HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-30 Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfCommittee of the Whole Agenda April 30, 2012
Page 1 District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA May 8, 2012 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber Note: This Agenda is also posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca The purpose
of a Council meeting is to enact powers given to Council by using bylaws or resolutions. This is the final venue for debate of issues before voting on a bylaw or resolution. 100 CALL
TO ORDER 200 MOMENT OF REFLECTION 300 INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS 400 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 500 ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES 501 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting
of April 24, 2012 502 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meetings of April 19, 23 and 27(4), 2012 MEETING DECORUM Council would like to remind all people present tonight
that serious issues are decided at Council meetings which affect many people’s lives. Therefore, we ask that you act with the appropriate decorum that a Council Meeting deserves. Commentary
and conversations by the public are distracting. Should anyone disrupt the Council Meeting in any way, the meeting will be stopped and that person’s behavior will be reprimanded.
Council Meeting Agenda May 8, 2012 Council Chamber Page 2 of 6 600 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 700 DELEGATIONS 800 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 900 CORRESPONDENCE 1000 BYLAWS Bylaws
for Final Reading 1001 Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw 6922-2012 To update the 2012-2016 Financial Plan Final reading 1002 Maple Ridge Property Tax Rates Bylaw No.
6923-2012 To establish 2012 tax rates Final reading COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1100 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1100 Minutes – April 30, 2012 The following issues were presented
at an earlier Committee of the Whole meeting with the recommendations being brought to this meeting for Municipal Council consideration and final approval. The Committee of the Whole
meeting is open to the public and is held in the Council Chamber at 1:00 p.m. on the Monday the week prior to this meeting.
Council Meeting Agenda May 8, 2012 Council Chamber Page 3 of 6 Public Works and Development Services 1101 Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Bylaw and Regulation Staff report dated April 30,
2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838-2011 to permit hobby beekeeping be given first reading and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing and that
Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 for the keeping of bees be given first, second and third readings. 1102 RZ/066/07, 12355 McNutt Road, RS-3 to RS-2 Staff
report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6881-2011 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
to permit future subdivision into two lots be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1103 RZ/033/08, 10366 240 Street, First Extension Staff report dated April 30,
2012 recommending that rezoning application RZ/033/08 to permit subdivision of approximately 9 lots under the R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone be granted a one year extension.
1104 2011-043-DVP -10405, 10429, 10443, 10426, 10408 243 Street; 24290, 24280, 24273, 24283, 24289, 24297, 24305, 24315, 24323, 24333, 24337, 24347, 24366, 24360, 24356, 24348, 24342,
24336, 24328, 24320, 24316 104A Avenue; 24225, 24325, 24331, 24339, 24345, 24351, 24359, 24365, 24371, 24377 104 Avenue Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-043-DVP to vary the height of proposed single family homes. 1105 2011-139-DVP, 12151 McNutt Road Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending
that 2011-139-DVP to vary the maximum permitted size of a detached garden suite be denied.
Council Meeting Agenda May 8, 2012 Council Chamber Page 4 of 6 1106 Award of Contract No. ITT-EN12-31, Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to 216 Street) Staff report
dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Contract No. ITTEN12-31, Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to 216 Street) be awarded to Tybo Contracting Ltd. and that the
Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1107 Award of Contract (Reference No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152), 232 Street Road Improvements (124 Avenue to 128
Avenue) Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Contract (Reference No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152), 232 Street Road Improvements (124 Avenue to 128 Avenue) be
awarded to Keywest Asphalt Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Police) 1131 Tax Rates Bylaws
– Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District and Albion Dyking District Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Road 13 Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6916-2012 be given first,
second and third readings and that Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6915-2012 be given first, second and third readings. 1132 2013-2017 Financial Planning Guidelines Staff
report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that the 2013-2017 Financial Planning Guidelines be approved. 1133 Integrated Forensic Identification Unit – Request for Space Staff report
dated April 30, 2012 recommending that the request of the Integrated Forensic Identification Service to establish a regional hub within the main RCMP detachment building in Maple Ridge
be supported.
Council Meeting Agenda May 8, 2012 Council Chamber Page 5 of 6 Community Development and Recreation Service 1151 Bid to host the BC Summer Games 2016 or 2018 Staff report dated April
30, 2012 recommending that staff prepare a bid to host the 2016 or 2018 BC Summer Games, subject to endorsement by School District No. 42. Correspondence 1171 Other Committee Issues
1181 1200 STAFF REPORTS 1300 RELEASE OF ITEMS FROM CLOSED COUNCIL 1400 MAYOR’S REPORT 1500 COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS 1600 OTHER MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 1700 NOTICES OF MOTION AND MATTERS
FOR FUTURE MEETING
Council Meeting Agenda May 8, 2012 Council Chamber Page 6 of 6 1800 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 1900 ADJOURNMENT CChheecckkeedd bbyy::________________________________ DDaattee:: _______________________
_________ QUESTION PERIOD The purpose of the Question Period is to provide the public with an opportunity to ask questions of Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception
of Public Hearing by-laws which have not yet reached conclusion. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. Each person will be permitted
2 minutes to ask their question (a second opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting
and not to individual members of Council. The total Question Period is limited to 15 minutes. Council reserves the right to defer responding to a question in order to obtain the information
required to provide a complete and accurate response. Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings, delegations and community forum. The public may
also make their views known to Council by writing or via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings. Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way
to have a voice in the future of this community. For more information on these opportunities contact: Clerk’s Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca. Mayor and Council at
mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca.
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6922-2012 A bylaw to amend Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 6883-2011 _________________________________________________________________________________
___ WHEREAS, through a public process in an open meeting the business plans and resulting financial plan were presented; AND WHEREAS, the public will have the opportunity to provide
comments or suggestions with respect to the financial plan; AND WHEREAS, Council deems this to a process of public consolation under section 166 of the Community Charter. NOW THEREFORE,
the Council for the District of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6922-2012”. 2. Statement 1, Statement
2 and Statement 3 attached to and forming part of Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial Plan Bylaw 6883-2011 are deleted in their entirety and replaced by Statement 1, Statement 2 and Statement
3 attached and forming part of Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6922-2012. READ a first time the day of , 2012. READ a second time the day of , 2012. READ a third
time the day of , 2012. PUBLIC CONSULTATION completed on the day of , 2012. RECONSIDERED and adopted the day of , 2012. ________________________________ ________________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER ATTACHMENT: Statement 1, Statement 2 and Statement 3
Objectives & Policies Property Tax Revenue is the District’s primary revenue source, and one which is heavily reliant on the residential class. Diversification of the tax base and generation
of non-tax revenue are ongoing objectives, outlined in Financial Sustainability Policy 5.52 section 6. Business Planning Guidelines and the Financial Plan includes a 3% general tax
increase, a 1% increase to fund replacement of existing infrastructure and in 2012 an increase of $600,000 plus growth since 2005, to fund the Fire Department Master Plan implementation.
More information can be found in the Business Planning Guidelines 14th Edition, Financial Sustainability Plan and the 2012-2016 Financial Plan Overview Report. Specific policies discussing
the tax increases are included in the Financial Sustainability Plan and related policies which were adopted in 2004. Property tax revenue includes property taxes collected through setting
the rates noted below as well as grants in lieu of property taxes. Parcel Charges are largely comprised of a recycling charge, a sewer charge and on certain properties a local area
service or improvement charge. Parcel charges are a useful tool to charge all or a subset of properties for a fixed or variable amount to support services. Unlike property taxation
the variable amount does not need to be related to property assessment value, but can be something that more accurately reflects the cost of the service.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6922-2012 Statement 2 (continued) Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure Fees & Charges The Business Planning Guidelines
call for an increase of 5% in fees as a guideline. Actual fee increases vary depending on the individual circumstances, the type of fee and how it is calculated. Fees should be reviewed
annually and updated if needed. Recent fee amendments include recreation fees, development application fees, business license fees and cemetery fees. A major amendment to the Development
Costs Charges (DCC), recommended every 5 years, was completed in 2008. Minor DCC amendments are done more frequently. Some fees are to offset the costs of providing specific services.
The utility fees are reviewed annually with a view towards using rate stabilization practices to smooth out large fluctuations in rates, as set out in the Business Planning Guidelines.
Borrowing Proceeds – Debt is used where it makes sense. Caution is used when considering debt as it commits future cash flows to debt payments restricting the ability to use these funds
to provide other services. The source of the debt payments needs to be considered as does the justification for advancing the project. More information on borrowing previously approved
or proposed for 2012-2016 can be found in the 2012-2016 Financial Plan Overview report. Other Sources, will vary greatly year to year as it includes -Development fees, which is the
funding for capital projects from the DCC Reserve, -Contribution from others in relation to capital, -Interest earned on funds invested in accordance with the Investment Policy -Grants,
which are sought from various agencies, and may be leveraged with District funds. PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE Property Tax Revenue Distribution
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6922-2012 Statement 2 (continued) Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE Objectives & Policies
Property taxes are the District’s largest source of revenue and are only contained by efficient business practices. Annual business planning practices have been the mechanism for resource
allocation decisions. The District’s Financial Sustainability Policy section 6 discusses the necessity of diversifying the tax base. As development of employment related properties
is one method of diversification, key performance measurement in Economic Development tracks the increased investment and development of non-residential properties. A policy in the
Financial Sustainability Plan that calls for stable tax increases and the adoption of the annual increase early in the prior year in the Business Planning Guidelines provides citizens
with a more stable and predictable set of cost increases. In some cases costs are phased in over multiple years to keep within the set tax increases. Property Tax Rates It is policy
to adjust property tax rates annually to negate the impact of fluctuations in the market values of properties. (Tax rates are negatively correlated to market changes). Property tax
increases are then applied at the same relative increase for all classes, unless legislation restricts the rates, as with Class 2, Utility. The Business Class and Light Industry Class
properties have the same tax rate and are treated as a composite class when setting the tax rates. This is done as the types of businesses in each class of property are quite similar.
This was achieved over a long period of time with small incremental adjustments. A review was done on the Major Industry Class rates and the recommendation from the Audit and Finance
Committee and Council was a reduction of 5% in 2009 and 2010 to the taxes collected to support additional investments in the subject property and to keep rates competitive. In reviewing
the tax rates to ensure competitiveness absolute rates, tax multiples and overall tax burden are considered. The impact that assessed values have on comparing other geographical areas
must be considered in a comparison of tax rates or multiples.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6922-2012 Statement 2 (continued) Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure Permissive Tax Exemptions Council has set
policies around the use of permissive tax exemptions. They are Council Policies 5.19 though 5.24. The policies discuss Churches, Community Halls, Heritage Sites, Homes for the Care
of Children and the Relief of the Aged, the Poor, the Disabled and the Infirm, Municipal Recreational Services, Private Hospitals and Daycares, Private School and Youth Recreation Groups.
Revitalization Tax Exemption The District of Maple Ridge has made significant investments in the Town Centre over the last several years, in keeping with Council’s vision to create
a vibrant and dynamic Town Centre. The Town Centre Investment Incentives Program has been established to encourage accelerated private sector investment in residential and commercial
projects to help achieve Council’s vision. Specific objectives of the program are to: a. Encourage residential investment to diversify housing options, to increase density in the Town
Centre, and to provide a larger base of residents to support Commercial activities; b. Encourage Commercial investment to create a strong local economy and expand employment opportunities
for citizens; c. Increase pedestrian traffic with added residential and Commercial activity, both to support local business, and to enhance safety; d. Encourage and support the use
of environmentally sustainable building construction methods and materials, and encourage energy efficiency and alternative technologies. Revitalization Tax Exemption Bylaw 6789-2011
is one element of that incentive program. The threeyear program expires at the end of 2013.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6922-2012 Statement 3 Capital Expenditure Disclosure The sole purpose of this statement is to meet legislative requirements,
highlighting the value of the DCC program; no other conclusions should be drawn from the figures as the information could be misleading. This is required under the Local Government
Act s. 937(2); Capital costs attributable to projects to be partially funded by Development Cost Charges (DCC) must be included in the financial plan. The DCC program includes projects
as far out as 2030 so the capital expenditures must be extended to match. Certain types of projects are not planned past the five year time horizon of the financial plan. Much less
scrutiny is given to projects that are planned in years 2017 through 2030. Projects in these years typically exceed likely funding available. Capital Works Program for 2017 – 2030 $
(‘000s)
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: May 8, 2012 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council SUBJECT: Property Tax Rates Bylaw
No. 6923-2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Property Tax Rates Bylaw needs to be adopted prior to May 15. In order to do so, the bylaw was given first through third reading at Council Workshop
on April 30 and will be given final consideration at the Council meeting on May 8. A typographical error was made when entering the Business/Other tax rate for South Coast BC Transportation
Authority (TransLink). The Bylaw has been amended to reflect the correct rate. RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Property Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6923-2012 be amended to change the South
Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Business/Other tax rate in Schedule “B”, Row “C” from 1.5495 to 1.5485 and that Bylaw No. 6923-2012, as amended, be given final reading.
_______________________________________________ Prepared by: Trevor Thompson, BBA, CGA Manager of Financial Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Paul
Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer 1002
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6923-2012 A Bylaw to establish property tax rates for Municipal, Improvement District and Regional District purposes for the year 2012 ______________________________
____________________________________________ WHEREAS pursuant to provisions in the Community Charter Council must, by bylaw, establish property tax rates; The Council of the Corporation
of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge Property Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6923 -2012”. 2.
The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for the year 2012: (a) For all lawful general purposes of the municipality on the assessed value of land and improvements taxable for
general municipal purposes, rates appearing in Row “A” of Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming a part hereof. (b) For the purposes of improving fire services the assessed value
of land and improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, rates appearing in Row “B” of Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming a part hereof. (c) For purposes of the British
Columbia Assessment Authority on the assessed value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in Row “A” of Schedule “B” attached hereto
and forming a part hereof. (d) For purposes of the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia on the assessed value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district
purposes, rates appearing in Row “B” of Schedule “B” attached hereto and forming a part hereof. (e) For purposes of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority on the
assessed value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in Row “C” of Schedule “B” attached hereto and forming a part hereof. (f) For
purposes of the Greater Vancouver Regional District on the assessed value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in Row “D” of Schedule
“B” attached hereto and forming a part hereof.
Bylaw No. 6923 -2012 Page (2) 3. The minimum amount of taxation upon a parcel of real property shall be One Dollar ($1.00).READ a first time the day of 2012 READ a second time the day
of 2012 READ a third time the day of 2012 RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the day of 2012. _______________________________PRESIDING MEMBER _______________________________CORPORATE
OFFICER ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULES “A” AND “B”
1 2 4 5 6 8 9 Major Light Business/Rec/Residential Utility Industry Industry Other Non-profit Farm A General 3.7089 36.2833 32.9650 10.6591 10.6591 10.4940 24.4024 Municipal B Fire Service
0.3799 3.7167 3.3768 1.0919 1.0919 1.0750 2.4997 Improvement Levy Total 4.0888 40.0000 36.3418 11.7510 11.7510 11.5690 26.9021 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 Major Light Business/Rec/Residential Utility
Industry Industry Other Non-profit Farm A BC 0.0599 0.5113 0.5113 0.1843 0.1843 0.0599 0.0599 Assessment Authority B Municipal 0.0002 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 Finance
Authority C South Coast 0.3244 2.7171 2.2519 1.9132 1.5485 0.3179 0.3599 BC Transportation Authority (TransLink) D Greater 0.0575 0.2013 0.1955 0.1955 0.1409 0.0575 0.0575 Vancouver
Regional District Total 0.4420 3.4304 2.9594 2.2937 1.8742 0.4355 0.4775 Schedule 'B' to Bylaw No. 6923 -2012 Tax Rates (dollars of tax per $1,000 taxable value) District of Maple Ridge
Schedule 'A' to Bylaw No. 6923 -2012 Tax Rates (dollars of tax per $1,000 taxable value) District of Maple Ridge
District of Maple Ridge Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair: Acting Mayor 1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS – (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 2. PUBLIC
WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Bylaw and Regulation Staff report
dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838-2011 to permit hobby beekeeping be given first reading and second reading and be forwarded to Public
Hearing and that Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 for the keeping of bees be given first, second and third readings. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA April 30,
2012 1:00 p.m. Council Chamber Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more information or clarification before proceeding to Council. Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications
may be permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes.
Committee of the Whole Agenda April 30, 2012 Page 2 of 4 1102 RZ/066/07, 12355 McNutt Road, RS RS-3 to RS RS-2 Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending
Bylaw No. 6881-2011 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to permit future subdivision into two lots be given second reading and
be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1103 RZ/033/08, 10366 240 Street, First Extension Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that rezoning application RZ/033/08 to permit subdivision
of approximately 9 lots under the R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone be granted a one year extension. 1104 2011 2011-043 043-DVP -10405, 10429, 10443, 10426, 10408 243
Street; 24290, 24280, 24273, 24283, 24289, 24297, 24305, 24315, 24323, 24333, 24337, 24347, 24366, 24360, 24356, 24348, 24342, 24336, 24328, 24320, 24316 104A Avenue; 24225, 24325,
24331, 24339, 24345, 24351, 24359, 24365, 24371, 24377 104 Avenue Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-043-DVP
to vary the height of proposed single family homes. 1105 2011 2011-139 139-DVP, 12151 McNutt Road Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that 2011-139-DVP to vary the maximum
permitted size of a detached garden suite be denied. 1106 Award of Contract No. ITT ITT-EN12 EN12-31, Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to 216 Street) Staff report
dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Contract No. ITT-EN12-31, Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to 216 Street) be awarded to Tybo Contracting Ltd. and that the
Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1107 Award of Contract (Reference No. ITT ITT-EN12 EN12-09; Project No. E02 E02-010 010-152), 232 Street Road Improvements (124
Avenue to 128 Avenue) Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Contract (Reference No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152), 232 Street Road Improvements (124 Avenue to
128 Avenue) be awarded to Keywest Asphalt Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
Committee of the Whole Agenda April 30, 2012 Page 3 of 4 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 Tax Rates Bylaw Bylaws – Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District
and Albion Dyking District Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Road 13 Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6916-2012 be given first, second and third readings and that
Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6915-2012 be given first, second and third readings. 1132 2013 2013-2017 Financial Plan Planning ning Guidelines Staff report dated April
30, 2012 recommending that the 2013-2017 Financial Planning Guidelines be approved. 1133 Integrated Forensic Identification Unit – Request for Space Staff report dated April 30, 2012
recommending that the request of the Integrated Forensic Identification Service to establish a regional hub within the main RCMP detachment building in Maple Ridge be supported. 4.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 Bid to host the BC Summer Games 2016 or 2018 Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that staff prepare a bid to host the 2016
or 2018 BC Summer Games, subject to endorsement by School District No. 42. 5. CORRESPONDENCE 1171 6. OTHER ISSUES 1181
Committee of the Whole Agenda April 30, 2012 Page 4 of 4 7. ADJOURNMENT 8. COMMUNITY FORUM Checked by::________________ Datte:: ________________ COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides
the public with an opportunity to ask questions of Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing by-laws that have not yet reached conclusion. Council
will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second opportunity is permitted if
no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to the individual members of Council. The total time for
this Forum is limited to 15 minutes. If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a response will be given. Other opportunities are available to address
Council including public hearings and delegations. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information
meetings. Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future of this community. For more information on these opportunities contact: Clerk’s Department
at 604 604-463 463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca
1 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: CoW SUBJECT: First
and Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838-2011 First, Second and Third Reading Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the September 12, 2011 Council
Workshop meeting, Council reviewed proposed zoning bylaw amendments that recommended permitting Hobby Beekeeping in residential and institutional zones. At the meeting, Council made
the following resolutions: That School District No. 42 be requested to provide input on the bylaws pertaining to hobby beekeeping and that feedback be brought back to Council prior
to the finalization of the bylaw amendments. That the Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee assemble educational material pertaining to urban beekeeping to accompany the hobby
beekeeping bylaw. In response, the School District stated the following The Senior Management Team has met regarding this issue and it was determined that due to the numerous concerns
regarding the health and safety of the students and staff, School District No. 42 would not be interested in supporting this matter. On April 2, 2012, concerns were expressed by a Ministry
of Environment Conservation Officer during a presentation to Council about the Wildlife Interface Management Strategy. These concerns included attracting dangerous wildlife, particularly
bears, to properties where beehives were present. As a result, feedback was obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture to address these concerns. This memo provides a recommended direction
for permitting this use in residential areas. The suggested approach is to include the amendment prior to completion of the Zoning Bylaw review. A separate but related regulation bylaw,
pertaining to the care of bees, is proposed to proceed independently, to receive Final Reading concurrently with the Zoning Bylaw amendment. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw
No. 6838-2011, to permit hobby beekeeping, be given First and Second Reading and forwarded to Public Hearing; and 1101
2 2. That Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 for the keeping of bees be given First, Second, and Third Reading. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In response
to a citizens request, Council referred the concept of beekeeping in urban areas to the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The request along with detailed research materials was reviewed
and discussed by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The Committee’s review concluded that beekeeping in urban areas is an acceptable use, and advised Council to proceed with the preparation
of the appropriate bylaws. b) Discussion: Literature on the issue tends to support urban beekeeping. It is noted that urban environments with diverse plant species are particularly
well suited to sustaining bee populations, which are becoming threatened globally. Due to the perceived benefits of beekeeping, and the concerns associated with their inclusion into
denser urban settings, it is recommended that amendments be made to the Zoning Bylaw that would maximize the benefits of beekeeping and mitigate potential conflicts this use may have
in an urban setting. Provincial Context -Bee Act All beekeepers in British Columbia must comply with the Bee Act. Administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, the Bee Act
promotes disease control in bees. It provides for a system of registration of beekeepers, authorization of inspectors, and the appointment of qualified persons (beemasters) to oversee
maintaining healthy hives. Lower Mainland Context Urban (hobby) beekeeping has been explored and is permitted by other municipalities in the Lower Mainland, including the City of Burnaby,
the City of Vancouver, the City of North Vancouver, the District of North Vancouver, the City of West Vancouver, and the City of New Westminster. None of the municipalities polled have
expressed any nuisance complaints with this use. The City of New Westminster has had a bylaw in operation since 2000, and all of the municipalities that subsequently allowed this use
have adopted bylaws based on the New Westminster bylaw, as it appears to address all potential sources of conflict while providing significant community benefits.1 Generally, the municipal
bylaws share the following aspects: Maximum of two (2) hives per property allowed Located at the rear of the property Hives oriented so that the front of the hive faces away from
adjacent property dwellings Locate either 2.5m above the ground or behind a solid fence or hedge a minimum of 1.83m (6') tall Minimum parcel sizes or siting requirements that would
prohibit this use on parcels of less than 581 meters2 (6000 feet2) Beekeepers shall keep the hives well maintained, healthy and reasonably prevent swarming Provide water for the
needs of the apiary 1 The City of Pitt Meadows has also recently allowed beekeeping within urban areas. Their approach differs from other municipalities in that for residential properties
it is based on parcel size, not zoning.
3 The main nuisance complaint around beekeeping is generally associated with bee droppings. This concern is kept in check by the limit of 2 hives per property. Potential conflicts from
bee-human interactions are minimized by the siting requirements as stated in these bylaws. As noted, these bylaws are highly successful in all municipalities. It therefore appears appropriate
for the District of Maple Ridge to also consider allowing these uses in urban areas. The proposed bylaw is attached to this report. Community Concerns Although no complaints were noted
when municipalities were polled, some concerns around this use have previously been raised. These concerns included attracting bears, resident concerns about bee stings, and nuisance
effects of abandoned hives. These concerns can be mitigated by the proposed siting and care requirements as proposed in the Zoning Bylaw amendments and in the proposed regulation bylaw
pertaining to this use. It is noted that most concerns around bee stings stem from a confusion between honey bees and hornets (wasps). Hornets or wasps are more likely to sting, and
are often a nuisance for those dining outside. Ministry of Environment At the April 2, 2012 Council Workshop meeting, Conservation Officer Denny Chrétien presented the Wildlife Interface
Management Strategy, an initiative of the Ministry of Environment. Officer Chretien spoke to the goal of the Conservation Officer Service in having communities realize the importance
of dealing with human/wildlife conflict and taking ownership in helping to mitigate negative interactions between humans and wildlife. Section 33.1 of the Wildlife Act was discussed,
which notes that it is a punishable offense to intentionally attract wildlife. Within this context, the issue of urban beekeeping was raised, and this item was deferred pending further
review. Ministry of Agriculture The Apiary Specialist of the Ministry of Agriculture commented on the relative risk associated with attracting bears as a result of the placement of
an apiary in an urban setting. In his professional opinion, the primary cause of bears being attracted to human habitation is due to the availability of food, particularly non-secured
garbage. The Ministry maintains that an apiary is generally not a primary attractant and may only be subject to bear damage as a secondary food source. It should be noted that large
scale agricultural bee keeping often occurs in areas where bears are present. Incidents of this nature are few. Recognizing that municipalities generally lack in-house expertise in
beekeeping matters, the Ministry provides technical and scientific support and advice to all municipalities that permit this use. The Ministry representative also provided technical
advice to the siting of hives, which included directing the entrance of the honey bee colony towards the center of the property (i.e. away from the property line. This will ensure that
bees exiting the hive, will promptly gain height and establish flight paths well above the required 2 meter fence/hedge. Additional comments: The municipality should consider permitting
this use on the rooftops of commercial, residential or public buildings. Some high schools in other Metro Vancouver municipalities (Delta, New Westminster) have established small
apiaries as study projects for various disciplines (biology, environmental studies, economics, etc).
4 The siting recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed bylaw. The additional comments are included here as information. However, they may be a consideration at a later
date, should support for expanding this use be supported within the community. Official Community Plan The Maple Ridge Official Community Plan recognizes agriculture as being a viable
contributor to local employment, and has as an objective to promote and support forms of urban agriculture. As a part of urban agriculture, urban beekeeping is supported by both the
Official Community Plan and the Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan. Urban beekeeping is an important part of urban agriculture, through pollination of urban fruiting crops. Policy 6-6 of
the Official Community Plan states: Maple Ridge will develop an Agricultural Plan that: f) promotes urban agriculture Agricultural Plan Similar in intent to the Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan, Goal 1 f) of the Agricultural Plan states the following: f) Identify and promote opportunities for development of urban agriculture Zoning Bylaw: Based on the May 25
2010 Council direction to develop proposed bylaw amendments in support of urban (hobby) beekeeping, the attached bylaws establish appropriate limits, practices and locations for this
use to occur. These amendments are described below. Part 2 Interpretation -Definitions: Currently, beekeeping is recognized as an agricultural use and is therefore restricted to those
zones that allow agriculture, which with few exceptions2, would be Rural Residential or Agricultural zones. A definition of this use will be described as “hobby beekeeping” in order
to distinguish it from the agricultural use. The proposed definition is as follows: Hobby Beekeeping use means the keeping, owning, or maintaining of up to two (2) bee hives on a residential
property occupied by the beekeeper. Part 4 General Regulations: The General Regulations will set limits on the number of hives, and the siting requirements for this use in urban areas.
These recommended requirements may be summarized as follows: Maximum of two (2) hives per property allowed – this limitation is the standard used by other Lower Mainland municipalities
and has proven to be successful within an urban context. Located at the rear of the property – this requirement is also typical of other municipalities. It serves to minimize intrusions
into the bee hive area and reduce the visibility of bee hives. Hives oriented so that the front of the hive faces away from adjacent property dwellings – this measure helps to avoid
interactions between bees and adjacent residents. Locate either 2.5m above the ground or behind a solid fence or hedge a minimum of 2 meters tall – this measure will assist in discouraging
animal intrusions and minimizing conflicts. 2 Agricultural uses are also permitted in the RS-1 One Family Urban Residential and the RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential Zones provided
the property exceeds 0.4 hectares and is within the Agricultural Land Reserve.
5 Part 6 Residential Zones: In general, the residential zones for this proposed use are those with a minimum parcel size of 557 m2. Restricting the use to larger residential properties
is intended to minimize potential conflicts. This practice is consistent with that of other Lower Mainland municipalities. It is recommended that this use be limited to the following
residential zones: RS-1 One Family Urban Residential RS-1a One Family Amenity Residential RS1b One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential RS-1c One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential
RS-1d One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential SRS Special Urban Residential RS-3 One Family Rural Residential It is noted that the Agricultural
Zones already allow beekeeping as an Agricultural use. It is therefore not necessary to include beekeeping as a permitted use in these zones. The RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Zone
also allows Agricultural uses, but only on properties of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) or greater. There are over 800 legally non-conforming RS-3 zoned parcels within the District with a parcel
size of less than 0.4 hectares. To allow for beekeeping in the RS-3 Zone on these smaller non-conforming lots, it is recommended that this use be extended to this zone. Regulation Bylaw:
Under Section 8(3)(k) of the Community Charter, the District of Maple Ridge has the right to regulate, prohibit, and impose the keeping of animals. In keeping with this legislation,
the District’s practice has been to adopt a separate bylaw that specifically refers to this care. As an example, the siting of kennels is established in the Zoning Bylaw, but standards
for the care of dogs is regulated in the District of Maple Ridge Kennel Regulation Bylaw No. 6036-2002. Similarly, the amendments to the Zoning Bylaw will allow Hobby Beekeeping as
a land use, but the standard of care for bee hives will be outlined in a separate regulation bylaw, which is appended to this report. The proposed Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 establishes
standards for the care of bees, for the responsibilities of beekeepers, and for authorizing bylaw enforcement. This regulation bylaw also establishes penalties for failure to comply.
c) Desired Outcomes: Introducing this use will assist in meeting the objectives of the Official Community Plan and the Agricultural Plan in expanding the opportunities for urban agriculture
within the community. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The approval process as recommended would provide opportunities for citizen input through the required Public Hearing for zoning
bylaw amendments. The Agricultural Advisory Committee has also been involved in the review of this work, and concurs with the proposed regulation. It is noted that at the September
12, 2011 Workshop, Council also requested that the Committee be involved in assembling educational materials about this use for the benefit of the community. This process will occur
once Bylaw No. 6838-2011 is given First Reading. The materials will be available at the Planning front counter and on the District website.
6 Next Steps /Alternatives: The general concept of urban beekeeping has been before Council previously. The recommended approach is to introduce this use as a separate bylaw prior to
the Zoning Bylaw review receiving Final Reading. However, Council may chose instead to direct this use to be simply included as part of the review. As the proposed Hobby Beekeeping
Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 does not require a Public Hearing, it is recommended to be forwarded to First, Second, and Third Reading. The Regulation Bylaw can then be given Final
Reading concurrently with the Zoning Bylaw amendment. CONCLUSION: Based on the considerations and recommended direction as outlined in this report, it is recommended that the amendments
as described in this report be as a separate bylaw prior to completion of the Zoning Bylaw review. It is also recommended that the attached regulation bylaw be given First Reading.
_______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall Planner II _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director
of Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services _______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Proposed Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838 -2011 Appendix B – Proposed
Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011
7 Appendix A CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6838 -2011 A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. _________________________________________
__________________ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District
of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838 – 2011” 2. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 –
1985 is hereby amended as follows: a) PART 2 INTERPRETATION, is amended by the addition of the following definition in correct alphabetical order: “Hobby Beekeeping use means the keeping,
owning, or maintaining of up to two (2) bee hives on a residential property occupied by the beekeeper or as an educational use in an institutional setting”. b) PART 4, GENERAL REGULATIONS,
SECTION 402 REGULATIONS FOR PERMITTED USES OF LAND, BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES is amended by the addition of the following subsection in correct numerical order: “(12) Hobby Beekeeping
Use Where permitted a Hobby Beekeeping use is subject to the following provisions: a) A maximum of two (2) hives per property shall be permitted; b) Bee Hives for a Hobby Beekeeper
use shall be located to the rear of the principal building on the lot; c) Hives must: (i) be raised a minimum of 2.5 metres above grade; or (ii) be behind a solid fence or hedge a minimum
of 2.0 metres in height located parallel to an adjacent property line and extending a minimum of 6.0 metres horizontally beyond the hive in either direction. (iii) be oriented with
the hive entrance facing towards the centre of the property. c) PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 601, Subsection A. PERMITTED USES OF LAND, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES is amended by
the addition of the following after Detached Garden Suite Use “Hobby Beekeeping Use RS-1 RS-1a RS-1b RS-1c RS-1d RS-2 RS-3 SRS” (subject to Section 402) READ a first time the day of
2012
8 READ a second time the day of 2012 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of 2012 READ a third time the day of 2012 RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of 2012 _____________________________
____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
9 Appendix B CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6839-2011 A Bylaw to regulate Hobby Beekeeping ___________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS under the provisions Section 8(3)(k) of the Community Charter, Council may, by bylaw regulate, prohibit or impose requirements in relation to animals. NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal
Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This by-law may be cited for all purposes as the “Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping
Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011”. Definitions “Apiary” means a place where bees or beehives or beekeeping equipment is kept for the purpose of Hobby Beekeeping; “Bee” means the insect
Apis mellifera; “Hive” means beehive equipment inhabited by live bees; “Hobby Beekeeping” use means the keeping, owning, or maintaining of up to two (2) bee hives on a residential property
occupied by the beekeeper or as an educational use in an institutional setting. Registration of Apiaries A person must not keep bees as a Hobby Beekeeper except in an Apiary registered
under the Bee Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 29 and amendments thereto. Responsibility a) Hobby Beekeepers shall deter other animals and protect hives from disturbance by animals by a suitable
method of prevention, including but not limited to adequate fencing or hedging or motion sensored high-pitched deterrent devices.; b) Hives shall be located so that the entrance to
the hives face away from adjacent property dwellings. c) Every Hobby Beekeeper and every person who allows, permits or establishes the keeping of bees on their property has the duty
to maintain, or to take reasonable precautions to prevent swarming or aggressive behaviour by the bees, and if the bees do swarm or show signs of aggressive behaviour, to ensure that
the bees are requeened.
10 Provision of Water Every Hobby Beekeeper and every person who allows, permits or establishes the keeping of bees shall ensure that the bees have sufficient water available on the
property upon which the Apiary is located to provide for the needs of the bees. Enforcement A Public Health Officer, Bylaw Enforcement Officer, Property Use Inspector, Member of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or other municipal employee, or agent, duly authorized by Council to enforce municipal bylaws may enter upon any property to inspect and determine whether
the requirements of this bylaw are being me. Offences and Penalties Any person who contravenes this bylaw is liable upon summary conviction to a maximum fine of $10,000.00 and the cost
of prosecution. Every day during which there is a contravention of this bylaw shall constitute a separate offence. READ a first time the day of 2012 READ a second time the day of 2012
READ a third time the day of 2012 RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of 2012 _________________________________ ______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/066/07 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT:
Second Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6881-2011 12355 McNutt Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, 12355 McNutt Road,
from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) for the purpose of future subdivision into two lots. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw
No. 6881-2011 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and 2. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading: i. Registration of a Geotechnical
Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; ii. Removal of the existing buildings encroaching on proposed properties;
and iii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context:
Applicant: Richard Slobodian Owner: Zygmunt Kozbial Legal Description: Lot 6, Section 20, Township 15, NWD Plan 12094 OCP: Existing: Suburban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One
Family Rural Residential) Proposed: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Surrounding Uses: 1102
-2 -North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Suburban Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) Designation: Suburban Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Suburban Residential West: Use: Single Family
Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Suburban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Residential Site Area: 2.39 ha (5.91 acres) Access: McNutt Road Servicing requirement: Rural standard Companion Applications: SD/066/07 and DP/101/10 b) Project Description: The applicant
proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) for the purpose of future subdivision into two lots. The subject
property has some steep slopes greater than 25% grade, most of which are located on the western side of the property. Originally, a three-lot subdivision layout was proposed for this
property; however, access to the third lot on the western side of the property from 272 Street could not be proven out. Therefore, the applicant revised the application to the current
two lot subdivision layout. A Geotechnical Report and Landslide Assessment, Environmental Assessment, Tree Assessment, and Septic Feasibility Report were provided in support of this
application. Results of these assessments are summarized in the Environmental Implications section below. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The proposed rezoning to RS-2
(One Family Suburban Residential) is in accordance with the subject property’s designation as Suburban Residential in the Official Community Plan. The Suburban Residential designation
permits single detached and duplex housing in areas located outside of the Urban Area Boundary that may have water service but which are not connected to the Municipal sanitary sewer
system. Zoning Bylaw: The RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone requires a minimum lot area of 0.40 ha (1 acre), a minimum lot width of 36 m and a minimum lot depth of 60 m. The
two proposed single family lots comply with the above requirements of the Zoning Bylaw as follows: the area for Lot 1 is proposed to be 1.99 ha (5 acres), and the area for Lot 2 is
proposed to be 0.40 ha (1 acre); the lot width for Lot 1 is proposed to be approximately 36 m, and the lot width for Lot 2 is proposed to be approximately 49.9 m; and
-3 - the lot depth for Lot 1 is proposed to be approximately 240 m; and the lot depth for Lot 2 is proposed to be approximately 87 m. The existing house on Lot 2 meets the required
setbacks of the zone. The existing garage on Lot 1 will be removed. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the Official Community Plan, a Natural Features Development Permit
application is required for all development and subdivision activity for all lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15% to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration
and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. d) Environmental Implications: A geotechnical report and landslide assessment
was prepared by Davies Geotechnical Inc. on the subject property to review geotechnical conditions to assess the suitability of the site for the proposed development. The report concludes
that the site is safe for the use intended. A Geotechnical Restrictive Covenant is required as a condition for Final Reading. Additionally, an environmental assessment was prepared
and determined that no watercourses or other ecologically sensitive areas were observed on the subject property. A tree assessment was also prepared with the goal of preserving as many
of the existing trees as possible at the subdivision stage. The reports note that the vegetation on the western portion of the property is comprised of a mixed deciduous and coniferous
forest interspersed with more open areas. The vegetation on the eastern side of the property is comprised of a mix of native and non-native domestic species, primarily with grasses,
blackberry, thimbleberry and small alder saplings. One roadside ditch was observed adjacent to the east property line that was conveying flows south along the west side of McNutt Road.
Cooper Creek was observed on the adjacent property on the east side of McNutt Road. e) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has indicated
that there are no deficient services which could be provided by a Rezoning Servicing Agreement. Additional comments from the Engineering Department will be addressed at the Subdivision
stage. Fire Department: The Fire Department has noted that the driveway must not have a grade greater than 18%. The grades for the driveways are proposed to be no greater than 5%. Parks
Department: The Parks Department has advised that there is a road shoulder trail on McNutt Road that can be maintained in the road Right-of-Way as a gravel shoulder.
-4 -CONCLUSION: Based on the review of supporting information regarding the proposed rezoning and subdivision applications, it is recommended that Second Reading be given to Maple Ridge
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6881-2011. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Planning Technician _______________________________________________ Approved
by: Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP Director of Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng GM: Public Works & Development Services _____________________
__________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Zone Amending
Bylaw 6881-2011 Appendix C – Proposed Subdivision Plan
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FRASER R. ^ DATE: Apr 25, 2012 FILE: RZ/066/07 BY: PC 12355 MCNUTT ROAD CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT 12410 12310 12366 12414 12293 12313 12485 12470 12240 12231 12251 12250 12375 12462 12295 12383 12278 12273 12355 12357 12294 12406 12433 McNUTT RD. 272 ST. LMP 6073 LMP
20047 1 BCP 38378 28 31 Rem 32 7 P 12094 BCP 38378 29 LMP 15210 Rem A 6 11 LMP 10923 8 6 9 PARKPARK P 34391 LMP 20047 EP 32859 7BCP 25318 LMP 6073 PARK 10 BCP 25318 30 3 LMP 20049 2
3 !( SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:2,000 APPENDIX A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6881-2011 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. _______________________________________________________
____ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge,
in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6881-2011." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described
as: Lot 6 Section 20 Township 15 New Westminster District Plan 12094 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1551 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw,
is hereby rezoned to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ
a first time the 13th day of December, A.D. 2011. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 . PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 . READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20 . RECONSIDERED
AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B
12410 12310 12366 12414 12261 12293 12313 12485 12266 12470 122 40 12231 12251 12250 12375 12462 12295 12383 12278 12273 12355 12357 12294 12406 12433 McNUTT RD. 272 ST. LMP 6073 LMP
20047 1 BCP 38378 28 31 36 LMP 10923 Rem 32 7 P 12094 BCP 38378 LMP 6073 LMP 15210 29 Rem A 6 11 BCP 41305 P 12094 Rem 15 LMP 10923 8 6 9 PARKPARK 1 8 P 34391 LMP 20047 EP 32859 7BCP
25318 2 LMP 6073 PARK 10 BCP 25318 9 P 57415 30 3 LMP 20049 2 3 41306 LMP 20048 BCP 41307 LMP 19808 BCP 25319 BCP BCP LMP 6074 LMP LMP 20050 LMP 43621 BCP 10211 LMP 10924 LMP 20048
LMP 20048 BCP 25320 BCP 25319 10924 LMP 6080 LMP 6069 BCP 25321 41308 BCP 15526 BCP McNUTT RD. ´ SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: 6881-2011 1551 RS-3
(One Family Rural Residential) RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
APPENDIX C
-1 -District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/033/08 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: Rezoning – First Extension Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6621-2008 10366 240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant for the above noted file has applied for an extension
to this rezoning application under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is to permit a subdivision of approximately 9 lots under the R-3 (Special
Amenity Residential District) zone, and a remnant lot to be developed under a separate application, which required coordination with the applicant on adjacent lands to the east of the
subject site. RECOMMENDATION: That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ/033/08 and that the following conditions be addressed prior to consideration of final
reading: i. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; ii. A Statutory Right-of-Way plan
and Agreement must be registered at the Land Title Office for the construction of a sanitary sewer; iii. Road dedication, as required; iv. Consolidation of the remnant lot with the
development site to the east, application RZ/063/09, to prevent creating a non-conforming lot; v. Removal of the existing building/s; vi. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations
of the Environmental Management Act, the applicant will provide a Site Profile for the subject property. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: H.Y. Engineering Ltd. Owner: Gurinderjeet
S. & Toor & Sukhjinder K. Toor 1103
-2 -Legal Description: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, Plan 13554 OCP: Existing: Medium Density Residential Proposed: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban
Residential) Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Surrounding Uses North: Use: Single family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation Medium
Density Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Designation: Medium Density Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential West: Use: Multi Family Residential Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 6475 m2 (1.60 acres) Access: Proposed 240A Street and proposed rear
lane Servicing: Full urban servicing will be provided Accompanying Applications: SD/033/08 and RZ/SD/DP/063/09 This application is to permit the western portion of the subject lot to
be rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), to enable the land to be subdivided into approximately 9 single family lots and a remainder. The remainder is subject to a
separate application RZ/SD/DP/063/09 on adjacent lands for a townhouse development. The following dates outline Council’s consideration of the application and Bylaw 6621-2008: -First
Reading was granted November 23, 2010 -The Second Reading report (see attached) was considered by CoW on March 21, 2011; -Second Reading was granted on March 22, 2011; -Public Hearing
was held April 19, 2011; -Third Reading was granted on April 26, 2011.
-3 -Application Progress: The applicant has completed most of the terms and conditions to be met prior to final reading of the Zone Amending Bylaw. The applicant has not been able to
move forward due to a change in ownership of the property the east (RZ/SD/DP/063/09). That application has a townhouse component for the proposed remnant lot that will in conjunction
with properties to the east be developed. However, with a recent change in ownership to the east property, the two owners have not yet been able to co-ordinate that aspect of their
designs, which has resulted in the need to extend the rezoning application. Alternatives: Council may choose one of the following alternatives: 1. grant the request for extension; 2.
deny the request for extension; or 3. repeal third reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing. CONCLUSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of
this rezoning application and has applied for a one year extension. Additional time is necessary to coordinate this rezoning application with the one on lands to the east and dealing
with new owner. It is anticipated that within the next few months final consideration will be applied for. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski,
MCIP, MCAHP Planning Technician _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning _______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Second Reading Report
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FRASER R. ^ DATE: Apr 25, 2012 FILE: RZ/033/08 BY: PC 10366 240 STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:2,000 APPENDIX A
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 21, 2011 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/033/08 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W SUBJECT:
Second Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6621-2008 10366 240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-2 (One Family
Suburban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District). RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6621-2008 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
and 2. That the following term(s) and condition(s) be met prior to Final Reading. i. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the suitability
of the site for the proposed development; ii. A Statutory Right-of-Way plan and Agreement must be registered at the Land Title Office for the construction of a sanitary sewer; iii.
Road dedication, as required; iv. Consolidation of the remnant lot with the development site to the east, application RZ/063/09, to prevent creating a non-conforming lot; v. Removal
of the existing building/s; vi. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act, the applicant will provide a Site Profile for the subject property.
APPENDIX B
-2 -DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: H.Y. Engineering Ltd. Owner: Gurinderjeet S. Toor Sukhjinder K. Toor Legal Description: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, Plan 13554 OCP:
Existing: Medium Density Residential Proposed: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Surrounding Uses North: Use: Single family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation Medium Density Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone:
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Designation: Medium Density Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Medium
Density Residential West: Use: Multi Family Residential Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed
Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 6475 m2 (1.60 acres) Access: Proposed 240A Street and proposed rear lane Servicing: Full urban servicing will be provided Accompanying
Applications: SD/033/08 and RZ/SD/DP/063/09 b) Project Description: The subject property is in total 0.649 ha in size; however, the current application applies to the western portion
only, which totals 0.413 ha. The current application proposes to rezone the western portion of the property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential
District), to permit future subdivision into 9 single family residential lots. The eastern portion of the site, totalling 0.236 ha, is encompassed in the rezoning application RZ/063/09,
which proposes a townhouse development under the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Zone. This application is currently at Third Reading.
-3 -The subject property is bound by residential development in all directions; the adjacent property to the south was the subject of a recent rezoning to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential
District), under application RZ/093/04, and was subsequently granted subdivision approval under application SD/075/07. The current application is a continuation of that subdivision
and is proposed to closely match the lot areas and dimensions of those approved lots. The applicant proposes to extend 240A Street and the rear access lane provided by the southerly
development, to provide access to all proposed new lots. The subdivision to the south has yet to be developed, therefore, the current application can provide necessary services only
when the south development commences. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The subject property is located within the Albion urban area and is therefore subject to the policies
set out in the Albion Area Plan. The proposed rezoning to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) is in accordance with the subject property’s designation as “Medium Density Residential”
in the Albion Area Plan. Zoning Bylaw: The R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone requires a minimum lot area of 213 m2; a minimum lot width, with lane access of 7.9 m and
a minimum lot depth of 27 m. The 9 proposed single family lots comply with the above requirements of the Zoning Bylaw as follows; Areas range from 274 m² to 315 m² Lots widths range
from 9.14 m to 10.5 m Lot depths are all 30 m Development Permit: Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the Official Community Plan, an Intensive Residential Development Permit application is
required to ensure the current proposal provides emphasis on high standards in aesthetics and quality of the built environment, while protecting important qualities of the natural environment.
d) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments: 1. There are no services to
be provided by this rezoning application; Servicing Agreements are in place for the development to the south (RZ/093/04 and SD/075/07). The timing of construction of services for this
proposed rezoning and subdivision application will be dependant upon the construction of the southern services. 2. DCC Bylaw No.6462-2007 includes a highway item for road works on 240
Street. This will be reviewed at the subdivision stage after receipt of the servicing design.
-4 -3. At the subdivision stage, there might be Latecomer Charges payable to the development to the south (SD/075/07). 4. Three metres wide road dedication is required across the property
frontage. 5. A Development Variance Permit will be required to support retaining the above ground utility company plant that fronts this property along the east side of 240 Street.
Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the subdivision is completed they will be responsible for maintaining the street
trees. In the case of this project it is estimated that there will be additional trees added to the street tree inventory. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised that there is
maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree which will affect their operating budget. CONCLUSION: This proposal conforms to the Albion Area Plan of the OCP and is working with neighbouring
lands and applications to develop in a logical pattern, it is therefore recommended that Second Reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6732-2010, and that application
RZ/033/08 be forwarded to Public Hearing. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Bast Planning Technician _______________________________________________
Approved by: Jane Pickering, MCP, MCIP Director of Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix
B – Zone Amending Bylaw 6621-2008 Appendix C – Site Plan Appendix D – Building Elevation Plans Appendix E – Landscape Plans
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FRASER R. ^ DATE: Apr 25, 2012 FILE: RZ/033/08 BY: PC 10366 240 STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:2,000 APPENDIX A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6621-2008 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. _______________________________________________________
____ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge,
in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6621-2008." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described
as: Lot “A”, Section 3, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 13554 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1443 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw,
is hereby rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ
a first time the 23rd day of November, A.D. 2010. PUBLIC HEARING held the 19th day of April, A.D. 2011. READ a second time the 22nd day of March, A.D. 2011. READ a third time the 26th
day of April, A.D. 2011. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200 . _____________________________ ____________________________ MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-043-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT:
Development Variance Permit 10405, 10429, 10443, 10426, 10408 243 Street; 24290, 24280, 24273, 24283, 24289, 24297, 24305, 24315, 24323, 24333, 24337, 24347, 24366, 24360, 24356, 24348,
24342, 24336, 24328, 24320, 24316 104A Avenue; 24225, 24325, 24331, 24339, 24345, 24351, 24359, 24365, 24371, 24377 104 Avenue. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Development Variance Permit application
has been received in support of subdivision application SD/084/10. The application is for a 36 lot subdivision consisting of 35 R-1 (Residential District) lots and one RS-1 (One Family
Urban Residential) lot. The purpose of the Development Variance Permit is to vary the height of proposed single family homes from 9 to 11 metres. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate
Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-043-DVP respecting property located at 10405,10429, 10443, 10426, 10408 243 Street; 24290, 24280, 24273, 24283, 24289, 24297, 24305, 24315,
24323, 24333, 24337, 24347, 24366, 24360, 24356, 24348, 24342, 24336, 24328, 24320, 24316 104A Avenue; 24225, 24325, 24331, 24339, 24345, 24351, 24359, 24365, 24371, 24377 104 Avenue.
DISCUSSION: a) Background Context Applicant: Damax Consultants Ltd. Owner: Silver Valley Projects Ltd. Legal Description: Lots: 1-36, Section: 10, Township: 12, Plan: BCP49334 OCP :
Existing: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: R-1 (Residential District), RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) 1104
-2 -Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Conservation Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Conservation South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS1-b (One Family (Medium
Density) Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential East: Use: Conservation Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Conservation West: Use: Conservation Zone:
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Conservation Existing Use of Property: Vacant, Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area:
1.75 HA. (4.32 acres) Access: 104 and 104A Avenue, 243 Street Servicing: Urban Standard Lot Size: 371 – 1440 m2 Previous Applications: SD/084/10, VP/084/10, RZ/041/06, SD/041/06, DP/041/06,
VP/041/06. Requested Variance: Variance to the maximum height from 9 to 11 metres on all proposed lots. b) Project Description: The applicant has recently rezoned and subdivided a portion
of the former parent parcel to allow for thirty-five R-1 (Residential District) lots no less than 371m² in size and one RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) lot no less than 668m² in
size. The applicant is proposing a variance to the maximum height permissible in the R-1 (Residential District), from 9 metres to 11 metres to allow for more esthetically pleasing roof
lines and steeper roof pitches. This building height request is normally requested when the rezoning and subdivision applications are processed. The variance requested is in keeping
with past practice and is supportable. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The subject sites are designated Medium Density Residential in the Albion Area Plan and the existing
R-1 (Residential District) zoning complies with this designation. Zoning Bylaw: The lots are in compliance with the minimum zoning requirements for the R-1 (Residential District) zone.
A development variance permit has previously been granted for reduced rear yard setbacks
-3 -from 8 metres to 6 metres on proposed lots 1-15. The building height variance from 9 to 11 metres is the only requested variance under this application. d) Alternatives: If the height
variance request is not permitted, the applicant would be required to revise their single family home design to comply with the maximum height allowed in the R-1 (Residential District)
zone. The roof pitches of the homes would likely be reduced. CONCLUSION: The development variance request for building height will allow for a more esthetically pleasing roof lines
and steeper roof pitches. The height relaxation is consistent with similar single family home developments in the Albion area. Therefore, it is recommended that Development Variance
Permit 2012-043-VP be approved. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Planning Technician _______________________________________________ Approved
by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services ___________________
____________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer AB/dp The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FRASER R. ^ DATE: Apr 25, 2012 FILE: 2012-043-VP BY: PC LOTS 1 -36, PLAN BCP49334 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 24189 24188 24200 24208 24218 10537 242 90 10355 10359 10408 24305 10336 24315 24298 10331 24336 24337 24356 10512 103 90 10510 10329 10345 10376 24382 10326 10358
10511 24370 24378 24385 24195 24216 10375 10443 24297 24316 10352 24309 10343 24342 24345 24362 10337 10365 10302 10366 24388 24190 24192 24220 24207 24225 24328 24331 24394 24201 24206
24225 10525 24280 10405 105 16 10333 10339 10324 24320 24333 24347 10328 24339 24360 10514 24351 24365 24371 10332 24386 24386 24183 24213 24230 24232 10531 24283 10528 10345 24302
24303 24312 24322 24332 10319 10325 10337 24321 10346 10313 10321 24377 10513 24219 24226 10321 10327 24315 24325 24333 10322 24351 10305 10508 10504 10318 10342 24384 2439 5 24196
24202 24212 24222 24238 24273 24289 10429 10349 10330 10342 10348 24323 24327 24352 24339 24342 24348 10334 24345 24359 24366 24392 24375 24209 24240 105 22 10426 10303 10347 10340
10350 10506 10350 242B ST. 243 ST. 243 ST. 103A AVE. 244 ST. 104A AVE. 103 A AVE. 244 ST. BAKER PLACE 105 AVE. 243 A ST. 244 ST. 104 AVE. 27 14 13 34 BCP 3493 2 8 BCP 49334 BCP 8153
BCP 3493 13 40 29 22 20 21 Rem. 17 134 BCP 598 136 BCP 598 PARK 6 30 15 105 106 1 1 14 115 31 BCP 1369818 19 10 8 3 135 134 5 P 66684 15 1036 33 11 7 37 27 149 39 20 24 27 19 16 20
2 119 14 4 BCP 13698 4 19 BCP 35192 28 9 9 113 6 36 114 34 31 25 2211 12 2814 15025 BCP 8153 18 18 15 21 118 13 11 6 132 7 P 41519 5 3 34535 24 33 148 19 15 BCP 3493 2216 35 26 18 8
BCP 49334 6 8 10 10 BCP 48970 BCP4026 86 41 BCP 13698 PARK 975 BCP 35192 BCP 438 32 4 107 BCP 3493 23 11 PARK38 13 30 33 117 E 133' B P 31591 133 29 17 16 31 12 38 27 1 32 29 30 9 26
12 21BCP 49334 23 26 28 15 17 231732 116 12 10 P 8852 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´SCALE 1:2,000 APPENDIX A
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-139-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT:
Variance Permit 12151 McNutt Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the April 10, 2012 Council meeting, Council gave consideration to an application to vary the maximum permitted size (Gross Floor
Area) of a Detached Garden Suite. The subject site is zoned RS-3 One Family Rural Residential which permits a Detached Garden Suite of not less than 37m2 and not more than 90m2 or 10%
of the lot area. The applicant is requesting a variance of 21 m2 (226 ft2) to permit the construction of a 111 m2 (1,195 ft2) Detached Garden Suite. During the Council meeting, it was
noted that there was concern with the size of the proposed Detached Garden Suite and the application was deferred to the May 14, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff were directed
to meet with the applicant to discuss options for providing an accessory residential use on the property. On April 17, 2012, staff met with the applicant to discuss options and on April
19, 2012 was advised that they wished to proceed without alterations to the size of the proposed Detached Garden Suite. The following memorandum provides a summary of the options discussed.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Development Variance Permit application 2011-139-DVP respecting property at 12151 McNutt Road be denied. DISCUSSION: On April 17, 2012, staff met with the applicant
for the Development Variance Permit. The following options were discussed. Reduce the size of the Detached Garden Suite -It was discussed that there was concern with the size of the
proposed Detached Garden Suite noting that 111 m2 (1,195 ft2) was considered to be a house, as opposed to a cottage. Staff shared some examples of house layouts showing 3 bedrooms and
2 bathrooms being accommodated in 93 m2 (1,000 ft2) (see Appendix A). While these floor plans would likely require a variance, the variances would be for approximately 3 m2 gross floor
area and would be considered minor. The applicant was concerned that this space would be too cramped for her daughter, noting that she has moved from a much larger house and was not
accustomed to living in a small space. She also noted that there is no family room in the house, so the bedrooms need to be large enough to accommodate the children’s belongings. 1105
-2 - Detached Temporary Residential Use -The Zoning Bylaw provides for a mobile home (certified under Z240 of the Canadian Standards Association) to be placed on lots 0.4 ha (1 acre)
or greater. These mobile homes range in size and single wide units with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms appear to be readily available (see Appendix B). One of the requirements for a Temporary
Residential Use is that a Restrictive Covenant gets registered that requires that the mobile home be removed when the relative no longer resides on the property. The applicant explained
that they had looked into this option and noted that these units are more expensive than building a house. Attached Temporary Residential Use -Under this option, a Temporary Residential
Use could be attached to the house. The Zoning Bylaw would limit the size to 40% of the gross floor area of the house, which in this case would be 90m2 (969ft2). However, in circumstances
like this, a creative layout could provide for some of the rooms to be considered to be part of the main house. For example, a family room, laundry room, or storage room could be situated
in the main house but be used by the residents of the Temporary Residential Use. The applicant did not support this noting that her daughter needs her own separate space, and that they
thought it would be difficult to sell the house in the future using this scenario. Parents moving into the Detached Garden Suite and the daughter moving into the house -Building Department
staff have advised that there have been situations where the Detached Garden Suite was deemed to be too small for the relative, and the solution was that the parents moved into the
Detached Garden Suite and the children moved into the original home. The applicant advised that a Detached Garden Suite is too small for their needs, noting that they are not ready
to downsize at this time. Leave Detached Garden Suite application as is. The last option that was discussed was leaving the application as it is. The applicant was reminded that there
were concerns with the size of the proposed Detached Garden Suite and that Council had deferred the application to explore whether a suitable option existed. On April 19, 2012, the
applicants advised that they wish to continue with the variance application as originally submitted. They did offer to voluntarily place a covenant on the property restricting the use
to a relative. While a voluntary covenant will address concerns regarding the use of the unit it may create an enforcement problem for Bylaw Staff, as these covenants are difficult
to enforce. Issues pertaining to the unit being oversized, and precedent setting would still remain.
-3 -ALTERNATIVES: Council has the following options with respect to the proposed variance: 1) Deny the variance application 2) Approve the variance application 3) Approve the variance
and withhold issuance of the Development Variance Permit pending receipt of a copy of a Restrictive Covenant registered on Title to the property, restricting the use of the Detached
Garden Suite to a relative. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed Detached Garden Suite exceeds the size permitted in the Zoning Bylaw and is considered by some to be a house, rather than a detached
cottage, as originally envisioned in the Bylaw. Because this property is over 0.4 hectares in size, there is the option of placing a Temporary Residential Use in the form of a single
wide trailer on the property which can provide 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, which is a need identified by the applicant. The benefit of this approach is that the unit is to be removed
when the relative is no longer residing in it. The applicant has volunteered to place a Restrictive Covenant on the property which will advise future property owners that the use is
limited to that of a relative. However, these covenants are very difficult to enforce, and the approval would still set a precedent in the District. _______________________________________________
Prepared by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer /cc The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Small House
Layouts Appendix B – Single Wide Mobile Home Layouts
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: E03-010-079 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Award of Contract No. ITT-EN12-31 Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to 216 Street) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement Project
from Laity Street to 216 Street is in the District’s approved Capital Program. The existing asbestos cement watermain is 40 years old and has been identified for replacement having
experienced breaks in the past years. The project will also upgrade the watermain to a larger diameter pipe thereby increasing the reliability and capacity of the water system. The
project was tendered in 2011 but cancelled due to insufficient funding. Additional funds were included in the 2012 adopted Financial Plan and the project was re-tendered in March 2012.
Tenders closed on March 27, 2012 with eight (8) bids received. The lowest compliant bid of $540,480.37 excluding taxes was submitted by Tybo Contracting Ltd. The consultant, Aplin &
Martin Consultants Ltd., has analyzed the tenders and recommend that the contract be awarded to Tybo Contracting Ltd. Included in the tender price is approximately $11,500 for works
related to the Fibre Optics Program which will be funded separately. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Contract ITT-EN12-31, Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to 216 Street),
be awarded to Tybo Contracting Ltd. in the amount of $540,480.37 plus applicable taxes; and THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. DISCUSSION: a) Background
Context: The existing 200mm diameter asbestos cement watermain on Dewdney Trunk Road from Laity Street to 216 Street was installed in 1970 and has experienced breaks over the years.
The project was scheduled in the Capital Program to replace and upgrade this section of watermain along Dewdney Trunk Road. The work includes installation of approximately 700m of 300mm
diameter watermain, replacement of water service connections as necessary, and installation of new hydrants. The existing watermain will be abandoned but retained for potential future
use as a fibre optics conduit. 1106
Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. was engaged in 2010 to complete detailed design and tendering for the watermain replacement. The project was originally tendered in May 2011 but the tender
was cancelled as the total project cost exceeded the budget. Additional funding of $400,000 for the project was budgeted and approved by Council in the 2012 Capital Budget. The tender
drawings and documents were updated in the new year and the project was re-tendered on February 28, 2012. The supply of pipe was ordered separately in advance by the District in March
2012 to capture the discounted pipe price offered from our pipe supplier Canada Pipe. Tender results Tenders closed on March 27, 2012 with eight tenders opened in public as listed below
from lowest to highest price. Tender Price (excluding taxes) Tybo Contracting Ltd. $540,480.37 Ponte Bros. Contracting Ltd. $585,480.37 Marv's Excavating Ltd. $586,627.64 Pedre Contractors
Ltd. $688,325.00 Targa Contracting Ltd. $692,368.00 J. Cote & Son Excavating Ltd. $719,570.00 Mission Contractors Ltd. $723,794.81 Triahn Enterprises Ltd. $740,686.00 Aplin & Martin
Consultants Ltd. has analyzed all tenders and recommend that Tybo Contracting Ltd. be awarded the contract. Staff has also checked and reviewed the tenders and concur with the recommendation.
b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to award the contract and complete the watermain replacement on Dewdney Trunk Road. c) Strategic
Alignment: One of the key strategies in the Corporate Strategic Plan is to manage existing infrastructure. The Dewdney Trunk Road watermain is a feeder main that is a critical component
of the water network. Replacement and upgrading of the aging watermain will ensure reliability and provide capacity for future years. d) Citizens/Customer Implications: An Open House
was held on January 18, 2011 to present the detailed design drawings and construction schedule. The estimated construction duration is approximately 8 weeks starting in late May 2012.
It is anticipated that traffic through the work zone will be reduced to single lane in each direction. However, during the rush hours, a total of three lanes will be maintained to accommodate
the higher traffic volume through the work zone. Some of the fronting properties may be impacted during water service connection installations but will be notified in advance of the
work. Any disturbed areas will be restored to previous conditions or better. Every effort will be made to minimize impact to residents fronting the watermain installation on Dewdney
Trunk Road.
e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Operations Department has provided input during the design stage. Tie-ins to the live water system will be completed by the Operations Department.
A District staff inspector will provide inspection services during construction. The Information Services Department has requested that the abandoned watermain pipe be preserved as
a conduit for future fiber optics use. This will require installing a concrete access chamber and a short section of conduit at a total cost of approximately $11,500. This is included
in the tender price and funded through the Fibre Optics Program. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The watermain project is funded under LTC 2300 and LTC 8581, with a total budget
of $809,500. The $11,500 for works associated with the Fibre Optics Program, which are included in the construction costs, is funded under LTC 1556. The projected expenditures are within
budget. Current miscellaneous expenditures $ 18,146 Aplin & Martin Consultant fees $ 64,109 Construction cost (low bid) $540,480 Pipe supply cost (Canada Pipe) $ 63,710 Projected tie-in
costs $ 83,938 Taxes $ 13,482 Contingency (4%) $ 21,619 Total Projected Project Cost $805,484 CONCLUSIONS: The tender price of $540,480.37 excluding taxes, by Tybo Contracting Ltd.
for the Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement Project from Laity Street to 216 Street is the lowest tendered price. Council approval to award the work to Tybo Contracting Ltd. is
recommended. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Richard Wong, PEng. Manager of Design & Construction _______________________________________________ Financial
review by: Trevor Thompson, CGA Manager of Financial Planning _______________________________________________ Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer ___________________________________
____________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. General Manager: Public Works & Development Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief
Administrative Officer
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: EO2-010-152 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Award of Contract (Reference No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152) 232 Street Road Improvements (124 Avenue to 128 Avenue) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 232 Street Road Improvements
from 124 Avenue to 128 Avenue are included in the 2011 Capital Works Program. 232 Street is an important link in the District’s transportation system, providing access to several areas
including the adjacent neighbourhood, the Silver Valley community, Maple Ridge Park, UBC Research Forest and Golden Ears Provincial Park. TransLink has acknowledged the importance of
this arterial roadway by including it in the region’s Major Road Network. The road improvements include northbound roadway widening to accommodate two travel lanes, installation of
concrete sidewalk on the east side, northbound and southbound bicycle lanes, asphalt paving and streetlights on the east side. The drainage improvements were completed in 2011. The
232 Street Road Improvements Project was tendered on March 6, 2012 and closed on March 27, 2012. Thirteen tenders were received. The lowest compliant bid was submitted by Keywest Asphalt
Ltd. at $728,044.00 (excluding taxes). Council approval to award the contract is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Contract (Reference No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152) 232
Street Road Improvements (124 Avenue to 128 Avenue), be awarded to Keywest Asphalt Ltd. in the amount of $728,044.00 plus applicable taxes; and THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized
to execute the contract. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: As the areas served by this arterial roadway have developed over the past several years, the District has made steady progress
upgrading 232 Street to an urban arterial roadway. In 2008, the east side of 232 Street was upgraded from the roundabout at 132 Avenue south to the South Alouette River Bridge. The
following year, the section between the South Alouette Bridge and 128 Avenue was upgraded. 1107
The current 232 Street Road Improvements from 124 Avenue to 128 Avenue (see Appendix 1) was approved as part of the 2011 Capital Program. The project will be completed in two phases.
Drainage improvements were completed during the Fisheries window in 2011, and roadway enhancements will be constructed starting May 2012. The road improvements include northbound roadway
widening to accommodate two travel lanes, installation of concrete sidewalk on the east side, northbound and southbound bicycle lanes, asphalt paving and streetlights on the east side.
Also included as part of this project is the installation of fibre optic conduits along 232 Street for the Information Services Department. To accommodate the 232 Street improvements,
the District must acquire a 1.5m-2.0m strip of property along the frontages of 9 properties and obtain permission for temporary construction access at two locations along 232 Street.
All agreements related to these property needs have been finalized. Legal documents are currently being prepared and will be registered. There will be no impact on the construction.
Tender results Thirteen tenders were received and opened in public. These are listed below from lowest to highest price, excluding taxes. Tendered Price Keywest Asphalt Ltd. $728,044.00
Tybo Contracting Ltd. $728,468.31 Marv's Excavating Ltd. $734,489.00 Targa Contracting Ltd. $750,036.00 Tag Construction Ltd. $757,405.00 Triahn Entreprises Ltd. $762,726.00 B & B Contracting
Ltd. $767,625.00 Jack Cewe Ltd. $773,380.00 LaFarge Canada Inc. cob Columbia Bitulithic $779,977.00 Wilco Civil Inc. $789,124.00 Mission Contractors Ltd. $818,421.77 Imperial Paving
Ltd. $832,091.00 J. Cote & Son Excavating Ltd. $919,570.00 Staff has reviewed the tenders and the lowest compliant bid was $728,044.00, from Keywest Asphalt Ltd. Staff also performed
a background check on the capacity of Keywest Asphalt Ltd to complete the project. Although this is the first time the District will be working with Keywest, bonding is in place to
assure completion of the project. b) Desired Outcome: The desired outcome of this report is to obtain Council approval to award the contract and proceed with the road improvements.
c) Strategic Alignment: The project supports the following key strategies identified in the District’s Strategic Plan: Maintain and enhance a multi-modal transportation system within
Maple Ridge to provide citizens with safe, efficient alternatives for the movement of individuals and goods Promote alternative modes of travel (pedestrian, bike, public transit)
to reduce reliance on the automobile d) Citizens/Customer Implications: The project will improve safety and mobility for all users. An Open House was held on December 7, 2010 and there
were no major issues raised. Arrangements for the acquisition of a 1.5m to 2.0m strip of property fronting 9 lots on the east side of 232 Street have been finalized and land title registrations
are currently underway. Construction of road improvements will commence soon after the project is awarded. The contractor will work to minimize the impact of construction on traffic,
residents, and businesses in the neighbourhood. The road is expected to remain open to traffic throughout the construction. Project information will be communicated to residents by
letter. Project information will also be posted on the District’s website and on Facebook. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The roadway improvements support the OCP vision developed
by the Planning Department. The Operations Department has provided input on the design from an operations and maintenance perspective. The Clerks Department assists in the acquisition
of the lands for the road improvements. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The approved 2011 Capital Budget provides sufficient funds under LTC 2216 to complete the road improvements.
The funding and projected and actual expenditures are as follows: Actual Expenditures for work completed (2011) Drainage Improvements Consultants Fee Land Acquisition Costs Utilities
Relocations Miscellaneous Internal Charges $477,235.00 26,944.00 33,450.00 32,133.00 5,000.00 Projected Expenditures (2012) Keywest Asphalt Inspections Contingency (10%) $728,044.00
6,000.00 73,000.00 Total Project Cost $1,385,766.00 Total Funding Available $1,550,000.00 The total funding available includes a $617,500 TransLink contribution.
CONCLUSIONS: The tender price of $728,044.00 excluding HST, by Keywest Asphalt Ltd. for the 232 Street Road Improvements from 124 Avenue to 128 Avenue project is the lowest tendered
price. Council approval to award the work to Keywest Asphalt Ltd. is recommended. _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Maria Guerra, PEng. Senior Project Engineer
_______________________________________________ Financial review by: Trevor Thompson, CGA Manager of Financial Planning _______________________________________________ Reviewed by:
David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. General Manager: Public Works & Development Services ____________________
___________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer MG/mi
Appendix 1 Project Location
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT:
Tax Rate Bylaws -Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District and Albion Dyking District EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Levies are collected from property owners within the Road 13 and Albion Dyking Districts
to maintain the dykes and equipment. Bylaws have been prepared for the collection of these levies in. No increases are proposed from the rates levied in 2011. RECOMMENDATIONS: That
Road 13 Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6916-2012; be given first, second and third readings and that. Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6915-2012 be given first, second
and third readings. DISCUSSION: No funds have been allocated in the Capital Works budget for these dykes. All works must be funded through the Dyking Districts. Provincial grants can
be applied for but these generally require that the recipient pay 33% of all costs. The Provincial Dyking Authority has requested increased geotechnical investigation for seismic design
in future construction or upgrades whether funded by the Dyking District or Grants. This may lead to increased construction costs for the resulting resilient designs. In 2010 staff
conducted a risk analysis for the two dyking districts to determine if sufficient funds are available to ensure the continued protection of the residents and businesses within those
dyking districts. The largest single risk for both is a non-insured pump failure. The replacement cost for the pump for the Albion Dyking District is estimated at $500,000. This Dyking
District has sufficient funds to cover half the cost of replacement and the remainder could be financed over a 20 year period. The replacement cost for the Road 13 Dyking District pump
is $2,000,000. This Dyking District does not have sufficient reserves to cover the cost of replacement. Staff is recommending that reserves should equal at least half of the pump value
and that the reserves be built up over multiple years to reach the required $1,000,000. Levies were increased in 2011 to assist in building that reserve. __________________________________________
___________________________________ Prepared by: Russ Carmichael Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA Director of Engineering Operations General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
_________________________________________ ____________________________________ Prepared by: Ceri Marlo. Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Manager of Legislative Services Chief Administrative
Officer 1131
THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6916-2012 A Bylaw for imposing taxes upon lands in Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District
of Maple Ridge, acting on behalf of the Trustees for Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking
District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6916--2012”. 2. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for those lands within the boundaries of Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District: For purposes
of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and maintenance: (a) a rate of $0.4799 per $1000 of assessment of land and improvements in all categories (b) a rate of $12.00
per acre of land with a minimum charge of $5.00. 3. If any section, subsection, clause or other part of this Bylaw is for any reason held to be invalid by the decision of a court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw. READ a first time on the day of May, 2012. READ a second time on the day
of May, 2012. READ a third time on the day of May, 2012. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED on the day of May, 2012. _______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER _______________________________
CORPORATE OFFICER
THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6915-2012 A Bylaw for imposing taxes upon lands in the Albion Dyking District The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, acting as Receiver for the Albion Dyking District, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No.6915 -2012”. 2.
The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for those lands within the boundaries of Albion Dyking District: For purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair
and maintenance: (a) a rate of $2.4496 per $1000 of assessment of land and improvements in all categories 3. If any section, subsection, clause or other part of this Bylaw is for any
reason held to be invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw. READ a first time
on the day of May, 2012. READ a second time on the day of May, 2012. READ a third time on the day of May, 2012. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED on the day of May, 2012. _______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER _______________________________ CORPORATE OFFICER
1 | P a g e District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Audit Committee
and Committee of Whole SUBJECT: 2013 – 2017 Financial Planning Guidelines EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District has a comprehensive business planning process that is guided by parameters
for the development of the financial plan. Our current guidelines include the tax increases that appear on the attached Appendix 1. Essentially, the property tax increase was 4.9% and
the proposed bottom line tax increase to the average home after including user fees, amounted to 5.6% for 2012. During last December’s business plan deliberations, Council expressed
the desire to consider options to reduce the amount of the tax increase. In light of this, staff recommend the following changes: 1. Infrastructure -The current financial plan sets
aside a 1% tax increase each year to go towards infrastructure sustainability. We recommend that this be reduced to ½% each year for the first two years of the next financial plan,
returning to 1% in the third and subsequent years. 2. Parks and Leisure Masterplan Implementation -The current financial plan anticipates a 1/2% dedicated annual tax increase to be
set aside to fund the implementation of the Parks and Leisure Masterplan. We recommend that this be reduced to 1/4% for each of the first two years of the next financial plan, returning
to ½% in the third and subsequent years. These changes will result in the tax rate increase reducing from the projected 5% in 2013 and 4.8% in 2014 to about 4.25% in 2013 and 4.05%
in 2014. In addition, we recommend that other parameters in the financial plan be reviewed to bring the overall increase down another 0.25% for 2013 and 2014. RECOMMENDATION(S): That
the Financial Planning Guidelines attached as Appendix 2 be approved. DISCUSSION: The District has a comprehensive business planning process that is guided by parameters for the development
of the financial plan. Our current guidelines include the tax increases that appear on the attached Appendix 1. Essentially, the bottom line tax increase to the average home amounted
to 5.6% for 2012. During last December’s business plan deliberations, Council expressed concern with the uncertain economic times that we are in and directed staff to consider options
to reduce the 1132
2 | P a g e amount of the increase. Appendix 1 shows the major cost drivers resulting in the overall projected tax increase for each year of the financial plan. Each of the cost drivers
is discussed below: Recycling Levy -In 2012, the Recycling rate increased 6% and is planned to increase 3% for the remaining years of the financial plan. Municipal Council is reviewing
the services provided in area and rates should be revised as service levels are determined. Water and Sewer Levy -The current financial plan projects water rate increases of 9% per
year and sewer rate increases of 5% per year. As Council is aware, both of these utilities ran deficits in 2011 and the projected rate increases need to remain at the current level.
Drainage Levy -The drainage works required throughout the municipality are significantly underfunded. Council directed that a $5 levy be implemented beginning in 2013 and increased
$5 annually for a period of 5 years. We recommend that we continue on this path. Parks and Leisure Services Levy -In the last financial plan, Council decided to set aside a dedicated
tax increase of 0.5% per year for 8 years for the implementation of the Parks and Leisure Masterplan. It was understood that the requirements in the plan would have to be reprioritized
to reflect the funding envelope. We recommend that the amount of the increase be reduced to 0.25% for each of the first two years of the next financial plan and then return to 0.5%
for the remaining 3 years. This change will allow the overall tax increase to the average home to be reduced by 0.25% and is in alignment with the relatively high level of citizen satisfaction
in this service area. Infrastructure Levy -Beginning in 2008, Municipal Council directed that a 1% annual tax increase go towards infrastructure sustainability. In 2012, this pool has
built up to $2.4 million annually, the largest portion of which is directed towards road rehabilitation and maintenance. While the annual infrastructure funding gap remains large and
it will take several years to bridge this gap, we have made significant head way. In light of Council’s desire to reduce the amount of the tax increase, we recommend that our increase
in this levy by reduced to ½% for each of 2013 and 2014, returning to the 1% level in 2015 and subsequent years. The return to the 1% level is important as recent survey results place
a high level of importance on the condition of our roads. These changes will result in the total increase reducing from about 5.6% in 2013 and 2014 to about 5.0% for each of those years.
In addition, we recommend that other parameters in the financial plan be reviewed to bring the property tax increase (excluding utility charges) down a further 0.25%. A summary of the
revised tax increases appears as Appendix 2. a) Desired Outcome: Direction to staff for the development of a financial plan that meets Council’s direction. b) Strategic Alignment: Our
business planning process aligns our financial plan with Council’s strategic direction. Based on the recent community surveys, the following have emerged as priority focus areas for
the 2013-2017 business plans: 1. Economic Development, including the need for creating high quality local jobs and shopping opportunities. 2. Continuous Improvement, with a customer
service focus. 3. Transportation
3 | P a g e The Corporate Strategic Plan will be updated to reflect these priorities and will be brought forward for Council’s consideration in the coming weeks. c) Citizen/Customer
Implications: These guidelines will be presented at Committee of the Whole meeting and will be available on our website. We will also seek comments through the website and all of the
input that we receive will be referred to Council, before they give final consideration to these guidelines at the next Council meeting. Council’s business plan deliberations take place
in meetings open to the public. Tentatively, these deliberations are scheduled for December 10 and 11, 2012. The resulting financial plan bylaw will be considered at meetings open to
the public in mid to late December. d) Interdepartmental Implications: In developing the business plans, departments must consider their own work plans, the impact of those plans on
other departments as well as the impact to them of the work plans developed by others. Cross departmental overlap must be represented in the business plans and managed accordingly.
The capital and information technology programs are two such examples. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The financial planning guidelines will form the foundation for the development
of our 2013-2017 Business/Financial Plans. f) Policy Implications: These guidelines provide a framework for planning and augment the existing policy framework used to guide decision
making. g) Alternatives: A whole series of alternatives are available when it comes to establishing the parameters for the development of a financial plan. The challenge is to find
the appropriate balance between service levels and affordability. CONCLUSION: The attached financial planning guidelines provide a framework for planning to meet the needs of the community.
_______________________________________________ Prepared by: Laura Benson, CMA Manager of Corporate Planning & Sustainability _______________________________________________ Approved
by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer LB:
4 | P a g e Appendix I Projected Average Home 2012 – 2017 Projected Property Tax Increase (assessment based) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 General Purpose (driven by RCMP & Labour) 3.0%
3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Infrastructure Replacement 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Fire Levy 0.9% 0.2% Drainage 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Parks Master Plan 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Total
Property Tax Increase 4.9% 5.0% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% User Fees (fixed rates) Water 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% Sewer (fee 5% increase, parcel charge 0% increase) 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%
4.4% 4.4% Recycling 6.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Total Increase (on average home) 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6% Appendix 2 Projected Average Home 2013 – 2017 Projected Property Tax
Increase (assessment based) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 General Purpose (driven by RCMP & Labour) * 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Infrastructure Replacement 0.50% 0.50% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
Fire Levy 0.20% Drainage 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Parks Master Plan 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Total Property Tax Increase * 4.25% 4.05% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% User Fees (fixed rates)
Water 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% Sewer (fee 5% increase, parcel charge 0% increase) 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% Recycling 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Total Increase (on average
home) * 5.09% 4.99% 5.52% 5.55% 5.58% * Other parameters in the financial plan for 2013 and 2014 to be revised to bring the property tax increase on the average home down a further
0.25%. This will bring the total increase including user fees down to 4.93% in 2013 and 4.83% in 2014.
1 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Integrated
Forensic Identification Unit – Request for Space EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Integrated Forensic Identification Service (IFIS) provides expert evidence gathering service to RCMP detachments
in the Lower Mainland District. Prior to its creation in 2005, each detachment had its own forensic identification positions. This posed a number of challenges, including staffing,
proper training and supervision, and the high cost of specialized equipment. An integrated approach in the lower mainland has addressed these issues. Before integration, our detachment
had 3 positions dedicated to forensic identification work. They occupied an area of about 1,100 square feet in the main detachment building, which included space for the examination
of exhibits. When integration occurred, these positions were moved to the Lower Mainland District and the space was used to address other police needs. Work stations were, however,
made available for IFIS members when they were doing work in our area. IFIS would like to expand their presence in our area and grow the unit so that it can become a forensic “hub”
for the Fraser Valley. In order to do this, they wish to “repatriate’ the space that was previously occupied by our own forensic identification officers so that it can be dedicated
for the use of IFIS. IFIS is prepared to pay reasonable rent. The letter from the Officer-in-Charge of IFIS outlining this request is attached. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the request of the
Integrated Forensic Identification Service (IFIS) to establish a regional hub within the main RCMP detachment building in Maple Ridge as outlined in the staff report dated April 30,
2012 be supported. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Before integration, our detachment had 3 positions dedicated to forensic identification work. They occupied an area of about 1,100
square feet in the main detachment building, which included space for the examination of exhibits. When integration occurred, these positions were moved to the Lower Mainland District
and the space was used to address other police needs. Work stations were, however, made available for IFIS members when they were doing work in our area. 1133
2 a) Background Context (Cont’d.): IFIS has approached the municipality as they would like to expand their presence in our area and grow the unit so that it can become a forensic “hub”
for the Fraser Valley. In order to do this, they wish to “repatriate’ the space that was previously occupied by our own forensic identification officers so that it can be dedicated
for the use of IFIS. IFIS is prepared to pay reasonable rent for this. There are a number of benefits to our community from becoming an IFIS hub. We would have additional forensic identification
expertise working locally and this will speed up the flow of our investigations. We would also have hands on expertise that we currently lack. Also, IFIS proposes to add a senior position
locally that will provide expert advice on local investigations and mobilize IFIS resources to assist if necessary. The person will also provide valuable input into our overall crime
reductions strategies. Providing dedicated space to IFIS will have a ripple effect that will result in the relocation of other units. We are looking to relocate some police personnel
into the Randy Herman Building. The people displaced from Randy Herman Building will have to be accommodated in other areas, including in vacant space in our office tower. The nature
of the work being done by IFIS is such that it needs to be housed in the main detachment building. It should be noted that IFIS will be paying rent for the space that they will be occupying.
Further, any space taken over in our office tower for displaced needs will be at market rates so that we can protect the integrity of the cashflow for the office tower. b) Desired Outcome:
The accommodation of a request from IFIS to create a regional hub for their services in our community. c) Interdepartmental Implications: Our facilities section will be overseeing the
move and any renovations that might be required. This is not currently in their workplan. Some non-police services in the Randy Herman Building, notably the Social Planning function,
will have to move to the office tower. d) Strategic Plan Alignment: This initiative is aligned with Council’s objective of adding highly skilled jobs to our employment base. As well,
It will enhance public safety in our community.
3 e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: We have discussed a lease rate of $27 per square foot with IFIS plus payment for parking and computer support. It is estimated that cashflow
from IFIS will approximate $35,000 per year. This cashflow will offset space costs for displaced personnel. Space is currently available in our office tower. Rental rates for such space
are about $25 per square foot ($16 base rate plus $9 for common costs). IFIS has agreed to cover any renovation costs that might be necessary for their needs. Leasehold improvements
will be required for the space in the office tower, and such costs will treated in the same manner as a third party transaction. In other words, the landlord may offer a certain amount
of assistance with the tenant improvements. The balance will be covered off through the Protective Services Reserve. Based on the foregoing, the request from IFIS can be accommodated
without additional on-going costs to the municipality. CONCLUSIONS: The letter from IFIS outlines their future plans to grow the unit so that it can become a Forensic hub for the Fraser
Valley. This is a significant achievement for our community and our citizens. ___________________________________ Prepared by: Paul Gill GM: Corporate & Financial Services __________________________
_________ Approved by: Supt. Dave Walsh Officer in Charge, RCMP ___________________________________ Concurrence: Jim Rule Chief Administrative Officer
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: CDPR CDPR-0640 0640-30 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
C.O.W. SUBJECT SUBJECT: BID TO HOS HOST THE BC SUMMER GAMES 20 2016 OR 6 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: See the attached report reviewed by the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure
Services Commission at their meeting on April 19, 2012. At that meeting, the Commission amended the recommendation to include that it be forwarded to Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Councils
and School District No. 42 42. The Commission also requested information on the economic impact of the games and Appendix 6, Economic Impact Assessments from the BC Winter Games & BC
Summer Games 2016 and 2018 Bid Application Package is attached for reference. RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION: That staff prepare a bid to host the 2016 or 2018 BC Summer Games, noting
that the bid submission is subject to endorsement by School District No. 42. This opportunity requires a one time municipal budget commitment of $45,000 and a minimum of $50,000 of
in in-kind support support, namely in staff resources and use of Municipal Facilities required to host the Gam Games, to be shared es, proportionately according to the agreement between
the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows. _______________________________________________ Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development Parks & Recreation
Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer :ik Attachment 1151