 from the Province was matched with $250,000 from
Columbia Basin Trust and the Regional Districts of East Kootenay (RDEK), Central Kootenay (RDCK), Kootenay
Boundary (RDKB), and the Town of Golden.
We acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report:

Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Project Advisory Committee
•
•
•
•
•

Donna Dean, RDKB
Elizabeth Moore, RDKB
Sandy Elzinga, Community Futures Boundary
Linda Worley, RDKB Area B Director
Katie Erickson, RDKB

We would like to acknowledge all residents of the Boundary region. Your resilience, determination, and kindness
toward others in the face of natural disasters including catastrophic flooding and wildfire is an inspiration to
communities everywhere.
The Research Team and the RDKB acknowledge and appreciate that the land on which we gather is the converging,
traditional, and unceded territories of the Sinixt Arrow Lakes People, the Okanagan Syilx People, the Secwepemc
People, and the Ktunaxa People as well as the Métis Peoples whose footsteps have also marked these lands.

3

INTRODUCTION

This report is a supplement to the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary: Perspectives on Rural Market
Housing Solutions report. Facing an inadequate supply of market housing, the Regional District of Kootenay
Boundary (RDKB) identified priorities for review:
1) identification of successful local and regional approaches to rural market housing development, including
mixed-use and mixed-income models;
2) engagement of housing developers to pinpoint challenges and barriers to development of market
housing;
3) two supplementary reports that (a) applies rural market housing to an RDKB-owned parcel in Genelle and
(b) provide an economic snapshot of the Boundary-region to complement the findings of the housing
needs report 1; and
4) an inquiry into relevant practices of post-disaster rebuilding and rehousing, with analysis and
recommendations of applicable regional and community-specific models.
This report addresses 3(a) above. Items (1) and (2) are in Perspectives on Rural Market Housing Solutions report.
Items 3(b) and (4) are addressed in separate reports.
At the request of the RDKB’s Advisory Committee for this project, the Research Team explored housing
development opportunities for a 12.73 acre, RDKB-owned parcel in Genelle, with special consideration for
seniors housing. Four phases of research were completed:
1) Review of parcel details;
2) GIS mapping;
3) Environmental scan; and
4) Applied development exercise.
The following summarizes the research and key findings that require consideration prior to development of
housing on this parcel. Based on the findings, the suggested housing development is a mixed-use, mixedincome, and multi-generational development. It is important to note that this is not a comprehensive review.
As with any housing development, a visioning exercise with the community is highly recommended to
identify on-the-ground needs, concerns, and ideas.

PARCEL DETAILS

The Research Team was given a 2001 Summary Appraisal 2 for the Genelle parcel, which provided a summary
analysis of zoning, assets, and best use. Based on the appraisal, approximately 40% of the parcel is zoned as a
playfield (P-1) and the remaining 60% is zoned as rural (RUR-1). i There are questions on the previous use of
the RUR-1 section as this area appears to have been used as former gravel extraction site. However, no
environmental assessment has been conducted to determine if contaminants exist or if remediation is
required. The appraisal identified the best possible use of the parcel as residential development consisting of
eight to nine 1.0 acre lots.
Table 1 summarizes key information and considerations.

i

Note: the zoning has been updated since the 2001 Summary Appraisal and is now 100% P-1.
4

Table 1: Quick facts and considerations
Quick Facts
Parcel Location
2nd Street, Genelle, BC
15 km north of Trail

Considerations
• No environmental assessment has been
conducted on the property
• Location of rail line may decrease value
• Proximity to water may increase value
• Low “walkability” score
• Close proximity to bus route and Selkirk
College-Castlegar Campus
• Proximity to water and sewer connections
reduces infrastructure development costs
• Zoning may need updating

Parcel Size
12.73 acres
Current Genelle Population
500-700
Current Zoning & Use
North east (40%) P-1
• Play field
South west (60%) RUR-1
• Possible gravel extraction
Infrastructure
Unconnected but near services
Unimproved, legal roadway
Best Use
Residential development

GIS MAPPING

RDKB staff mapped out various amenities in Trail and Castlegar that are accessible from the Genelle parcel.
These amenities included grocery, recreation, health, community services, and school access. In Genelle,
current amenities are limited to bus stops and a community hall. ii Table 2 summarizes travel times to the
downtown cores of both Trail and Castlegar, two nearby population centres that provide health services,
major employment, and schooling.
Table 2: Travel times to Trail and Castlegar downtown cores (minutes)
Car
Bus

Trail
15
20

Castlegar
20
30

Three maps were produced to provide additional information on parcel location, travel times, and amenities:
• Map 1 (page 5) provides an overview of the parcel location in Genelle.
• Map 2 (page 6) is a demonstration of the travel times, as noted in Table 2.
• Map 3 (page 7) indicates the identified amenities in Trail and Castlegar.

ii

Genelle has a gas station and convenience store, but no literature references either of these as amenities within a
sustainable development framework for meeting social or environmental well-being goals.
5

MAP 1: GENELLE PARCEL

6

MAP 2: TRAVEL TIMES

7

MAP 3: AMENITIES IN TRAIL AND CASTLEGAR

8

ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN

A literature review was conducted and relevant case studies were reviewed to understand barriers and best
practices relevant to seniors housing developments, as well as general guidelines or practices related to
sustainable housing and neighbourhood development models. iii This review was supplemented by
conversations with stakeholders, developers, builders, and realtors. Conversations focused on collecting
ideas for housing development on this parcel.
The Genelle parcel is situated between Trail and Castlegar, providing an excellent location for a work or school
commute to either community. However, with a lack amenities within walking distance, the property would best
serve those who are active and independent.
Infrastructure connections are nearby and the waterfront could be considered a premium asset. However, the
proximity of the rail line may reduce that premium. The creation of a neighbourhood that incorporates single-family
homes on smaller lots, duplexes that have ground access, and a three- or four-storey building with smaller units
would allow for a variety of occupancy and ownership options, including young families, seniors, and rentals.
Three major considerations emerged that impact a seniors housing development on the Genelle parcel:
Consideration 1: Available Transportation
The research confirmed the likely need for future residents to have access to a vehicle, whether a personal
vehicle or through car-sharing. In terms of public transit, the Columbia Connector (Route 98) currently runs
from approximately 6 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday, and 8 am to 5:40 pm on Saturdays. There is no
service on Sundays. The schedule creates limitations for shift workers (e.g., employees at Teck, Mercer
Celgar, healthcare) and those employed in the retail sector. The schedule also impacts any person or family
reliant on child-care, and may affect those who provide care services to others (e.g., after-work elder care).
Consideration 2: Housing Needs Projections
The housing needs projections in the 2020 Housing Needs Report 3 indicate a decline in population and increased
dwellings in the RDKB. The Kootenay/Lower Columbia projections indicate that bachelor, 1- and 2-bedrooms will be
required in the coming years. This Genelle case study is focused on preliminary identification of suitable market
housing options and is not intended to replace a feasibility assessment. Further research is required that
incorporates the needs identified in the Housing Needs Report.
Consideration 3: Appraisal Age and Shifting Trends
The appraisal was conducted nearly 20 years ago. The suggested sales pattern – single-detached homes on
1.0 acre lots – is demonstrative of one form of housing development. A broader range of potential
development options is recognized today. For example, one developer identified the opportunity to develop
tiny or small homes on the property, noting that some young families are looking at smaller and more
affordable options focused on energy efficiency and smaller footprints.

iii

See Perspectives on Rural Market Housing Solutions for a summary of housing models (Appendix A: Extended
Development Models), emerging best practices (Rural Case Studies: emerging best practices), and seniors housing
considerations (Appendix C: Case Studies).
9

APPLIED DEVELOPMENT EXERCISE: AGRIHOOD, A PLANNED
COMMUNITY IN GENELLE

The Research Team conducted a preliminary exploration of how an agrihood development could fit this
parcel. As noted above, this supplemental report is not a feasibility assessment, but provides an alternative
vision of planning and development that extends beyond the 2001 appraisal recommendation and reflects a
development model receiving increasing interest and uptake across North America. 4
An agrihood is a relatively new model that offers “proven financial, health, and environmental benefits – to the
stakeholders involved in their implementation, to surrounding communities and to the planet”. 5 Instead of the
traditional master-planned community around a golf course or other recreational feature, it is planned around a
farm or community garden. 6 Agrihoods vary in size and extravagance but share the following features 7:
• Centred around a farm or food production space
• Embraces sustainable building practices
• Limits sprawl and encourages smaller dwellings and densification
• Design elements include:
o Large front porches to increase interaction between residents
o Trails and sidewalks to support foot traffic
o Edible landscaping
The 2001 Appraisal suggested eight to nine 1.0 acre parcels at an average lot sale price of $60,000 plus service costs
of $15,000. Following the best practices recommendations for agrihoods, single-family homes would be developed
on 0.5 acre lots instead of 1.0 acres.
The size of the farm or garden varies but a less-than-five acre parcel set aside for food production would provide
opportunities for education, demonstration, programming, and employment, with at least one or two full time staff
to manage the plot. 8 Examples of food-production spaces include a community or market garden that is
professionally managed, greenhouse or other controlled-environment agriculture, and/or demonstration farm. A
professionally managed community or market garden would likely provide the most feasible and viable option.
Setting aside approximately two acres of land would allow for a 1.5 acre production plot plus 0.5 acres for adequate
storage, washing, and small market stand facilities. 9 This would allow for ten acres of residential development,
providing approximately 18-20 homes at 0.5 acres each.
The ownership and governance of agrihoods can take many forms. In general, the developer is in control of the
property and farm and then works with a management team to transition the property. 10 Typically, this transition
results in a land trust or homeowners association that would own the land, and the farm would be managed by a
non-profit entity. 11 Given the size of the farm or garden discussed above, this structure would be appropriate for
this development. Under a strata model, strata fees could allocate a percentage to assist in the payment of a fulltime staff member to manage the farm or garden.
The RDKB is well positioned to support a planned community like an agrihood. This approach addresses a number of
the 2040 visions as identified in the RDKB 2019-2022 Strategic Plan, including climate action, sustainable
development, food security, and affordable living. 12

FINDINGS

This research has identified two key findings relevant to the future development of the Genelle parcel:
1) The parcel is not well suited for a dedicated seniors housing development. While seniors housing is a
recognized need in the region, providing appropriate seniors housing in rural communities has its
challenges. Best practices demonstrate that seniors-dedicated housing is best suited for areas that
10

have high walkability (approximately five minutes) to amenities, 13 such as grocery, health care, post
offices, and shopping. A stand-alone seniors development is best suited for a downtown location in
communities such as Trail, Grand Forks, or Midway.
2) The parcel is well suited for a planned community. Based on best practices, the Housing Needs
Report, and complementing the RDKB 2019-2022 Strategic Plan, the Genelle parcel would be well
suited for a mixed-use development that integrates mixed-income and multi-generational housing.
This is in line with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Sustainable Neighbourhood
Development 14 guidelines, which promotes walkable and mixed-use communities to promote
healthy lifestyles and social connections, reduce municipal operating costs, and meet environmental
goals. The Genelle parcel would be better suited to a planned community that incorporates mixeduse functions – like a community garden - and that is attractive to young families, students, emptynesters, and active retirees.

SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS

To determine the most desirable and viable housing development option for the Genelle parcel, the following
actions are suggested:
1) Conduct an updated appraisal to assess the current value of the property.
2) Conduct a preliminary site investigation to determine the presence of any contaminants that may require
further assessment or remediation.
3) Conduct a visioning exercise or community charette to engage local residents early in a housing
development project and better identify issues or barriers that may arise.
4) Conduct a feasibility study on the Genelle parcel that incorporates alternative models of ownership, as set
out in Perspectives on Rural Market Housing Solutions Appendix A: Extended Development Models.

11

REFERENCES
1

CitySpaces. (2020). House and Home: RDKB Housing Needs Report.
Hohne, M.H. (2001). Complete – Summary Appraisal Report. Pt.D.I, 2044 2nd Street, Genelle, BC. Castlegar, BC: GW
Marken Appraisal Associates
3
CitySpaces. (2020). House and Home: RDKB Housing Needs Report.
4
Mitham, P. (2020, September 19). Delta development puts agrihoods to the test. Country Life in BC.
5
Yale, A.J. (2019, September 12). Meet The Farm-Based Neighborhoods Changing The Face of Master-Planned
Communities. Forbes. Retrieved https://www.forbes.com/sites/alyyale/2019/09/12/meet-the-farm-basedneighborhoods-changing-the-face-of-master-planned-communities/?sh=5fd806d83baa
6
Norris, M. (2018). Agrihoods: Cultivating Best Practices. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
7
Norris, M. (2018). Agrihoods: Cultivating Best Practices. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
8
Urban Land Institute. (2016). Cultivating Development: Trends and Opportunities at the Intersection of Food and
Real Estate. Washington, DC: Author.
9
Kootenay and Boundary Farm Advisors. (2020). Personal Communication.
10
Urban Land Institute. (2016). Cultivating Development: Trends and Opportunities at the Intersection of Food and
Real Estate. Washington, DC: Author.
11
Urban Land Institute. (2016). Cultivating Development: Trends and Opportunities at the Intersection of Food and
Real Estate. Washington, DC: Author.
12
Regional District of Kootenay Boundary. (n.d.). Regional District of Kootenay Boundary Strategic Plan 2019-2022.
Trail, BC: Author.
13
Brown, H.C., & Teixeira, C. (2015). Aging-in-place in a mid-sized Canadian city: A case study of the housing
experiences of seniors in Kelowna’s housing market. The Journal of Rural and Community Development, 10(3), 98119.
14
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2016). Sustainable Neighbourhood Development: Practical Solutions to
Common Challenges. Ottawa: Author.
2

12