Coldstream developer suing after private beach expropriated for Okanagan Rail Trail

A North Okanagan developer is suing the North Okanagan Regional District over the amount of compensation paid when a slice of waterfront land was expropriated during the development of the Okanagan Rail Trail.

In a notice of civil claim filed at the Kelowna courthouse Feb. 12, the plaintiff argues the $170,000 paid by the Regional District of North Okanagan for the land in Coldstream was not enough to cover the “damage and disruption” caused.

The legal suit was launched by developer Kalview Estates, Josh and Anita Galloway, and Robert Galloway against the Regional District of North Okanagan.

According to the court documents, the regional district expropriated a piece of lakeshore property in Coldstream with over 600-feet of waterfront on Kalamalka Lake. The Regional District initiated the expropriation in June 2018 and became the owners in February 2019 paying Anita Galloway $170,000 the week before they took ownership.

The land sits at the end of Westkal Road, squashed between the rail trail and Kalamalka Lake. Josh and Anita Galloway, along with Robert Galloway, own nearby properties which, prior to expropriation had an easement giving them access to what was their own private beach. The court documents also say Kalview Estates is owned by members of the Galloway family. According to its website, Graystone at Kalview Estates is a 35-lot single-family development, which includes Graystone and Stoneridge Drives, which sits just north of the strip expropriated.

The notice of claims says the land was used for “swimming, bathing, and sun tanning and beach recreation” as well as using the beach to access the water for water skiing and tubing.

The plaintiffs in the case argue taking the land has destroyed the “privacy, ambience, and character” of the area.

“It subjects the property to all manner of users and increased beach traffic, debris, and activity,” reads the notice of claim.

It says losing the land has caused “substantial loss” in value for the properties.

“The plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered disturbance damage arising out of the interference with the (land),” the court documents say.

While no dollar amount is listed in the court documents, the plaintiffs’ request market value plus expenses for the land.

The regional district has yet to file a response to the claim.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above.