HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-27 Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfCommittee of the Whole Agenda August 27, 2012
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 Maple
Ridge Library Update – Caro O’Kennedy, Library Manager 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101
2011-081-RZ, Lot 6 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014, Southwest Corner of 104th Avenue and Slatford Place, RS-3 to RS-1b and R-1 Staff report dated August
27, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6906-2012 be deferred pending the outcome of the exclusion applications to the north of 105 Avenue and the subsequent
adoption of an Albion Flats Concept Plan. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA August 27, 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 August 27, 2012 Page 2 of 5 1102 2012-031-RZ, 11055 Hazelwood Street, RS-3 to M-3 Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 6914-2012 to permit future construction of potential industrial or big box retail styled buildings be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information
as described on Schedules B, D, E and F of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. 1103 2012-077-RZ, 11935 207 Street, CD-3-87 and CS-1 to C-2 Staff report dated August 27,
2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6941-2012 to permit construction of a neighbourhood grocery store be given first reading and that the applicant provide further
information as described on Schedule C, D, and E of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. 1104 RZ/095/08, 22590 116 Avenue, RS-1 to RM-1 Staff report dated August 27, 2012
recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6721-2010 to permit construction of a six unit townhouse development be given second and third reading. 1105 RZ/074/10, 11716 Burnett
Street, One Year Extension Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending that rezoning application RZ/074/10 to permit development under the R-1 (Residential District) zone into 3
single family lots be granted a one year extension. 1106 RZ/089/10, 12359 216 Street, One Year Extension Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending that rezoning application RZ/089/10
to permit future subdivision under the RS-1b (One Family Urban [Medium Density] Residential) zone into 3 single-family lots be granted a one year extension. 1107 RZ/083/09, 12771 McNutt
Road, Final One Year Extension Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending that rezoning application RZ/083/09 to permit subdivision into three single-family lots under the RS-2
(One Family Suburban Residential) zone be granted a final one year extension.
Committee of the Whole Agenda August 27, 2012 Page 3 of 5 1108 2012-056-VP, 23608, 23616 and 23622 Rock Ridge Drive and 13388 236 Street Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending
that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-056-VP to vary the building height of four lots. 1109 2012-086-AL, 23623 105 Avenue, Application to Exclude Land from
the Agricultural Land Reserve Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending options for consideration of Application 2012-086-AL. 1110 2012-073-AL, 9881 280 Street, Non-Farm Use within
the Agricultural Land Reserve Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending that application 2012-073-AL for non-farm use on land within the Agricultural Land Reserve to permit parking
and repair of motor vehicles (tractors) as well as trailers not be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission. 1111 Liquor License Application, Black Sheep Pub, 12968
232 Street Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending that the Liquor License application by the Black Sheep Pub for an increase in seating capacity not be supported. 3. FINANCIAL
AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 2013 Permissive Tax Exemptions Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 6942-2012
be given first, second and third readings. 1132 Disbursements for the month ended July 31, 2012 Staff report dated August 27, 2012 recommending that the disbursements for the month
ended July 31, 2012 be approved.
Committee of the Whole Agenda August 27, 2012 Page 4 of 5 1133 Adjustments to the 2012 Collector’s Roll Staff report dated August 27, 2012 submitting information on changes to the 2012
Collector’s Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls 04 and 05. 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 5. CORRESPONDENCE 1171 6. OTHER ISSUES 1181 7. ADJOURNMENT
Committee of the Whole Agenda August 27, 2012 Page 5 of 5 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 604-463-5221
or clerks@mapleridge.ca Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca "Original signed by Ceri Marlo" "2012-08-23
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-081-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: First Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6906-2012 Lot 6 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014 Southwest Corner of 104th Avenue and Slatford
Place EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) and R-1
(Residential District) (Appendix A). The application was considered by Council on March 27, 2012 for First Reading and was deferred for a period of four months pending an updated recommendation
from the Planning Department. Since the First Reading deferral earlier this year, various discussions have taken place between the Albion Flats Area property owners and the District.
Property owners on the north side of 105th Avenue are pursuing independent ALR exclusionary applications. Rulings from the ALC on these independent ALR exclusionary applications would
allow the District to confirm the final ALR land use designation and therefore solidify the resulting Albion Flats Concept Plan. Should the Albion Flats Concept Plan be adopted without
confirmation on whether or not the properties north of 105th Avenue will be excluded from the ALR, or isolated land uses decisions taken without consideration to the larger picture,
there is potential that the adopted Albion Flats Area Plan would not reflect the best possible land use for all lands in the Albion Flats. This is due to the fact that significant portions
of the total land area are north of 105th and the land use of that area could change dramatically. Discussions have also begun between the District of Maple Ridge and the property owners
of the lands north of 105th Avenue (Smart Centre’s) in regards to a possible land exchange. There is potential to reconfigure the civic lands on the Albion Flats to further improve
the commercial opportunities on the lands south of 105th Avenue. Any reordering of the civic facilities would dramatically affect the possible land use configuration of the lands south
of 105th Avenue. The extent and affect of this reordering on land in the study area is currently unknown. These unknowns should be resolved before the Albion Flats Concept Plan is finalized.
At this point, there are several unresolved and unknown factors which need to be concluded prior to development applications proceeding in the Albion Flats Concept Plan. The forthcoming
discussions by the ALC will largely determine the final concept plan for the Albion Flats. For example should lands become available for development on the north side of 105th Avenue,
then the concept plan could include commercial/employment lands on the north side. If the ALR exclusion application is denied, then the only developable commercial land will be on the
properties south of 105th Avenue. This would 1101
-2 -put even more pressure on the lands south of 105th Avenue as limited space is available to create a comprehensive commercial node and community plan for this area. Once the ALC land
use issues are resolved, the Albion Flats Concept Plan can then be finalized. It is therefore, recommended that this application be deferred pending the outcome of the decisions on
the lands to the north of 105th Avenue. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6906-2012 be deferred pending the outcome of the exclusion applications to the north of 105th Avenue
and the subsequent adoption of an Albion Flats Concept Plan. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Jorden Cook Associates Owner: John Wynnyk Steve Wynnyk Legal Description:
Lot 6 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014 OCP: Existing: Agricultural Proposed: Urban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed:
RS-1b (One Family Urban (medium density) Residential) and R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Park and Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
and RS-1b (One Family Urban (medium density) Residential) Designation Urban Residential and Parks within the ALR South: Use: Agricultural Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agriculture East: Use: Park and Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (medium density) Residential), RS-2 (One
Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Conservation and Urban Residential
-3 -West: Use: Fairgrounds, Ice Rink and Sports Fields Zone: CD-4-88 (Agricultural Events, Special Events, etc) Designation: Parks within the ALR Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed
Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 5.304 Ha. (13 acres) Access: 104 Avenue and Slatford Place Servicing requirement: Full Urban a) Project Description: At this time
the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need
to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to Second Reading if Council grants First Reading.
Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, Official Community Plan designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits.
b) Background: Over the past decade, various reports were prepared regarding the Albion Flats Land Use Plan. It was agreed by Council that the highest and best use of the Albion Flats
Area is combination of uses including: mixed-use commercial; auto-oriented retail; employment generating industrial uses; parks and rec space and mixed agricultural uses. The positioning
of these uses into a land use plan is difficult to finalize at this point as final determination of which lands will be excluded from the ALR are not yet resolved. Property owners of
the various lands have been pursing independent ALR exclusionary applications. One ((Wymmyk) has been forwarded to the ALC at this point. The District has recently received another
exclusion application (GCS Holdings Ltd –Glen Bury. It will be forwarded to Council in August 2012 for consideration. Prior to sending any applications to the ALC, Council also endorsed
a resolution that the District commences negotiations on a land exchange relating to the Fairgrounds and the area just north of 105th Avenue. These negotiations are underway and would
be assisted by an ALC ruling regarding a ALR exclusionary application for the adjacent lands on the north side of 105th Avenue. The ruling on the Wynnyk exclusion application is expected
to go before the ALC board no earlier than September 2012. The Commission’s decision in late 2011 stated that they were wiling: “to cooperate towards future commercial or industrial
development at the Albion Flats, in conjunction with restoration of a agricultural future for that part of the Albion lying to the north of 105th Avenue”. Although conditional, this
position opens up a significant economic development opportunity for all lands south of 105th Avenue irrespective of whether or not they are currently in the Agricultural Land Reserve.
The subject site at Slatford and 104th Avenue is such a site where new and higher uses could be considered. The delays and personal expense incurred by the property owners over the
last two decades should be
-4 -acknowledged. However, the strategic nature of this site within the Albion Flats and its potential for greater community benefit needs consideration. There remain numerous unanswered
questions regarding the optimum future use of the entire Albion Flats area to generate the maximum employment, business/commercial uses and recreational and agricultural use. This site
may have a role to play in this optimization process of the bigger area. This land may be called upon to accommodate uses displaced by commercial uses seeking to optimize their footprints
closer to Lougheed Highway. These are significant questions that can only be answered by looking at the Albion Flats in its entirety, once the available land base is known, and community
priorities are clarified. For these reasons, it is not recommended at this time that properties within the Albion Flats Concept Plan study area be advanced on a parcel by parcel basis.
In its November 2011 letter, the Commission has required that the District prepare a comprehensive review of drainage and stream flow conditions in the area. This study is anticipated
to begin in the fall of this year. A component of this work will include an estimate of the costs for drainage improvements, as well as a discussion regarding how such improvements
would be funded or whether developing properties will contribute. All parties in the study area should contribute to resolving this common area wide problem. Residential development
of this site may not contribute significantly to achieving Council’s goal of improving long term commercial and employment opportunities within the District. It could in fact hinder
such efforts as the land base available for commercial/employment or community uses could shrink considerably, and the compatibility of these different land uses would also be questionable.
The subject site represents 5.3 hectares (13 acres) or about 12% of the available privately owned land south of 105th Avenue. This is a significant portion and represents a prime opportunity,
especially if the ALC rejects future requests form landowners north of 105th Avenue to exclude their lands. However, should the ALC exclude lands on the north side of 105th Avenue as
a result of individual applications for exclusion, the need for alternative uses of the subject site may not be as prevalent. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: Although
designated Agricultural, the site also carries an OCP notation referring to specific Albion Flats (6.2.3) OCP Objectives and Policies that need to be taken into consideration before
development can proceed. The OCP requires the District to coordinate its efforts in the Albion Flats with other jurisdictions to meet community, Regional and Provincial goals. Specifically
the District must coordinate with Metro Vancouver, the ALC and Federal and Provincial agencies in determining the fate of the Albion Flats study area, of which this parcel is a part.
The OCP policies further require: “Council prior to giving consideration to a change in land use, an extension of municipal services, or an amendment to the Urban Area Boundary, Maple
Ridge will: develop and implement a comprehensive Strategy as outlined in 11.1.3 and collaborate with Regional and Provincial authorities to complete a comparative analysis to review
land use, social, economic and environmental goals or what is known as a balanced triple bottom line analysis”.
-5 -This work is not completed but is in progress under the current Albion Flats Concept Plan process. A component of this required OCP work is the recently completed Agricultural Plan
(2010) and the ongoing Commercial and Industrial Land Use Strategy. All of these plans and studies have a direct impact on the potential use of this site and the Albion Flats in general.
Should this application proceed in advance of the Area Plan, an OCP amendment to re-designate the site from Agricultural to Urban Residential will be required. The Urban Area Boundary
will also need amending to include the site within the Urban Area Boundary. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at Slatford Place and 104th
Avenue from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b One Family Urban (Medium Density) and R-1 (Residential District). The lands to the north and east contain lots zoned RS-1b.
The introduction of the smaller R-1 lot is intended to increase density and lot yield. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone(s) will require a Development Variance
Permit application. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the Official Community Plan, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required to ensure the preservation,
protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas associated with Spencer and Mainstone creeks which flow through the site. To ensure the preservation, protection,
restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas and pursuant to Section 8.10 of the Official Community Plan, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required
for all development and subdivision activity to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement for the natural environment and for development that is protected from
hazardous conditions for: All areas designated Conservation on Schedule “B” or all areas within 50 metres of an area designated Conservation on Schedule “B”, or on Figures 2, 3 and
4 in the Silver Valley Area Plan; All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 percent; and All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Natural Features Schedule
“C”. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20 is required for this application, prior to Second Reading. e) Interdepartmental
Implications:
-6 -In order to advance the current application, after First Reading, comments and input, will be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a)
Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Parks Department; e) School District; f) Agricultural Land Commission; g) Ministry of Environment; h) Metro
Vancouver. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above.
This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. We anticipate
that this evaluation will take place between First and Second Reading. f) Alternatives: Council can choose to grant first reading to this rezoning application which would essentially
earmark the site for residential uses and remove the (5.3 ha – 13 acres) site from the critical south-east portion of the Albion Flats Study Area. This loss would constitute approximately
12 % of the available nongovernment owned lands south-east of 105th Avenue. Should Council wish to proceed with this option the following resolution must be passed: namely, 1. Grant
First Reading of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6906 – 2012 and consider the following in respect of an amendment to the Official Community Plan: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government
Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i. The
Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent
to the area covered by the plan; iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. First Nations; v. School District Boards, greater boards
and improvements district boards; and vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies. and in that regard it is recommended that no additional consultation be required
in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment.
-7 -g) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 – 1999 as amended:
1. An Official Community Plan Application (Schedule A); 2. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B or Schedule C); 3. Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application (Schedule
F); 4. Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); 5. Subdivision Application, as per attached requirements. The above list is intended to be indicative only, other
applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. CONCLUSION: The subject is an integral part of the Albion Flats Study Area and potentially is a strategic
piece of the overall land use puzzle. While the applicant has sought residential development for many years and has faced both significant expense and some hurdles not of his own making,
the fact remains that the residential use for the site may not to be the highest and best use. Depending upon the amount of land ultimately available, the insertion of residential uses
could add a source of conflict to future commercial, employment or civic uses anticipated to be in the area. As the Agricultural Land Commission currently only supports development
on the south side of 105th Avenue and not on the north side of 105th Avenue, any loss of land south of 105th Avenue would limit commercial options in the study area and would not be
the highest and best use of these commercially strategic and highly visible lands. In addition, should the Agricultural Land Commission deny any application(s) for additional commercial
development for lands on the north side of 105th Avenue, Council may wish to pursue a reconfiguration of the land uses on the draft Concept Plan to maximize the amount of commercial
or employment lands in the area. Should this occur, the subject site may be best suited for commercial or employment use or to accommodate the relocation of civic uses currently situated
elsewhere on the proposed land use plan. Lastly, it is noted that the ALC requires a comprehensive drainage study be prepared for the Albion Flats. It is anticipated that any drainage
improvements required would be shared by those owners situated south of 105th Avenue. Should this project advance, this applicant would not be contributing to the ALC required drainage
improvements.
-8 -Therefore, it is recommended that this application for residential uses be considered premature and not proceed but be deferred pending the ALC decisions and the Albion Flats Concept
Plan is approved. "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Charles R. Goddard BA MA Manager of Development and Environmental
Services Approving Officer "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning "Original
signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
_______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix
B – Albion Flats Study Area Map Appendix C – Draft Concept Plan Appendix D – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6906-2012
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FR A SE R R . ^ DATE: Aug 23, 2012 FILE: 2011-081-RZ BY: DT ROLL #94165-0600-6 S/W CORNER SLATFORD PL & 104 AVE CORPORATION
OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 23 871 2386 5 10455 1032 0 23 895 23889 23947 23951 1042 3 10 415 1043 6 2388 3 10 428 23859 23933 10447 10431 1037 0 23943 10 422
10390 23 877 23939 23986 10 350 10406 10410 10416 10 439 10 442 1038 0 23960 SLAT FORD PL. 104 AVE. 282 LMP 35030268 BCP 10009 LMP 35030 3 5 PARK 276 265 270 1 374 371 P 60014 2 P 77828
266 2 A PARK P 82384 PARK 280 277 LMP 35030 BCP 45800 4 1 S 5.25 CHAINS OF J 267 272 271 269 370 375 6 275 274 369 BCP 8155 BCP 45 801 P 60014 281 278 279 264 BCP 10009 373 4 273 RP
9287F BCP 46162 376 SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:2,500 APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
A L B I O N F L AT S CON C E P T P L A N ProposedLandUse Areahectares* Areaacres* AgriculturalFairgrounds& FarmCluster5.6 13.8 AgricultureFields &Community Garden 4.6 11.4 AutoOrientedRegionalServing
Retail 9.824.2 MixedEmployment Node,LightIndustrial,BusinessOffice&AgriIndustrial27.267.2 g GreenSpace&StreamSetbacks 42.6 105.3 Institutionalschoolsite) 2.1 5.2 ( ) Recreation(includesmultipurposere
creationfacility) 20.0 49.4 Townhouse 8.0 19.8 TransitOrientedMixedUse 4.8 11.8 TOTAL124.7 308.1 *Areacalculationsareapproximate !Lougheed Highway 105th Avenue "#$%&'()*+,"#,-#%(*"--#%(*$#)&%"*-,AP
PENDIX C
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6906-2012 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. 6906-2012." 2. The parcel of land known and described as: Lot 6 District
Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1561 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned
to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) and R-1 (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 day of , A.D. 20 . 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 . APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , A.D. 20 . RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . _____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX D
23 87 1 2386 5 10 455 10320 10273 10 2 60 10310 23 8 95 23889 23947 23951 10 423 1041 5 104 36 238 83 104 6 3 10428 10 2 94 10316 10322 10332 10420 240 2 2 2385 9 23933 104 4 7 10 431
10 3 70 1038 9 10222 10358 23943 104 50 10422 10390 10 3 0 9 10270 103 6 6 10456 23 853 238 77 23939 23986 10 3 3 7 10328 10 3 50 10406 10410 10416 10340 10346 103 8 6 104 39 10 442
10 3 80 23960 10250 10352 240 ST. 105 AVE. SLA TFOR D P L . 104 AVE. 103 AVE. 282 LMP 350 30268 BCP 10009 LMP 35030 3 5 PARK 5A 2 368 11 14 16P 14750 276 265 270 1 374 371 P 6001 4
2 4 P 77828 266 2 A P 22743 1 28 1 6 18 PARK P 8238 4 PARK 280 277 LMP 35030 BCP 45800 4 Rem. Pcl. A 1 7 15 S 5.25 CHAINS OF J 267 272 271 269 370 375 B10 6 275 274 369 BCP 8155 BCP
45801 N 75' of 4 3 59 A 13 P 60014 281 278 279 263 264 BCP 10009 373 4 6 2 BCP 36407 A17 273 RP 9287F BCP 46162 376 P 19249 P 21769 12 EP 81181 BCP 10010 LMP 39369 BC P22027 LMP 35031
BCP 10011 240 ST. 104 AVE. SLATFO RD PL . ´ SCALE 1:3,000 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 6906-2012 Map No. 1561 From: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) To: RS-1b (One Family
Urban (Medium Density) Residential) R-1 (Residential District)
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-031-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: First Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6914-2012 11055 Hazelwood Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to M-3 (Business Park zone). To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. The proposed land use
aligns well with the “Industrial” designation as per the Official Community Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6914-2012 be given First Reading; and; That the applicant
provide further information as described on Schedules B, D, E and F of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 – 1999. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Christopher Bozyk
Architects Ltd owner: Camp Development Corporation Legal Description: Lot 2, D. L 280 and 281; Group 1, NWD Plan BCP50883; PID: 028-855-515 OCP: Existing: Industrial Zoning: Existing:
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential zone) Proposed: M-3 (Business Park zone) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Industrial and Kingston Street Zone: M-3 (Business Park) Designation: Industrial
South: Use: Industrial and Single Family Residential and Wharf Street Zone: M-2 (General Industrial) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) 1102
-2 -Designation: Industrial East: Use: Single Family Residential (Lower Hammond Area) Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: Vacant lands
and City of Pitt Meadows lands Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and other Designation: Industrial and other Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Industrial
Site Area: 16.637 Hectares (41.10 acres) Access: Kingston Street and Wharf Street Servicing requirement: Full Urban b) Site History and Characteristics: The subject site (Appendix A)
is irregular shaped and located in the southwest corner of Maple Ridge in close proximity to the Golden Ears Bridge. It is located within the 200-year flood plain of the Fraser River
and must achieve the flood construction level for the site. The southern part of the subject site had an older application for a “Combined Bus Fleet Overhaul Facility and Heavy Equipment
Training Facility” (RZ/057/07) by TransLink, which was withdrawn in 2009. In anticipation of the earlier proposal, in 2008 significant amount of fill was placed on the southern portion
of the subject site. The site was historically (1938 to 2004) utilized for agricultural/grazing purposes and is now dominated by weedy grass/herb species and the sand fill. This rezoning
proposal is for the subject site located at 11055 Hazelwood Street (Appendix A) to rezone it to M-3 (Business Park zone). The applicant is considering some preliminary design options
that will be crystallized after Council grants First Reading. The proponent is aware of the environmentlaly sensitive areas on site and is committed to incorporating them, as the design
develops. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan and provide a land use assessment only. Some very preliminary
layout options are being discussed and have not been assessed from design point of view. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received.
A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to Second Reading. Such assessment may impact proposed density on site, Official Community Plan designations and
Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The Official Community Plan designation for the subject
site is “Industrial” and the proposed land use aligns well with this designation. An older environmental report done with the previous application by Golder Associates identified some
drainage Watercourses along the periphery of the site in need of protection and conservation. An amendment to the Official Community Plan may not be required to adjust the conservation
boundaries as these will be placed under a conservation covenant.
-3 -Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject site from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential zone) to M-3 (Business Park zone) to permit future construction
of potential industrial or big box retail styled buildings. The proposed M-3 (Business Park zone) allows maximum lot coverage of 60% of the site and a maximum height of buildings to
be 15.0 metres. The required front yard setback is 6.0 meters; rear yard setback is 3.0 meters; exterior side yard setback is 4.5 metres and the interior side yard setback is 1.5 meters.
Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. This will be determined before the Second Reading report is brought
forth for Council consideration. Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw # 4350-1990 specifies parking based on uses in the M-3 zone (Business
Park zone). Based on the uses proposed, any variations from the parking requirements will require a Development Variance Permit application. This will be determined before the Second
Reading report is brought forth for Council consideration. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.6 of the Official Community Plan, an Industrial Development Permit application
is required to ensure that the form and character of the current proposal meets the needs of industry, through attractive design that is compatible with adjacent development. Pursuant
to Section 8.9 of the Official Community Plan, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement
of watercourse and riparian areas. Advisory Design Panel: An Industrial Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to Second Reading. Development
Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is required for this application. Prior to Second Reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information Meeting
in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. d) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after First Reading, comments and input, will be sought from
the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Parks Department; e) Building Department;
f) City of Pitt Meadows.
-4 -The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. This application
has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. We anticipate that this evaluation
will take place between First and Second Reading. e) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 – 1999 as amended: 1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B ); 2. An Industrial Development Permit Application (Schedule D); 3. Development Variance
Permit, if applicable (Schedule E); 4. Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application (Schedule F); The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be
necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. CONCLUSION: The development proposal is in compliance with the Official Community Plan, therefore, it is recommended that Council
grant First Reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to Second Reading. It is expected that once complete information is received, Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 6914-2012 will be amended and an Official Community Plan Amendment for Conservation boundary adjustment may be required. The proposed layout options have not been
reviewed in relation to the relevant bylaws and regulations governing subdivision applications. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary and must be approved by the District’s
Approving Officer. "Original signed by Rasika Acharya" _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UDC, LEED® AP, MCIP Planner "Original
signed by Charles R. Goddard" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" ________________________
______________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" _____________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6914-2012
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FRASER R . ^ DATE: Aug 14, 2012 FILE: 2012-031-RZ BY: PC 11055 HAZELWOOD STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:5,000 APPENDIX A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6914-2012 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. 6914-2012" 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described
as: Lot 2, District Lot 280 and District Lot 281; Group 1; New Westminster District Plan: BCP50883 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1565 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to M-3 (Business Park Zone). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , A.D. 2012. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 201 . PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 201 . READ a third time the day of , A.D. 201 . RECONSIDERED
AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 201 . _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B
531 1 BCP 45 137 9 EP 216 14 P 114 530 387 P 86659 515 513 P 114 LMP 88 6 403 B252 375 P 114 LMP 88 50 4 501 370 *PP027 51 544 P 4183 53 264 364 362 415 P 114 57 P 114 *PP028 360 358
416 26 6 548 45 Pcl . A 9 *LMP6429 482 *L MP 16829 61 273 P 114 P 20003 478 P 114 218 42843 1 476 LM P 88 P 114 Pcl .'9' 217 213 P 46939 470 55 5 Pcl.'13' *PP0 29 439 *P P042 84 M 333
N 1/2 3 30 84 8 104 331 459 *PP037 P 114 450 Lot 1 Pcl. 2 52 6 524 522 385 390 395 LMP 25175 P 4183 393 509 3 247 508 401 539 P 4183245 *P P031 255 P 74952 540 254 407 *PP031 368 367
49 6 13 239 2 410 413 54 226 267 P 114 27 2 356 424 Pcl.'5' 351 37 LM P 44205 Pcl .'16' 214 P 114 LMP 88 469 78 Pcl.'12' P 114 467 43 8 31 30 P 114 458 99 294 1 *LMP11573 27 449 P 114
325 532 P 37901 BCP 50883 527 P 9487 523 518 Pcl. 1 LMP 25176 *PP030 380 396 50 6 53653 7 5 398 400 11 P 4183 243 372 408 499 12 260 P 88009 493 545 56 262 363 LMP 88 15 419 491 A47
229 Pcl .'1' 227 270 354 421 484 27 4 551 223 216 4 35 287 RP 55932 32 Rem 97 P 114291 441 444 P 114 P 41071 204 2 P 712 07 P 114 300 *LMP 20289 10 2 35 1 520 1131 39 1 519 516 532
389 392 514 534 2 384 38 3 382 39 4 374 507 538 P 114 P 114 497 P 114 *PP027 258 6 490 P 37622 LMP 88 B 816 815 65 *L MP 3 4591 232 359 417 LMP 52360 353 422 Pcl . B P 114 T Pcl.'3'
221 2 LMP 88 3 R 429 25 P 114 554 Pcl .'15' 47 2 Pcl.'14' 212 PARK466 89 P 114208 44 3 207 290 293 E 29 106 203 201 197 297 *LMP11573 BCP 50883 BCP 32752 Pcl. 3 *LMP 20289 A 2 528 381
510 4 377 P 114 249 3 40 4 4 P 114 15 500 541 A 411 BCP 23657 52 263 LMP 88 492 *PP031 265 36 1 59 8 44 228 P 114 *P P027 LMP 88 B Pcl.'2' 10 425 LMP 31249 41 Pcl.'4 ' P 839 86 P 42
6 72 Pcl.'18' 219 20 430 435 28 4 433 26 471 210 468 Pcl. A 463 461 28 G 446 A 26 A(114) 2 1 456 A 525 P 1 14529 517 531 P 114 *LMP 24176 P 114 512 535 1 Pcl. A *LMP8672 399 2 246 502
250 2 *PP039 LMP 88 244 242 *PP043 237 257 P 114 409 412 494 543 49 261 *LMP 34 591 414 22 *PP 042 60 357 16 420 423 485 P 114 481 LMP 88 483 477 LM P 8 8 68 19 55 2 553 LMP 44205 Pcl.'17'
P 114 473 *PP035 Pcl.'8' 215 436 P 114 1104 Pcl. A 211 206 289 85 9096 98 442 44 5 464 P 114 84 9 460 100 103 107 113 2 P 842 2 451 114 P 35482 P 86659 521 *PP034 RP 63014*LMP 24176
511 P 114 378 397 *PP033 251 379 376 253 37 3 498 A 241 371 240 259 LM P 8 8 P 114 236 234 14 235 233 230 LMP 88 23 1 268 418 487 BCP 28541 269 P 114 54 9 43 42 LMP 44205 224 275 O
427 480 23 (114) 479 24 P 114 278 474 36 Pcl.'10' Pcl.'11' 21 434 34 209 437 440 86 288 EP 28 835 465 462 *P P0 41 95 N P 114 *PP 040 200 452 25 112 298 Pcl. 1 533 386 388 533 P 62771
248 LM P 88 505 LMS 2889 503 256 542 11 12 238 1 406 13 50 495 48 55 7 488 546 46 58 P 114 547 P 114 LMP 88 225 271 17 550 Pcl .'6' Pcl.'7' 222 18 355 352 P 114 220 1 38 277 432 475
1103 LMP 88 79 27 33 286 334 105 P 17716 1 P 114 P 114 (114) 199 198 P 70 105 WH AR F ST. KINGS TON ST. HA ZE LW O OD S T. OSPRING S T. WANSTEAD S T. LO R N E AVE . HAM PTO N ST. DIT
TON ST. CHIG WEL L S T. BROM LE Y ST. ´ SCALE 1:5,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 6914-2012 Map No. 1565 From: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) To: M-3 (Business Park Zone)
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-077-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: First Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6941-2012 11935 207 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from CD-3-87
(Service Commercial, Bank or Credit Union and CS-1 (Service Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit the construction of a neighbourhood grocery store. To proceed further
with this application additional information is required as outlined below. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6941-2012 be given First Reading; and; That the applicant provide
further information as described on Schedule C, D and E of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 – 1999. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Matthew Cheng MAIBC, Matthew
Cheng Architect Inc. Owner: 0934194 BC Ltd. Legal Description: Lot B, D.L. 278 Gp.1, Plan 76445 NWD OCP: Existing: Commercial Proposed: Commercial Zoning: Existing: CD-3-87 (Service
Commercial, Bank or Credit Union), 87% and CS-1 (Service Commercial) 13% Proposed: C-2 (Community Commercial) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Commercial Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial)
Designation Commercial South: Use: Commercial Zone: C-2 (Community Commercial) Designation: Commercial 1103
-2 -East: Use: Commercial Zone: C-2 (Community Commercial) Designation: Commercial West: Use: Commercial Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial) Designation: Commercial Existing Use of Property:
Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial Site Area: 0.269 Ha. (28,997 ft2) Access: 207 Street & 119 Avenue Servicing requirement: Full Urban Services b) Site Characteristics:
The subject property is 0.264 ha (10,196 f2) in size and is located on the North West corner of 207 Street and 119 Avenue in the area known as West Maple Ridge. Presently there is an
existing, single storey, commercial building and supporting parking lot area which was constructed in the late 1980’s to accommodate a Credit Union and later a cabaret. The building
is currently empty. The existing building was built to a service commercial standard, which was seen to be the prominent zone for the neighbourhood at that time, with the building more
to the middle of the site and the parking areas adjacent to the streets (207 Street and 119 Avenue). c) Project Description: The development proposal, provided in support of this rezoning
application, is to increase the existing building which is approximately 480 m2 (5,167 ft2) to 947m2 (10,196 ft2). The proposed single storey expansion is shown to be located to the
rear and north of the existing building; maintain the service commercial standard with parking adjacent to the street and limited ability to provide landscaping along the street edge.
There are two access points proposed, one on the north portion off of 207 Street and the other on the west portion off of 119 Avenue. The parking spaces proposed exceeds the Maple Ridge
Off-Street and Parking Bylaw requirement of 1 space/30m2 by 10 spaces (a total of 42 shown). The zone amending bylaw will require review and approval from the Ministry of Transportation
as the property is within 800m of the Lougheed Highway. Their review may require additional conditions. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance
with the Official Community Plan and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more
detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to Second Reading. Such assessment may impact the development proposal, Official Community Plan designations and Bylaw
particulars, and may require application for further development permits. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The property is designated Commercial on Schedule B of the Official
Community Plan and included into the Commercial Development Permit Area. No Official Community Plan amendment is required. The proposed development must conform to the Official Community
Plan’s Commercial Development Permit where possible.
-3 -Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 11935 207 Street from CD-3-87 (Service Commercial, Bank or Credit Union) and CS-1 (Service Commercial)
to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit the construction of a neighbourhood grocery store. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance
Permit application. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.5 of the Official Community Plan, a Commercial Development Permit application is required to address the current proposal’s
compatibility with adjacent development, and to enhance the unique character of the community. Advisory Design Panel: A Commercial Development Permit is required and must be reviewed
by the Advisory Design Panel prior to Second Reading. e) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after First Reading, comments and input, will be
sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Building Department; d) Fire Department; and
e) Ministry of Transportation. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments
not listed above. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken.
We anticipate that this evaluation will take place between First and Second Reading. f) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information
must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 – 1999 as amended: 1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C); 2. Commercial Development Permit Application
(Schedule D); 3. Development Variance Permit Application (Schedule E); The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the
proposal progresses.
-4 -CONCLUSION: The development proposal is in compliance with the Official Community Plan, therefore, it is recommended that Council grant First Reading subject to additional information
being provided and assessed prior to Second Reading. It is recommended that Council not require any further additional OCP consultation. "Original signed by Gay McMillan" ___________________________
____________________ Prepared by: Gay McMillan Planning Technician "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter,
M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development
Services "Original signed by Paul Gill" _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached
hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Zone Amending Bylaw 6941-2012 Appendix C – Site Plan
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FRASER R . ^ DATE: Jul 23, 2012 FILE: 2012-077-RZ BY: PC 11935 207 STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:2,000 LOUGHEED HWY APPENDIX A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6941-2012 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. 6941-2012 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described
as: Lot B, Distict Lot 278, Group 1, Plan 76445, New Westminster District and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1575 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this
Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to C-2 (Community Commercial). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first
time the day of , A.D. 20 . 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 . APPROVED by the Minister of
Transportation this day of , A.D. 20 . RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 . _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE
OFFICER APPENDIX B
20580 20596 12013 20631 20645 20 677 12045 12010 12030 11935 20690 11910/50/98 20736 20779 20799 12015 12025 12010 11955 11973 11842 20749 12040 20610 20611 20644 20690 2066 8 20676
11836 20719 20726 20733 12020 208 03 12025 12030 12058 20638 20722 12025 20757 20767/69 20577 20583 20592 20617 20629 12029 12041 12004 12016 20660 20758 20800 20625 12033 12037 20691
12024 20685 20664 20 672 20569 12019 12020 20691 20718 20768 12037 207 A ST. 119 AVE. 120 A AVE. 119 AVE. DEWDNEY TRUNK OWEN ST. 119 AVE. LO UGHEED HIGHWAY 206 ST. 207 ST. 207 ST. DEWDNEY
TRUNK ROAD LMP 20045 Rem 41 Rem 1 P 76445 A 1 8 3 P 76445 300 P 66429 P 69066 1 6 2 P 72978 36 15 P 78869 P 35923 1 Rem 26 6 P 70271 7 P 8735 P 10414 P 17371 2 1 1803 32 P 72978 3 5
11 LMS 431 17 1 P 9801 P 10201 1 Rem 29 P 75414 "A" 1 BCP 34169 P 75912 1 5P 56403 Rem P 54395 Rem 13 12 7 P 75414 49 (LEASE PLAN) 30P 29781 (P 87086) 4 4 P 37898 P 732901 P 8735 (P
8735) 16A P 54395 46 1 2 P 84192 P 30456 1 2 8 9 48 2 BCS 1311 NWS 2523 P 24517 NWS 2959 LMP 1703 P 87086 P 25311 33 1 10 6 18 P 8735 47 11 RP 8184 P 57819 2 31 P 30954 97 B "A" Rem
45 P 54395 35 Rem 1 10 RP 13792 RW 4 9 94 0 RW 78433 EP 54361 EP 73132 LMP 6890 EP 88221 EP 72979 LM P 3274 LMP 5719 RW 674 61 RW 8364 4 EP 73292 EP 76039 EP 72979 EP 7 3292 BCP 21213
(lease) EP 73291 RW 83136 RW 75415 BCP44492 RW 56524 LP 65229 RW 76697 RW 79675 EP 74773 LP 65855 RW 83 644 RW 79412 RW 43436 RW 56524 LP 60327 RW 8321 6 RW 56142 EP 73292 LOU GHEED
HWY. ´ SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: CS-1 (Service Commercial) CD-3-87 (Service Commercial, Bank or Credit Union) C-2 (Community Commercial) 6941-2012
1575
APPENDIX C
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/095/08 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second and Third Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6721 -2010 22590 116 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property
from RS-1 (One family Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to permit the construction of a six (6) unit townhouse development. This application received First Reading, where
as Second and Third Readings were deferred due to significant public concerns raised at Public Hearing. Considerable public consultation has taken place since the deferral resulting
in the relocation of the access easement and changes to the building ascetics. This application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan and does not qualify for the Town Centre
Incentive Program as it is less than four (4) storeys. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6721 -2010 be given Second and Third Reading; and 2. That the following term(s)
and condition(s) be met prior to Final Reading: i. Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; ii. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; iii. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed
development; iv. Road dedication as required; v. Removal of the existing building; vi. Registration of a new access easement through 22610 116 Ave; 1104
-2 -vii. Removal of the existing access easement from 22538 116th Avenue upon registration of the strata plan on 22590 116th Avenue; viii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by
a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided
in accordance with the regulations; ix. Provision of a security deposit in the amount of $30,000 for the use of the reciprocal access easement during construction for the pre and post
construction building assessment and possible restoration; and x. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant:
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc. Owner: Jalal M Elarid Legal Description: Lot 37 District Lot 401 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 62308 OCP: Existing: Ground-Oriented
Multi-Family (Town Centre Area Plan) Proposed: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family (Town Centre Area Plan) Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Surrounding Uses North: Use: Community Hall Zone: CD-2-88 and CD-3--93 Designation Ground-Oriented Multi-Family South: Use: Haney Bypass, Canadian Pacific Rail and the Fraser River
Zone: RS-3 Designation: The property to the south of the Haney Bypass is designated Park East: Use: Townhouse Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family
West: Use: Townhouse
-3 -Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Townhouse Residential Site
Area: 0.203 ha ( .502 acres) Access: 116 Avenue byway of access easement through 22538 116 Avenue Servicing: Full Urban Companion Applications: DP/095/08 b) Background: The subject
property was originally subdivided from the parent parcel in 1981, under the ownership of Haney Brick and Tile. As part of the original subdivision, the newly created Lot 37 (22590
116 Ave) was granted an access easement over parts of the adjacent lots in the subdivision (Lots 38 and 39). Since then, further subdivision of the neighbouring Lots 38 and 39 occurred,
whereby, the access easement for Lot 37 was moved to its present location, through the driving aisle of Fraserview townhouses located northwest of the subject property. Since its creation,
the access easement permits both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to access the single family house currently on the subject property. The wording of the access easement does not restrict
the use of the driving isle in any way and legally permits the developer to continue to use the Fraserview driving aisle as access to his property indefinitely. The house is presently
tenanted by multiple renters who use the Fraserview driving aisle as access to the property. In October 2008, an application was made to rezone the property to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
to allow for a six (6) unit townhouse complex. The application was granted First Reading on March 9, 2010 and then proceeded to Public Hearing on April 20, 2010. On April 27, 2010,
due to concerns raised by the neighbours at Public Hearing, Council agreed to defer Second and Third Reading for 30 days. This was to allow time for the applicant to meet with the neighbours
and resolve issues relating to the access easement and the proposed land use of the property. From April to June, 2010 various meetings were held between the Architect, the owner and
members of Fraserview townhomes. The applicant expressed willingness at the time to limit the occupant’s age to a minimum of 55 years. Both parties also discussed relocating the existing
access easement to the community hall property at 22610 116th Avenue, north of the subject property. A list of conditions under which Fraserview would allow the Applicant to move the
access easement to the new location was presented to the Applicant.
-4 -These conditions included: 1. New access road must be constructed as a standard 6 metre road right of way at the developers cost; 2. Engineer to design the roadway must be approved
by Fraserview; 3. Preconstruction survey of surrounding buildings must be done at the expense of the developer; 4. Developer must post at $250,000.00 Performance Bond for the construction
of the new roadway; 5. All hazardous areas must be protected during construction; 6. No parking or stopping on the Easement during construction; 7. Drainage system to be cleaned after
construction; 8. Liability insurance to be provided prior to construction; and 9. Require the new strata to have the following limitations: a. a minimum age limit of 55 years; b. No
more than two storeys as per the Fraserview development; c. Strata to consider joining the Poolside Villa’s strata; and d. No stopping or parking would be permitted on the Fraserview
easement. In a meeting between Fraserview, the Applicant and their respective legal counsels, in December, 2010, Fraserview maintained their position that the building design needed
to reflect the existing townhouses and that the land use be restricted to single family. All discussions then ceased and no further meetings occurred until recently. On July 4, 2012,
revised architectural drawings reflecting a new roof design were presented to the senior members of the Fraserview Strata Council. Fraserview Strata Council confirmed they now give
the new building design a 100% vote of approval. The remaining issues as shown in items 1 through 9 above will be resolved as part of the Development Permit process. c) Project Description:
The subject property covers 0.203 hectares (0.502 acres) and is bound by multi-family developments to the east and west, Haney Bypass to the south and a private amenity building for
the adjacent townhouse development to the north. The site slopes gently from the northwest corner to the southeastern corner of the property and is approximately 6 metres higher in
elevation than the adjacent Haney Bypass to the south. The project architect takes the existing grades into consideration and situates the residential units so that they take advantage
of the river views to the south. The Applicant proposes to build a six (6) unit townhouse development with underground parking and access from 116th Avenue byway of 22610 116th Avenue.
The present reciprocal access easement is located through the neighbouring townhouse property at 22538 116th
-5 -Avenue to the northwest of the development site. However, the Fraserview townhome residents prefer the access easement to be moved to the adjacent community hall lot at 22610 116th
Avenue. The area proposed for the new driveway easement is presently being used for recreation vehicle storage by the owners of the Fraserview Village townhouse complex and has sufficient
room to allow for the construction of a new driving aisle. Moving the access easement along side the community hall not only reduces the impact of the additional vehicles on the driving
aisle of the north-westerly townhouse complex, but also provides a more direct route to the new development. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The development site is located
within the South View Precinct of the Town Centre Development Permit Area Plan and is currently designated Ground Oriented Multi-family, which allows for a medium-high density townhouse
development not to exceed three storeys in height. The proposed rezoning to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) is, therefore, in compliance with the regulations of the Official Community
Plan. Zoning Bylaw: A preliminary review of the plans in relation to the Zoning Bylaw requirements revealed that the proposal generally complies with the RM-1 zoning bylaw. Previous
design submissions reflected a modern roof design which required a height variance. However, the roof line was recently redesigned to a height which is below the maximum allowable limit
in the RM-1 zone. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.11 of the Official Community Plan, a Town Centre Development Permit application is required for all multi-family residential,
flexible mixed use and commercial development located in the Town Centre. Complete design details for this project will be provided to Council in the future when the Development Permit
is considered in detail. Advisory Design Panel: The application was presented to the Advisory Design Panel on January 12, 2010 at which time the Panel supported the application moving
forward with a small number of recommendations. The applicant addressed the recommendations raised by the Advisory Design Panel and a more detailed report will be forwarded to Council
at the Development Permit stage. Recent revisions to the architectural design were received by the Planning Department which reflected modifications to the roof designs and overall
building height. Upon review of the revisions by the Approving Officer, the design modifications were deemed to be minor in nature and not requiring further comment from the Advisory
Design Panel.
-6 -Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held on February 8, 2010 and was attended primarily by the surrounding residents of the Fraserview townhomes.
Concerns were expressed regarding the reciprocal access easement, the overall height and density of the proposed building, the possibility of renters occupying the units, and the number
of parking stall provided. The project architect met with the residence of the townhouse site after the development information meeting to discuss the possibility of relocating the
access easement to the side yard of the adjoining Community Hall property to the north. Both parties were in agreement of the new easement location, at the time, but were unable to
come to terms as additional restrictions relating to property density and land use were being requested by the townhouse residents. To address the neighbour’s concern of renters or
possibly younger families moving into the development, the applicant agrees to impose a minimum 55 year age limit on occupants of the strata units. The proposes number of parking spaces
meets the requirements of the Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: If the access easement is not moved to the new location
along side the community hall, there are concerns that the additional traffic from the new development will result in an increased risk of vehicular accidents occurring in the driving
isle of the Fraserview townhomes. There are also concerns about the increased wear and tear on the neighbour’s driveway, especially during the construction stage. By relocating the
access easement to the community hall parking lot, these concerns would be mitigated. e) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has reviewed
the proposal and has provided the following comments: 1. A Rezoning Servicing Agreement must be entered into by the applicant; 2. The applicant must provide information on providing
water service connection to the property; 3. The applicant will require approval from the Ministry of Transportation for any works along Haney Bypass; 4. The Ministry of Highways may
require dedication along the Haney Bypass; and 5. Consideration must be given to properly addressing the site.
-7 -Fire Department: The Fire Department restricts parking on along the access easement and requires site addressing to be permanently mounted at 116th Avenue. f) Other Agencies: Ministry
of Transportation: The Ministry of Transportation does permit access to the site from the Haney Bypass and requires a six (6) metre highway dedication as the property is located on
an Arterial Highway. CONCLUSION: This application for six (6) residential townhouse units is in compliance with the RM-1 zoning bylaw and complies with the policies of the Southview
Precinct of the Town Centre Area Plan. It is also in compliance with the Official Community Plan. As Public Hearing was already held for this application, it is recommended that Second
and Third Reading be given to Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw Amending Bylaw No. 6721-2010. “Original signed by Ingrid Milne” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Ingrid
Milne Planning Technician "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Charles R. Goddard BA MA Manager of Development and Environmental
Services Approving Officer "Original signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached
hereto:
-8 -Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Zone Amending Bylaw 6721-2010 Appendix C – Site Plan Appendix D – Building Elevation Plans Appendix E – Landscape Plans
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FR A SE R R . ^ DATE: Aug 23, 2012 FILE: RZ/095/08 BY: DT 22590 116 AVENUE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT 22514 2259 0 11601 22751 22 611 116 AVE. 227 40 22 5 55 11510 22 520 22538 22610 1148 5 225 ST. 11 6 A V E . 116 A V E . 227 ST. P 79665 LM P 311 1 P 83871 P 72181 P 79665
Sk. 275 LMS 810 NWS 3296 LMP 311 AP 6 3 4 28 LMP 13592 NWS 2997 2 1 P 6 2308 LMP 13596 2 NWS 2694 1 LMP 13592 1 2 37 3 3 H SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:2,000 APPENDIX A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 6721 -2010 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. 6721 -2010." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and
described as: Lot 37 District Lot 401 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 62308 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1473 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part
of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RM-1 (Townhouse 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 9th day of March, A.D. 2010. PUBLIC HEARING held the 20th day of April, A.D. 2010. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 200 . READ a third time the day of , A.D. 200
. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , A.D. 200 . RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200 . _____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B
-1 -District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/074/10 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: Rezoning – First Extension Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6785-2010 11716 Burnett 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 development under the R-1 (Residential District) zone
into 3 single family lots. RECOMMENDATION: That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ/074/10 and that the following conditions be addressed prior to consideration
of Final Reading: i. Road dedication; and ii. A planting plan showing the buffer in the northeast corner of proposed Lot 3. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Manjit Rai
Owner: Nabob Homes Ltd Legal Description: South ½ of Lot 5 except part in Plan LMP2415, Section 17, Township 12, NWD Plan 8881 OCP: Existing: Urban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1
(One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation Urban
Residential 1105
-2 -South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation Urban Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation Urban Residential West: Use: Commercial Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial) Designation: Commercial Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property:
Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.149 hectares Access: Burnett Street and 117 Avenue Servicing requirement: Full Urban This application is to permit future subdivision into 3 single-family
lots. The following dates outline Council’s consideration of the application and Bylaw 6785-2010: First Reading was granted January 11, 2011 The Second Reading Report (see attached)
was considered on July 26, 2011 Second Reading was granted July26, 2011 Public Hearing was held August 30, 2011 Third Reading was granted August 30, 2011 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 outstanding items are the survey plan for road dedication
and accompanying Application to Deposit plan, and the planting plan for the buffer on the northeast corner of proposed Lot 3. The latter is a request by Council following the Public
Hearing on August 30, 2011 for the applicant to work with District staff to ensure that the concerns of the existing neighbours are addressed through provision of an appropriate buffer.
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.
-3 -CONCLUSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied for a one year extension. The additional year will be sufficient
time for the applicant to complete the terms and conditions. “Original signed by Siobhan Murphy” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Siobhan Murphy, MA, MCIP,
RPP Planning Technician "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning "Original
signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng. GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
_______________________________________________ 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 F R AS ER R . ^ DATE: Aug 20, 2012 FILE: RZ/074/10 BY: PC 11716 BURNETT STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
PL AN NIN G D EPA RT M EN T 228 05 228 56 11716 1176511 67 5 22930 22930 22940 64 6 228 58 22855 11781 11797 11 66 7 22904 22905 11 65 9 11798 11810 11 68 0 22910 11761 22961 22962
11690 22900 11779 11791 11771 22950 11780 228 38 11 65 5 11749 11678 11750 11780 11747 22929 11788 22936 22942 22950 11790 11761 11775 11790 11809 22920 11791 22951 22953 11736 11671
22927 11778 22937 22939 22942 11760 11800 11 64 8-5 4 11764 11 66 3 22928 22935 11801 22971 11770 11 67 0 228 24 11808 11739 1176811 68 6 22945 11781 22945 22952 LO U G HE ED H W Y.
GILLEY AVE. 117 AVE. 22 9 S T. CLIFF AVE. ILLE Y AV E . 8 1 P 22876 P 51052 RP 3161 Rem. 238 P 40889 P 70383 4 128 P 874 94 P 8312 11 P 12588P 41319 153 105 Rem. A 242 P 71517 2 182
174 LMS 2390 B P 8871 E P 61520 Rem 106 P 59452 104 2 83 87 P 43788 39 10 LP 82566 S 1/2 5 260' 241 1 2 A LOT 21 P 72307 2 A P 81957 S 1/2 1 228 67 172 84 88 P 59400 123 246 9 LP 76566
Rem 1 RemP 12588 N 1/2 5 1 1E Rem P 57530 P 8881P 8881 184 85 173 245 125 P 121 97 N 1/2 1 P 42061 103 P 41319 239227 68 108 282 86 B LOT 1 P 121 97 P 121 97 A Rem.A 240 1 171 243 244
P 65141 3 P 40749 183 127 126 124 P 25677 LMP 34066 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:1,500 APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
-1 -District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/089/10 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: Rezoning – First Extension Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6767-2010 12359 216 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 future subdivision under the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium
Density) Residential) zone into 3 single family lots. RECOMMENDATION: That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ/089/10 and that the following conditions be addressed
prior to consideration of Final Reading: i. Road dedication as required; ii. Removal of the existing buildings; iii. Registration of a Section 219 Restrictive Covenant for Tree Protection.
DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: New Ridge Homes Ltd., Ted Hedrick Owner: Nizarali M. Mawji and Ted Hedrick Legal Description: Lot 213, District Lot 245, Plan 62639 OCP:
Existing: Single-Family Residential Proposed: Single Family Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
1106
-2 -Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation Urban Residential South: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation Urban Residential East: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation Urban Residential West: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Residential Site Area: 3940 m2 (0.97 acre) Access: 216th Street Servicing requirement:
Urban standard Previous Applications: This application is to permit future subdivision into three lots. The following dates outline Council’s consideration of the application and Bylaw
6767-2010: The First Reading Report (see attached) was considered on February 08, 2011 The Second Reading Report (see attached) was considered on July 12, 2011 Public Hearing
was held September 14, 2011 Third Reading was granted September 14, 2011 The applicant has not completed all of the rezoning requirements since Third Reading, and has requested another
year to satisfy all terms and conditions required for final approval. 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.
-3 -CONCLUSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied for a one year extension. The additional year will be sufficient
time for the applicant to complete the terms and conditions. “Original signed by Siobhan Murphy” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Siobhan Murphy, MA, MCIP,
MPP Planning Technician "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, MPP Director of Planning "Original
signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng. GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
_______________________________________________ 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 FR AS ER R . ^ DATE: Aug 20, 2012 FILE: RZ/089/10 BY: PC 12359 216 STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PL AN
NIN G D EPA RT M EN T 21510 21 525 21552 21 551 12 311 12368 12434 216 40 21501 21500 21545 21550 21598 12443 12342 21646 21537 21528 21544 21549 21 543 1229221616 21641 21645 216 52
21659 21 503 21 513 21515 21563 21562 21571 21564 12414 12424 216 34 216 24 21656 21 517 21 533 21555 21559 21576 21581 21635 21636 21640 21653 21518 21537 21 537 12 29 7 12337 12 37
1 12429 21632 21655 21654 21525 21526 21530 21 541 21570 21579 12282 12314 21621 12390 21637 216 44 21654 21 519 21 527 21 520 21540 21569 12343 12 35 9 12380 124 AV E. 216 ST. 123
AVE. 26156 B 22 5 13 6 P 62640 41 P 20197 213216 Rem P40867 P17760 B 143 P 21390 156 Rem E 72' of 2 157 P 17899 121 2 5 21 P 18125 43 215 44 40 P 14796 245 1 196 32 42 97 8 P 170 4
3 7 34 7P 14494 12 42 3 Rem 15 2 P19818 1 P 74894 B Rem 1 P 8586 P 198 18 154 4 33 P 13700 37 A P 62639 B 217 RP15478 127 Rem. P48464 P 447 38 P 17760 130 31 14 BCP 6488 11 36 Rem 17
21846 F "ONE" P 10924 A 194 3 P 31001 P 26796 39 20 P 72950 244 195155G 145 P 33150 35 P 46774 P 18099 45 P 72245 47 P32671 P 58500 Rem 176 9 6 Rem 214 4 16 22 128 129 144 Rem C P 33418
SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:1,500 124 AVE 123 AVE 216 ST APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
-1 -District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/083/09 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: Final One Year Extension Application 12771 McNutt Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council granted a one year extension to the above noted application on July 26, 2011. The applicant
has now applied for a final one year extension under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is to permit subdivision into three single-family lots
under the RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone. RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, a one year extension be granted for rezoning
application RZ/083/09 (property located at 12771 McNutt) and that the following terms and conditions be addressed prior to consideration of Final Reading: i. Registration of a Rezoning
Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; ii. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant
which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; iii. Road dedication as required; iv. Removal of the existing buildings; v. An Engineer’s report providing
an analysis of the present water system to confirm minimum static pressure of 40 P.S.I at the elevation of highest plumbing fixture in the proposed house or at the highest elevation
of the required sprinkler heads within the house; vi. Confirmation that utility companies can provide servicing to all proposed lots; vii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by
a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided
in accordance with the regulations; and 1107
-2 -viii. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act, the subdivider will provide a Site Profile for the subject land. DISCUSSION: a) Background
Context: Applicant: Brian and Kelly Craig Owners: Brian and Kelly Craig Legal Description: Lot 22, District Lot 6881, Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 34392 OCP: Existing: Suburban
Residential Proposed: Suburban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Surrounding Uses North: Use: Provincial
Crown Land Zone: N/A Designation Forest South: Use: Single-family dwelling Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Suburban Residential East: Use: Single-family dwelling
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Suburban Residential West: Use: Single-family dwelling Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Suburban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 1.231 hectares (3 acres) Access: McNutt Road Servicing: Suburban Companion
Applications: SD/083/09 This application is to permit a three lot subdivision under the RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone. The following dates outline Council’s consideration
of the application and Bylaw 6730 -2010:
-3 --The First Reading report (see attached) was considered on May 25, 2010; -First and Second Reading was granted May 25, 2010; -Public Hearing was held June 15, 2010; -Third Reading
was granted on June 22, 2010; and -First extension was granted July 26, 2011. Application Progress: The applicant was unable to complete the rezoning requirements within the extension
period and has requested another year to satisfy all terms and conditions required for final approval. 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 continues to pursue
the completion of this rezoning application and has applied for a final one year extension. It is anticipated that the additional year will be sufficient time for the applicant to complete
the terms and conditions required for Final Reading; therefore it is recommended that a final one year extension be granted. "Original signed by Amelia Bowden" ______________________________________
_________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Planning Technician "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL,
MCIP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" _________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed
by Paul Gill" ________________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A –
First Reading Report
APPENDIX A
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-056-VP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT:
Variance Permit 23608, 23616, and 23622 Rock Ridge Drive, and 13388 236 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Development Variance Permit application has been received to vary the building height
of four lots. The application consists of three CD-1-93 (Amenity Residential District) lots and one R-1 (Residential District) lot. The purpose of the Development Variance Permit is
to vary the principle building height from 9 metres to 10.5 metres to create a consistent streetscape on lots with topographic and other constraints. Such height variance requests have
been approved in the past within this area. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-056-VP respecting the properties located at 23608, 23616,
and 23622 Rock Ridge Drive, and 13388 236 Street. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context Applicant: Atlantic Pacific Land Corporation Owner: Atlantic Pacific Land Corporation Legal Description:
Lot: 1, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: EPP12189; Lot: 2, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: EPP12189; Lot: 3, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: EPP12189; Lot: 4, Section: 28, Township:
12, Plan: EPP12189 OCP: Existing: Med/High Density Residential Zoning: Existing: CD-1-93 (Amenity Residential District) and R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use:
Vacant Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential 1108
-2 -South: Use: Vacant Zone: R-1 (Residential District) Designation: Medium-High Density Residential East: Use: Vacant Zone: RS-1b (One Family Medium Density Urban Residential) and R-1
(Residential District) Designation: Neighborhood Park West: Use: Residential Zone: CD-1-93 (Amenity Residential District) Designation: Medium-High Density Residential Existing Use of
Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Residential Access: Rock Ridge Drive Servicing: Urban Standard Lot Size: range from 466m2 to 519m2 Previous Applications: 2011-046-SD Requested
Variance: to vary the height on the proposed buildings. b) Project Description: Lots 1, 2, and 3 are characterized by topography which slopes downhill from the fronting road. The variance
in height will also maintain consistency with the subdivision as a whole and the previous phase of this development across the fronting street. No homes currently exist north of these
lots so the additional height will not negatively impact others. Previous variances have been supported in recognition of the topographic constraints in order to create an attractive
street appeal. Lot 4 is in the R-1 (Residential District) zone and also has a maximum building height of 9 metres. This lot also has a restrictive tree protection covenant to the rear
of the lot, physically reducing its rear yard area and restricting the building footprint. The variance in height will allow for a more appealing elevation from the fronting street.
c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The subject sites are designated Medium Density Residential in the Official Community Plan and the existing R-1 (Residential District)
and CD 1-93 (Amenity Residential District) zoning comply with this designation. Zoning Bylaw: The lots are in compliance with the minimum zoning requirements for the R-1 (Residential
District) and CD 1-93 (Amenity Residential District) zone. The building height variance from 9 to 10.5 metres is the only requested variance under this application.
-3 -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) and CD 1-93 (Amenity Residential District) zone. The roof pitches and interior ceiling heights of the homes would likely be reduced. CONCLUSIONS: The
development variance request for building height will allow for a second story for each single family dwelling and a more attractive form and street appeal for lot four. The height
relaxation is consistent with similar single family home developments in the Silver Valley area. Therefore, it is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2012-056-VP be approved.
“Original signed by Siobhan Murphy” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Siobhan Murphy, MA, MCIP, RPP Planning Technician "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard"
_______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng. GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by Paul Gill" _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim)
Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FRASER R. ^ DATE: May 18, 2012 FILE: 2012-056-VP BY: PC 23608/16/22 ROCKRIDGE DRIVE & 13388 236 STREET CORPORATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 13406 13461 1346 6 13331 13415 23608 13426 13432 236 46 236 63 23683 23673 23662 23728 23691 13370 13446 13467 13347 13351 13367 13326 13356
13376 13382 23647 23654 23668 23659 23675 23667 23654 23708 23716 23705 23720 13335 13346 134 18 134 38 23617 23640 23622 23643 23719 23677 23710 237 29 13350 13482 13363 13371 13379
13409 13320 13340 13350 13388 13412 23672 236 55 23686 23680 23742 23720 13400 13380 13343 13375 23650 23635 23638 236 43 23646 23670 23678 23659 23672 23712 237 13 23723 23703 13360
1345 2 13339 13359 13336 23611 13380 13446 23658 23662 23651 13476 13492 13355 13312 13332 23616 236 29 23621 23630 23662 23693 23683 237 09 23692 237 02 13336/40 13412 13440 13455
13390 1345 8 13470 13488 134 23 13435 23605 13406 23623 23639 23651 23667 23698 23679 23738 GRANITE WAY 236 ST. BOULDER PLACE 235 ST. BRYANT DR IVE ROCK RIDGE DRIVE 26 8 PP X4138 P
3007 616 17 19 17 17 8 LMP 50571* 6 13 EPP 9001 20 15 10 13 20 30 27 25 3031 9 13 14 2 10 6 PARK EPP 90017 11 2 15 16 13 20 11 LMP 52337 12 19 23 22 7LMP 45724* 25 37 16 12 5 35 1 1
5 3 22 23 BCP 29631 26 21 9 5 29 7 237 4 27 4 3 2 10 14 7 18 7 14 15 10 29 10 BCS 5775 14 9 7 Rem 3 8 13 15 17 14 6 12 21 11 25 28 8 28 26 6 LMP 45724* 11 3 6 BCP 42355 14 12 EPP 12189
34 6 5 4 8 EPP 11249 19 16 12 18 24 27 4 24 LMP 45724* 1 15 11 2 9 PARK 1 21 18 LMP 43405 8 9 EPP 12189 16 2 13 14 Rem. 8 LMP 52337 LMP 52337 12 SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´SCALE 1:2,000 APPENDIX
A
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-086-AL FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve 23623 105 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received under Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural
Land Commission Act to exclude 8.085 hectares (20 acres) of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The subject property is within the Albion Flats, and was included in the study
area for the Albion Flats Concept Plan. The Applicant’s submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission. This is the second such
application and this report follows a similar outline to the first application report. In 2005, Council adopted a process on how to deal with ALR exclusion applications. On February
14, 2005, Council passed the following Resolution: “That the process for referring applications to the Agricultural Land Commission as resolved at the July 19, 2004 Council Workshop
be amended to include the following options only: a) The application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission. b)The application be authorized to go forward
to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council’s comments”. This is the process followed for the Pelton exclusion and non-farm use application in 2010. In analyzing the
application this report considers the history of the development of the Albion Flats Concept Plan, the staff report of January 23, 2012, the merits of the application with regard to
benefits for agriculture and especially the comments received from the Agricultural Land Commission in correspondence dated November 29, 2011. In advance of formal applications (for
exclusion or non-farm use), the Agricultural Land Commission was willing to provide preliminary comments following the completion of the draft Concept Plan. The District of Maple Ridge
(DMR) followed the Commission’s advice and submitted the Concept Plan to the Commission for comments in May, 2011. The Commission’s response, by Resolution # 2635/2011, stated: “THAT
the Commission not endorse the draft concept plan entirely as submitted, but only in part; 1109
-2 -That DMR be advised that while the Commission is prepared to cooperate towards future commercial or industrial development at Albion Flats, it will do so in conjunction with restoration
of an agricultural future for that part of Albion Flats lying to the north of 105 Avenue; AND THAT focusing on the area north of 105 Avenue the Commission will expect DMR to undertake
a comprehensive review of drainage and stream flow conditions in the Road Thirteen Dyking District with a view to resolving issues identified in the Golder Associates overview agricultural
assessment and the HB Lanarc environmental baseline report, that review to include preliminary consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada; preparation of an agricultural remedial
action plan in consultation with the Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the land owners, such a plan to address all relevant issues including but
not limited to drainage, long term access, buffering or consolidation; and design to ensure that traffic patterns enable practical access and use by farm vehicles; AND THAT the Commission
will expect DMR to submit an application under section 29 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to exclude from the ALR the land lying south of 105 Avenue and west of 240 Street together
with any remnant areas elsewhere in DMR identified by the Commission as being unsuitable for Agriculture; Commission approval of such an application may be in part or in whole conditional
on progress toward the foregoing action plan; AND THAT this response does not suggest or promote any move to eliminate the use of land at Albion Flats as an agricultural fairground;
AND THAT the Commission recognizes that any implementation or action to be taken with respect to the Commission’s response to the concept plan will require that DMR and land owners
be responsible for complying with applicable Acts, Regulations, and decisions of any authorities that have jurisdiction under an enactment.” It is clear from the Commissions comments
that drainage issues on the north side of 105 Avenue need to be addressed. It is also clear that the Commission has directed that the exclusion of the lands to the south of 105 Avenue
are contingent on the agricultural future of lands on the north side being restored. With this clear direction from the Agricultural Land Commission it is evident that for the Commission
to change its direction with regard to the lands on the north side, a significantly persuasive case would need to be made. In addition the District’s policies require that exclusion
applications demonstrate a net benefit for agriculture.
-3 -Following receipt of the Commission’s comments it was understood that property owners on the north side of 105 Avenue would be preparing detailed exclusion applications that would
have merit and would be defensible. With this understanding, in January 2012, Council considered a report that gave property owners an opportunity to submit their exclusion applications.
If the applications were deemed to have merit, Council would consider forwarding them to the Commission. Since that time one of the main property owners on the north side of 105 Avenue
has decided that they will not be submitting an exclusion application at this time. In other words this property owner does not believe that a case can be made for exclusion and has
chosen an alternative approach. Their revised proposal would retain their property in the ALR. It is staff’s recommendation, based on the merits of the application with regard to the
benefits to agriculture, and considering the directions provided by the Agricultural Land Commission, that Council approve option (a) which states “The application not be authorized
to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission. An alternative consideration, option (b), is to send the application forward to the Agricultural Land Commission. The advantages of
doing so include providing an opportunity for the applicant to have an audience with the Commission, and clarifying the status of this property. There may be a sense that, in forwarding
the application, the Agricultural Land Commission decision would bring absolute certainty to the issue. RECOMMENDATION: At the February 14, 2005 Workshop, Council resolved that the
process for referring applications for exclusion to the Agricultural Land Commission include the following options: a) The application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural
Land Commission. b) The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council’s comments. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant:
GSS Holdings Ltd. Glen Bury Owner: 533014 B.C. Ltd & 610 Investments Ltd. Legal Description: Lot: B, D.L.: 275, Block: 18, Plan: 9652 OCP Existing: Agricultural Zoning Existing: RS-3
(One Family Rural Residential)
-4 -Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Designation Agricultural South: Use: Agricultural Fairgrounds & Recreational uses Zone: RS-3
Designation: Park in the ALR East: Use: Over 30 properties, urban residential Zone: RS-1B One Family Urban Residential Designation: Urban residential West: Use: Farm Zone: RS-3 One
Family Rural Residential, Designation: Agriculture Existing Use of Property: Agriculture Proposed Use of Property: Not explicitly stated Site Area: 8.088 hectares (20 acres) Access:
105th Avenue b) Project Description: This application is for the exclusion of the subject property from the Agricultural Land Reserve. There is no explicit statement of intent for the
development of this subject property if excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, the applicant acknowledges the need for the future development of the site to be consistent
with the Albion Flats Concept Plan. c) Albion Flats: The subject property is within the Albion Flats. The Maple Ridge Official Community Plan, adopted in 2006, notes that the Albion
Flats is under municipal, regional and provincial jurisdiction. The area has been one of municipal interest for several years. Due to its strategic location along the Lougheed Highway,
the lands were designated a special study area of the Regional Growth Strategy of Metro Vancouver Regional District1. The intent of this designation was for the possible conversion
of these lands for uses that would assist the community in meeting economic development objectives. The subject property was part of the Albion Flats Concept Plan, which compiled technical
background research, public input, and Council comments into a draft proposal for the consideration of the Agricultural Land Commission. This application follows landowner application
#2012-061-AL, pertaining to the 16 hectare (20 acre) parcel to its south. It is anticipated that it will be the last of the landowner applications to occur since receiving Commission
comments in December 2011. 1, A Special Study Area is a location where a municipality has stated its intent to alter existing land use in the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy.
On the basis of this prior consultation, amending a Special Study Area land use is considered to be a Minor Amendment.
-5 -Albion Flats Concept Plan On January 11, 2010 Council directed that a Concept Plan be prepared for the Albion Flats. On February 15, 2010 Council gave consideration to the “Albion
Flats Concept Plan Process” report dated February 8, 2010 and resolved that the process recommended in that report be approved. In advance of formal applications (for exclusion or non-farm
use), the Agricultural Land Commission was willing to provide preliminary comments following the completion of the draft Concept Plan. The District of Maple Ridge followed the Commission’s
advice and submitted their Concept Plan to the Commission for comments in May, 2011. The Concept Plan as submitted proposed the following land uses: South Side of 105 Avenue Commercial
(transit oriented mixed use) Residential (townhouse) Recreation (including multi-purpose recreation facility) Community garden and agricultural fields Agricultural fairgrounds
and farm cluster Conservation/green space Institutional Mixed employment node (business & light industrial) Agri-Industrial North Side of 105 Avenue Commercial (auto-oriented
regional serving retail) Business office Conservation/green space Commission Review As stated above, the Commission provided the District with the opportunity to receive written
comments from the Agricultural Land Commission on the Concept Plan. The subject property is within a portion of the site that the Commission did not endorse for exclusion, on the basis
that the land north of 105 Avenue has agricultural capability; is suitable for agricultural use; and is appropriately designated as Agricultural Land Reserve. The Commission would consider
exclusion for the lands south of 105 Avenue, but imposed conditions including improving the agricultural capability of the properties that would remain within the Reserve. The Commission
advised Council to proceed with a Local Government exclusion application for the properties south of 105 Avenue. Applications by Land Owner for the Properties North of 105 Avenue Upon
receipt of Commission feedback, Council considered a number of processes. Prior to initiating the process of an exclusion application by local government, they would give the private
land owners on the area north of 105 Avenue the opportunity to apply for exclusion of these lands. These property owners had indicated that they would be proceeding with exclusion applications.
On January 24, 2012, Council directed staff to advance a “Hybrid Option”, where the owners of land north of 105 Avenue would submit applications for the lands north of 105 Avenue. As
noted in the staff report dated January 23, 2012, the Council decision to forward such applications would be
-6 -based on their merits. After the Commission decision was public, the District would submit an exclusion application for the lands south of 105 Avenue. The rationale for this approach
was that if the exclusion application on lands to the north was approved, the conditions binding the District towards agricultural improvements would no longer apply. In addition, clarifying
the available land base gave the District an opportunity to refine its Concept Plan to maximize the amount of commercial and employment generating lands. Application by Local Government
for the Properties South of 105 Avenue There are approximately 60.36 hectares (149 acres) of land in the Agricultural Land Reserve on the south side of 105 Avenue. The Commission comments
advise that in return for agricultural restoration north of 105 Avenue, it will not place any restrictions on the use of lands to the south, with the added advice that this does not
suggest or promote any move to eliminate the use of lands in the Albion Flats as an agricultural fairground. On this basis, it appears that Maple Ridge could move forward with an exclusion
application for all 60.36 ha (149 acres) on the south side by undertaking the following work and commitments: A comprehensive drainage analysis; An agricultural remedial action
plan; Traffic analysis; A commitment to keep the use of lands in the Albion Flats as an agricultural fairground. It also appears that no further refinement of the draft concept
plan would be required at this time in order to advance an exclusion application. Assuming the lands are removed from the ALR, the District would refine the concept plan to accommodate
the District’s desired uses including the commitment to keep the use of lands in the Albion Flats as an agricultural fairground. Based on the Commission decision, the District would
have considerable freedom in the types of land uses it could permit on the South side of 105 Avenue. d) Planning Analysis: Merits of this Exclusion Application On January 24, 2012,
Council passed by resolution an option which gave private land owners an opportunity to apply for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve for the properties on the north side of
105 Avenue. It is important to note that the staff report dated January 23, 2012 stated that the Council decision to forward such applications would still be based on their merits.
On this basis, the merits of this application require consideration. The rationale for converting the Albion Flats to other uses relates to its strategic location and ability to meet
community needs for commercial and employment generating lands. This potential is recognized by Council, Metro Vancouver, and the Agricultural Land Commission.
-7 -The subject property is within an area that was indicated in the Albion Concept Plan for business office development. The applicant states an intent to work with the District to
develop the properties in accordance with the Albion Flats Concept Plan. Official Community Plan Policy 6-12 of the Official Community Plan applies to land use decisions that affect
the agricultural land base. It states: Maple Ridge will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by: a) Adopting a guiding principle of “positive benefit to agriculture” when
making land use decisions that could affect the agricultural land base, with favourable recognition of initiatives including but not limited to supportive non-farm uses, infrastructure
improvements for farmland, or the inclusion of land elsewhere in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The requirement in the Official Community Plan for a net benefit to agriculture indicates
that measures such as supportive non-farm uses, infrastructure improvements for farmland, or the inclusion of land elsewhere in the Agricultural Land Reserve would be appropriate to
compensate for the loss of agricultural land. This application does not propose compensatory measures to off-set the loss of agricultural land. Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan The Maple
Ridge Agricultural Plan, adopted in 2009, discusses the importance of retaining large tracts of agricultural land within the community. Goal 6 of the Plan states the following: The
primary goal with respect to larger established farming operations in Maple Ridge is to plan for their retention as farms, rather than watch them languish and deteriorate, so that the
community can optimize the rewards and advantages of having agriculture in its midst. Limited to highly specific situations, the secondary goal (if the primary goal is not feasible)
is to explore establishing a policy of compensation from development that enables funds to be generated and expended so that the net agricultural capability of the District is enhanced
by investment elsewhere. Key recommendations of the Plan state the following: a) Explore establishing a drainage and flood control levy b) Undertake a feasibility study of drainage
and flood control to rehabilitate affected areas c) Require compensation from unavoidable agricultural land conversion developments to be used to increase net agricultural capability
in the District This excerpt reveals considerable consistency between the conditions set by the Agricultural Land Commission for the Albion Flats and the policy statements of the Agricultural
Plan.
-8 -In summary, the requirement for a net benefit to agriculture has not been met. The rehabilitation of these lands north of 105th is a condition that the Commission will require to
be addressed as part of the exclusion application for the lands to the south of 105 Avenue. Based on these considerations it is staff’s recommendation that Council approve option (a)
which states “The application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission.” e) Alternatives: Council may wish to consider “option b)”, forward the application
to the Agricultural Land Commission. The advantages of doing so would be to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard directly by the Agricultural Land Commission. There may be
a sense that the Agricultural Land Commission’s decision would bring clarity and certainty to the issue. It should be noted that recent changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act
include the ability of the Commission to not reconsider an application for non-farm use or exclusion made by an individual for 5 years following a refusal. CONCLUSION: This application
for exclusion occurs in an area of the Albion Flats that the Agricultural Land Commission has consistently stated should be retained in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The benefit to
agriculture proposed with this application (the transport of soils to agricultural land) does not appear particularly strong. The community benefit to be served by the conversion of
this strategically located site is not clear. In addition, the rationale for this exclusion relates to the drainage problems associated with the subject property. It is understood that
this information is and was understood by the Commission when they provided Council with its comments in 2011. In fact these are problems that the Commission will require to be addressed
as part of the exclusion application for the lands to the south of 105 Avenue. Based on these considerations, option (a) is recommended. However this report also identifies an alternative
approach. As per Council’s direction two options are provided for Council’s consideration. "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard"________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, Planner 2
"Original signed by Charles R. Goddard"________________ Approved by: Christine Carter M,PL,MCIP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn"______________________ Approved
by; Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng General Manager, Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"____________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative
Officer Appendix A – Subject Map
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FR AS ER R . ^ DATE: Aug 14, 2012 FILE: 2012-086-AL BY: PC 23623 105 AVENUE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PL
AN NIN G D EPA RT M EN T SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:3,500 APPENDIX A
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-073-AL FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of
W SUBJECT: Non-Farm Use Application 9881 280 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A non-farm use application has been received under Section 20 (10) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The
purpose of this application is to legitimize a use that has been found noncompliant by the Agricultural Land Commission and could be subject to bylaw enforcement action. The site area
is approximately 3.9 hectares (10 acres). The applicant has expressed the intent to use a portion of the site for parking and repair of motor vehicles (tractors) as well as trailers.
This proposal describes an industrial use that is not permitted in the Rural Residential zoning of the subject property. Under the Zoning Bylaw, the permitted uses on the property must
comply with the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Zone. Because the uses are not compatible with the neighbourhood context the recommendation is to not forward this application to the
Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That non-farm use application 2012-073-AL respecting property located at 9881 280 Street not be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission.
DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Stephen C Walker Owner: Stephen C Walker Legal Description: Lot: 2, Section: 5, Township: 15, Plan: 3949 OCP : Existing: 81% Agricultural
& 19% Rural Residential Proposed: No Change Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: No Change Surrounding Uses North: Use: Farm and Rural Residential Zone: RS-3
(One Family Rural Residential) Designation 80% Agricultural & 20% Rural Residential South: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: 81% Agricultural
& 19% Rural Residential 1110
-2 -East: Use: Vacant recreational Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Designation: Park in the Agricultural Land Reserve West: Use: Vacant Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation: Rural Residential Existing Use of Property: Farm, rural residential, & non-conforming industrial use Proposed Use of Property: no change, legitimize non-conformity Site
Area: 3.9 hectares (10 acres) Access: 280th Street Servicing: On site services only b) Project Description: Based on the applicant’s description, the proposal includes parking for approximately
10 flat bed or hay trailers and several power units (tractors) on a gravel surface. The parking area is 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) in size. Tractor and trailer repairs are to be carried
out to Provincial CVSA standards within the existing barn structure. c) Planning Analysis: Zoning Bylaw. Should this non-farm use application be approved by the Commission, it is important
to recognize that this approval does not supersede the prescribed uses within the Zoning Bylaw for the subject property’s RS-3 (One Family Rural Residentia)l zone. Permitted principal
uses in this zone include agriculture and one family rural residential. It appears that the proposed (existing) use of the land is to continue the applicant’s vehicle repair business.
Such a use is not permitted in this zone. Furthermore, it is not be permitted as an accessory use. Home occupation uses are supported in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw but limited in
their scope to avoid potential nuisance effects in residential areas. The following excerpts are particularly relevant: Where permitted, a Home Occupation use: (a) shall be clearly
an accessory use to the use of a dwelling unit or to the residential use of a lot occupied by a dwelling; (b) shall be entirely enclosed within: (i) the dwelling unit; or (ii) a building
in RS-2, RS-3 or A zones only; (c) shall not occupy more than: (i) 20% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit up to 50 m2 in total; or (ii) 20% of the gross floor area of the
building or buildings up to 50 m2 in total in all buildings in RS-2, RS-3 or A zones only; (e) shall not involve the unenclosed storage or display of raw materials, components, or stock-in-trade;
(f) shall not involve internal or external structural alteration to the principal building, and there shall be no exterior indication that the building is used for a purpose other than
-3 -a residential use except for one sign in accordance with Maple Ridge Sign Bylaw No. 4653-1992; (g) shall not involve more than one vehicle used in connection with the home occupation
and no such vehicle shall be in excess of 3630 kg gross vehicle weight; (h) shall not involve: (i) occupations that discharge or emit odorous, noxious or toxic matter or vapours, heat,
glare, noise or radiation, or recurrently generated ground vibrations; (ii) occupations that result in traffic congestion, on-street parking, electrical interference, fire hazard or
health hazards; (iii) the use of mechanical or electrical equipment except as is ordinarily employed in purely domestic and household use or recreational hobbies or office uses; (iv)
the salvage, repair, maintenance or sales of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines or parts; This proposed (existing) use exceeds the permissible footprint of a home occupation use.
In addition, the repair and maintenance of motor vehicles is specifically not permitted as a home occupation use. This analysis confirms that this use is not permitted as a principal
or an accessory use on the subject property. On this basis, the proposal cannot proceed without first rezoning the subject property to an industrial zone. The most appropriate zone
would be M-2 General Industrial. A Public Hearing would be required for a rezoning of this parcel. Official Community Plan The portion of the site that is affected by the application
is within the Agricultural Land Reserve and therefore is designated Agricultural. Normally this designation would be considered unavailable for industrial development. However, Appendix
C of the Official Community Plan allows for any zone in this designation provided it is accompanied by a non-farm approval by the Agricultural Land Commission. Therefore, should this
non-farm use application be forwarded to and subsequently approved by the Commission, a rezoning application would be required; however, an amendment to the Official Community Plan
would not. Industrial Policies. As the property would first require rezoning prior to allowing this proposal to proceed, the suitability of the site for conversion to industrial uses
should be considered. The Official Community Plan recognizes that additional employment generating industrial lands are needed in the community. It provides locational criteria for
assessing these needs. Policy 6-41 states: The identification of additional employment generating lands is a priority for the District. Following the completion of an Agricultural Plan,
and as a component of a comprehensive review of the Urban Area Boundary Maple Ridge will evaluate alternate locations for a large block or blocks of additional employment generating
land to support the growth of the employment sector in the future. Location parameters for suitable industrial land may include, but is not limited to: a) land that is relatively flat;
b) land that is conducive to industrial development; c) land that is contiguous to a full range of municipal services; d) land that is strategically located near the Regional transportation
network.
-4 -The location and servicing constraints associated with this site indicates that it does not meet these criteria. For servicing, it relies on well and septic. The connectivity to
the transportation network is constrained by its distance to Dewdney Trunk Road. To the south, Lougheed Highway is closer, but in sections is narrower that the required rural road standard
of 20 meters. In addition, Policy 6-41 emphasizes the identification of significant blocks of land for conversion to industrial uses, but not on a parcel by parcel basis. The neighbourhood
context and compatibility with these neighbouring uses must be considered carefully. Agricultural Policies. Policy 6-12 of the Official Community Plan states the following: Maple Ridge
will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by: a) Adopting a guiding principle of “positive benefit to agriculture” when making land use decisions that could affect the
agricultural land base, with favourable recognition of initiatives including but not limited to supportive non-farm uses,… This application does not provide a demonstration of positive
benefit to agriculture. On this basis, it is concluded that this proposal is not consistent with the pertinent policies of the Official Community Plan. d) Environmental Implications:
As noted, in order to realize this proposal, a rezoning application will be required if the Commission approves this application. A site profile will examine the potential for site
contamination concerns. The subject property is remote from urban services and must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw for the M-2 General Industrial
Zone. This will involve site upgrades and demonstration by a qualified professional that the site can physically support this use with onsite servicing. e) Citizen/Customer Implications:
A public notification process would be required as part of the rezoning application needed to realize this proposal. This process will give neighbours an opportunity to voice possible
concerns about the proposal. f) Alternatives: This proposal is for the legitimation of a non-compliant industrial use in a rural residential context. Based on concerns about the appropriateness
of this use at this location, the recommendation is to deny forwarding this application to the Commission. However, if Council would be supportive of eventually rezoning this agricultural
parcel from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to M-2 (General Industrial) to legalize the current use, they may wish to consider forwarding this application to the Commission.
-5 -CONCLUSION: This application for a non-farm use has been found to be inconsistent with the Zoning Bylaw, and with the policies of the Official Community Plan. The proposed use cannot
be realized without rezoning the subject property to an industrial zone. Unless Council is willing to support such an amendment, the recommendation is to deny the application from proceeding
to the Commission. "Original signed by Diana Hall" _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall Planner 2 "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" _________________________
____________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank
Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative
Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map
City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of Mission FRASER R. ^ DATE: Jul 10, 2012 FILE: 2012-073-AL BY: PC 9881 280 STREET CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT 9731 9811 9935 9934 10049 9980 9781 9881 9991 9711 99 A VE . 280 ST. 2 P 3949 P 26716 P 22209 1 9 PARK Rem 2 RP 8334 3 PARK P 26716 PARK P 26716 B P 3949 4 1 10 11 P 59911
!( !( SUBJECT PROPERTY ´SCALE 1:3,000 APPENDIX A
1 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Black
Sheep Pub -Liquor License Application – Increase in Seating Capacity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) have received an application from the Black Sheep
Pub at 12968 232 Street for an increase in their seating capacity. The purpose of the increase in seating capacity is to provide service to a wider number of their customers. All other
conditions of their licenses will remain the same. One of the considerations utilized by the LCLB in reviewing an application for occupancy increases of a liquor primary license is
a resolution from the local government. A number of regulatory criteria must be addressed in the Council resolution as well as comments pertaining to the views expressed by area residents.
Council may choose to support the application, not support the application or indicate they do not wish to comment. While there were limited responses from residents through the public
process required by LCLB, it is acknowledged that residents in the area have previously raised concerns regarding the interface of the pub with the adjoining residential neighbourhood.
The Black Sheep Pub is located in an area boarding single family residential properties. As a result, while there is adequate parking on site and while residents may have adequate parking
on their property, a preponderance of non resident vehicles that park within a neighbourhood is seen as an imposition or detriment to the neighbourhood. For this reason this report
recommends that the request for increased seating capacity not be supported. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. That Council not support the application by the Black Sheep Pub at 12968 232 Street
Maple Ridge for an increase in their seating capacity as an amendment to Liquor License No. 213427, the existing Liquor Primary License based on the information contained in the Council
report dated August 27, 2012. 2. That a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch in accordance with the legislative requirements. 1111
2 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In January 13, 2012 the Black Sheep Pub submitted a License Primary Structural Change application to increase the seating capacity from 155 to 213
seats (Appendix I) and copy of approved total occupant load attached as Appendix II. LCLB has completed their initial review of the application and have determined applicant suitability
and eligibility for the establishment type. The Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw does permit a liquor primary establishment at this location and the business has a current and valid Business
Licence. The premises in question is fronted in the 12900 block of 232 street and is primarily surrounded by residentially zoned and utilized property. The attached map (Appendix III)
compares the subject site to the surrounding neighbourhood. The second phase of the application process is the gathering of public input on the application request. The LCLB guidelines
request a specific Council resolution commenting on the application in terms of community impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed change to the establishment operations
as a result to the proposed change to the Liquor Primary License at this particular location. Part of the process requires Council to gather views of the residents who may be affected
by the establishment of the liquor primary license in their neighbourhood. In following the public input requirement, on July 5, 2012, 130 letters were sent to owners and occupants
of property within approximately 300 metres of the subject site with the vast majority of the recipients being residents, one showing as a registered company, one parcel owned by the
School District and one parcel owned by the District of Maple Ridge. None of the correspondence was returned by the Post Office. There were three responses to the 130 letters sent to
surrounding property owners and occupants , one in favour with the other two opposed. For Council reference, the responses are attached to this report as Appendix IV. The District also
posted a public notice in the local newspaper running two separate editions in the week of July 6 and 9, 2012. There was one telephone enquiry in response to this advertisement for
the purpose of seeking clarification on whether or not they could respond to the District’s website and they were informed this was an approved type of response. Although our records
show a response on this topic was not submitted through the website on this issue. Notwithstanding the few responses received, it is acknowledged that residents in the area have previously
raised concerns regarding the interface of the pub with the adjoining residential neighbourhood. The residents in the area have voiced concerns previously about the imposition caused
by non residents parking and the detriment to the neighbourhood. The Maple Ridge RCMP Detachment was asked for their input on this matter and they have confirmed they do not have any
operational issues with this application. There is adequate parking, on the subject property to satisfy and meet municipal parking requirements for this proposed additional use. There
is also additional parking on a private property owned by the same owners across the street from the existing pub that contains additional space for vehicles. A covenant is in place
to preserve these spots for use by the Black Sheep Pub. There is currently no time limited parking on the street in the area. Private property lot sizes are large with ample private
off street parking availability. Recently Council adopted a policy for residential permit parking. This is available to residents should they choose to pursue it.
3 The three closest liquor primary licensed premises to the subject property are: The Ranch Pub & Grill – 21973 132 Ave Witch of Endor Pub – 22648 Dewdney Trunk Rd The Wolf Bar
– 22336 Lougheed Highway The Black Sheep Pub is located in an area boarding single family residential properties. As a result, while there is adequate parking on site and while residents
may have adequate parking on their property, a preponderance of non resident vehicles that park within a neighbourhood is seen as an imposition or detriment to the neighbourhood. b)
Desired Outcome(s): That Council does not support the application from the Black Sheep Pub to increase their seating capacity as requested. c) Intergovernmental Issues: Both local government
and the provincial government have an interest in ensuring that liquor regulations are followed and that licenses establishments have the support of their communities. d) Citizen/Customer
Implications: The review of this application has taken into consideration the potential for concerns from surrounding properties in terms of parking, traffic and noise generation as
well as the proximity of schools and similar establishments. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Licencing, Permits and Bylaws Department has coordinated in the review process and
solicited input from the public, other municipal departments as well as the RCMP. f) Alternatives: To approve the application and provide conditions to the approval in the form or recommendations
to forward to the LCB.
4 CONCLUSIONS: That Council pass the necessary resolution not supporting the application from the Black Sheep Pub as submitted based upon the staff findings set out in this report. “Original
signed by E.S. (Liz) Holitzki” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: E. S. (Liz) Holitzki Director: Licences, Permits and Bylaws “Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng General Manager, Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule” _______________________
________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Office /lh Attachments: Appendix I – License Primary Structural Change application Appendix II – Approved total
occupant load Appendix III – Map of subject property and surrounding area Appendix IV – Resident responses
Page 1 of 4 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the
Whole SUBJECT: 2013 Permissive Tax Exemptions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Community Charter provides Council with statutory powers to exempt certain types of properties from municipal property
taxation. Council’s policy direction in this area is based on the fundamental principle that the Municipality will not grant property tax exemptions to organizations providing services
on a private or for profit basis, where the service is not a service funded through municipal funding, or where the service is the responsibility of senior governments. If exemptions
were granted in these instances then taxpayers would be funding programs that were not intended to be funded by property taxes. All applicants being recommended for a permissive tax
exemption in 2013 also received the exemption in 2012. There is one new application for 2013. The North Fraser Therapeutic Riding Association has applied for permissive tax exemption
for property leased at 13345 Park Lane. The recommendation is to deny the permissive exemption and forward their request to be considered for Community Grants in 2013. In accordance
with the Community Charter and Council Policies 5.16 to 5.23, the properties listed in Bylaw No. 6942-2012 are recommended for property tax exemption for the 2013 taxation year. RECOMMENDATION:
That “Maple Ridge Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 6942–2012” be given first, second and third readings. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The Community Charter provides for a general exemption
from taxation over which Council does not have any legislative powers or authority. This includes properties such as schools, public hospitals, buildings set apart for public worship
and provincial and municipally owned public buildings and land. B.C. Assessment determines which properties qualify for statutory exemption according to the Community Charter. Churches
and Private Schools receive these automatic exemptions, over which Council has no control. However, the statutory exemption only provides for the church or school building and the land
on which it stands, leaving any remaining land and improvements as taxable. In 1985 Council adopted a bylaw which grants automatic permissive exemptions for these properties. Church
properties receive permissive exemption for an additional church hall and the entire parcel of land, to a maximum of 2.0335 hectares (5 acres). Buildings other than the church and church
hall are subject to taxation. Private Schools receive permissive exemption for additional improvements and the entire parcel of land not included in the statutory exemption. The Community
Charter also provides Council with statutory powers to exempt other certain properties from municipal taxation. For example, these can be land and improvements that are used by not
for 1131
Page 2 of 4 profit organizations that are deemed to contribute to the well being of the community or private institutions licensed under other legislation such as the Hospital Act, Community
Care Facility Act or parts of the School Act. Permissive exemptions can also be granted by Council for heritage properties and portions of a property used for municipal purposes (e.g.
parts of Planet Ice, the curling rink and the Ridge Meadows Senior Society). Council’s policy direction is intended to prevent the downloading/off loading of services that are the responsibility
of senior governments and to ensure local residents are not subsidizing residents from other municipalities. They also establish that where a permissive tax exemption is granted that
all residents of Maple Ridge have access to the service provided and make certain that the property tax exemption does not provide for an unfair competitive advantage. The services
provided by the organization are to be an extension of Municipal services and programs and fall under the responsibility of local government. A Tax Exemption Bylaw adopted by Council
specifically applies to the “General, Debt & Library” and “Fire Services Improvement” levies on the Property Tax Notice. However at this time, the School Act and the Hospital District
Act also provide for exemptions from other taxing authorities for properties included in the bylaw. The proposed taxation exemption bylaw must be publicly posted and included in a newspaper
prior to its adoption. The notice will include a description of each property and the estimated tax exemption for 2013 plus the following two years. The District’s Annual Report also
includes information on the permissive exemptions granted. b) Desired Outcome: Council must adopt the Tax Exemption Bylaw on or before October 31, 2012 to exempt properties from municipal
property taxation for 2013. c) Strategic Alignment: The sources of municipal revenue are limited and therefore, the District supports institutions, organizations and the community at
large to enhance the quality of life to its residents. The granting of property tax exemptions to those applicants meeting the criteria of the policies are strategically aligned with:
(i) Financial Management – cost effective and efficient delivery of services (ii) Community Relations – recognize and support the important contribution of volunteers and not for profit
groups that provide services in Maple Ridge (iii) Safe & Livable Community – in partnership with community groups, assist in the provision of leisure and cultural services to ensure
access by all citizens d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Permissive exemptions are designed to support those services that complement District programs. Inadequate funding from senior
governments sometimes results in agencies turning to local government for assistance. The sources of municipal funding are limited and providing exemptions to those groups that fall
under the responsibility of senior governments is not feasible. All applicants that were approved for a permissive tax exemption for the 2012 taxation year are being recommended for
a 2013 permissive tax exemption. One new application was received from the North Fraser Therapeutic Riding Association. This non-profit, charitable organization provides recreational
therapeutic riding opportunities for physically, emotionally and mentally challenged children and adults. Recreational riding lessons are provided to 80 to 95 participants each week
for approximately 30 weeks each year. The programs provide significant
Page 3 of 4 benefits for the participants and approximately 70 volunteers. We recommend denial of this application for three main reasons. The municipality does not provide recreational
equestrian programs as these are provided through businesses and clubs. If we chose to provide this type of program it would be an expansion of our services that is not currently funded.
Further, occupational and/or physical therapeutic programs are not the responsibility of local government. As well, there are other organizations in the community that provide equestrian
and other recreational programs and allowing this exemption could invite other applications resulting in a further increase in the tax burden against taxpayers. e) Business Plan/Financial
Implications: Based on the 2012 assessed values, and using the estimated tax increase for 2013 from the financial plan, the estimated amount attributable to the 2013 proposed tax exemptions
for the Municipal portion of taxes is $471,430. The total tax revenue estimate in the financial plan is $63,963,400, putting the proposed exemptions at less than 1% of that total. The
estimated municipal portion of property taxes for 2013 for the North Fraser Therapeutic Riding Assocation is $6,360. f) Policy Implications: The applicants recommended for exemption
are in accordance with the adopted policies. Council does have the discretion to make exceptions to existing policies on a case by case basis but doing so may create expectations for
other community groups in the future. g) Alternatives: Granting tax exemptions leads to a tax shift to other taxpayers, most notably in the Residential Class. An option for Council
is to provide a financial grant to assist those organizations providing community services that Council wishes to support. Grants are an annual budget decision and are limited to one
year. Council has used this option from time to time. Providing grants does not relieve senior levels of government from their responsibility to the community. Therefore, the potential
for downloading costs to the Municipality is somewhat reduced. CONCLUSIONS: In reviewing the requests for permissive exemptions, Council Members should ensure: 1. The use is consistent
with Municipal policies, plans, bylaws, codes and regulations. This will ensure the goals, policies, and general operating principles of the Municipality as a whole are reflected in
the organizations that receive Municipal support. 2. Exemptions are not given to services that are otherwise provided on a private, for profit basis. This would provide an unfair competitive
advantage. 3. The services provided by the organization should be an extension of Municipal services and programs and must fall under the responsibility of local government. Senior
government program costs must not be transferred to property taxpayers, as this would represent double taxation and an inequitable tax burden. 4. Primarily Maple Ridge residents should
use the services and the organization’s regulations must allow all Maple Ridge residents to participate. 5. The taxation burden resulting from the exemption must be a justifiable expense
to the taxpayers of the Municipality. The sources of Municipal revenue are limited and request for exemption must be considered in concert with other needs of the Municipality. Additional
details on the applications are available from the Finance Department.
Page 4 of 4 _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Kathleen Gormley Manager of Business Systems _______________________________________________ Approved by: Paul
Gill, BBA, CGA GM – Corp. & Fin. Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer :kg "Original signed by Kathleen
Gormley" "Original signed by Paul Gill" "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: August 27, 2012 and Members of Council Committee of the Whole FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Disbursements
for the month ended July 31, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council has authorized all voucher payments to be approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor and a Finance Manager. Council authorizes
the vouchers for the following period through Council resolution. The disbursement summary for the past period is attached for information. Expenditure details are available by request
through the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION: That the “disbursements as listed below for the month ended July 31, 2012 now be approved”. GENERAL $ 25,155,933 PAYROLL $ 1,816,077
PURCHASE CARD $ 116,748 $ 27,088,758 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and provided authorization for
expenditures to deliver municipal services. The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan. b) Community Communications: The citizens of Maple Ridge
are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial disbursements. 1132
c) Business Plan /Financial Implications: Highlights of larger items included in Financial Plan or Council Resolution City of Pitt Meadows – 2011 & 2012 dyking/drainage costs $ 159,466
Emergency Communications – Dispatch levy – 3rd quarter $ 242,803 G.V. Water District – Barnston/Maple Ridge pump station $ 337,073 G.V. Water District – Main West to connect to
Barnston pump stn. $ 1,538,936 G.V. Water District – water consumption Mar 28 – May 1/12 $ 497,508 G.V. Water District – water consumption May 2 – 29/12 $ 471,377 Imperial Paving
– 2012 Paving Program $ 373,158 Marten Timmer Excavating Ltd. – Core Park construction $ 152,057 Receiver General – Three payroll remittances $ 1,065,735 Tybo Contracting Ltd.
– DTR watermain replacement $ 184,636 The municipality acts as the collection agency for other levels of government or agencies. The following collections were remitted in July. 1.
Albion Dyking District $ 184,215 2. Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage $ 214,919 3. Provincial School Tax $ 15,820,545 4. Road 13 Dyking District $ 112,161 5. Tretheway Edge Dyking
District $ 35,265 d) Policy Implications: Approval of the disbursements by Council is in keeping with corporate governance practice. CONCLUSIONS: The disbursements for the month ended
July 31, 2012 have been reviewed and are in order. ______________________________________________ Prepared by: G’Ann Rygg Accounting Clerk II _______________________________________________
Approved by: Trevor Thompson, BBA, CGA Manager of Financial Planning _______________________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA GM – Corporate & Financial Services
_______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer gmr "Original signed by G'Ann Rygg" "Original signed by Trevor Thompson" "Original
signed by Paul Gill" "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT AMOUNT 0891551 BC Ltd Town centre investment incentive -22308 Lougheed Hwy. 40,484 775983 BC Ltd Roadside mowing 30,497 A & A Testing Ltd Storm sewer
inspections 49,193 A T & H Industries Inc Gravel & dump fees 15,053 Albion Dyking District 2012 collections 184,215 Anderson & Thompson Security refunds 133,332 Aplin & Martin Consultants
Ltd Capital water projects 4,844 Multi-use pathway design 122 Ave. from 216 St. to 222 St. 26,208 31,052 Avenue Machinery Corp Kubota tractor c/w loader/backhoe/4X4 109,956 BC Hydro
Electricity 113,493 BC SPCA Contract payment June 27,527 BFI Canada Vancouver Waste disposal May & June 23,007 Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd Maintenance: Banners 9,839 Edge St poles 3,370
Haney House 209 Install hanging baskets 1,965 Library 385 Memorial Park 1,709 Pitt Meadows Family Rec. Centre 1,248 Signal @232 St & DTR 4,290 Street lights 654 Sewage Pump Station
@Anderson Place 6,735 Sewage Pump Station @249 St & 118A Ave 4,791 Sewage Pump Station @236 St 4,637 Sewage Pump Station @Wharf St 3,880 Telosky Park 951 Traffic head @256 St. 564 Tunnel
visors @Rosewood & DTR 144 45,372 CUPE Local 622 Dues -pay periods 12/13 & 12/14 23,416 Canada Pipe Company Ltd Watermain replacement 94,211 Chevron Canada Ltd Gasoline & Diesel fuel
71,943 City Of Pitt Meadows 2012 dyking/drainage costs due as per budget 98,823 2011 dyking/drainage costs based on actual 60,643 Business internet services -Rec. Centre 2,094 161,560
Columbia Bitulithic Ltd Duraphalt 43,052 Co-Pilot Industries Ltd Gravel & dump fees 21,300 Eagle West Truck & Crane Inc EOC Freshlet -Tamarack & Lougheed 18,239 Emergency Communications
Dispatch levy -3rd quarter 242,803 Eva Intertrade Com Security refund 17,500 Falcon Homes Joint Venture Town centre investment incentive -11882 226 St. 50,000 Fred Surridge Ltd Waterworks
supplies 19,850 Golden Ears Ortho & Sports Weight room supervision & personal training 16,026 Gr Vanc Sewerage & Drainage DCC collection Jan-Jun'12 214,919 Greater Vanc Water District
Water consumption Mar 28 -May 1/12 497,508 Water consumption May 2 -29/12 471,377 Maple Ridge Main West to connect to Barnston Pump Station 1,538,936 Barnston Pump Station 337,073 2,844,894
Imperial Paving 2012 Paving Program 373,158 Roadworks 2,432 375,590 Jacks Automotive & Welding Fire Dept equipment repairs 18,631 Keywest Asphalt Ltd 232 Street road improvements 131,647
Maclean Homes Brown Road Ltd Town centre investment incentive -12075 Edge St. 47,076 Manulife Financial Employee benefits premiums 134,829 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS -JULY 2012
Maple Ridge & PM Arts Council Arts Centre contract payment July 48,007 Program revenue June 12,983 Artist fee 34 61,024 Maple Ridge Historical Society Quarterly contract payment 32,559
Maridge Properties Ltd security refund 137,718 Marten Timmer Excavating Ltd Core Park construction 152,057 Medical Services Plan Employee medical & health premiums 32,912 Metro Motors
Ltd 2012 Ford E250 Cargo Van 27,804 Minister Of Finance School tax remittance 15,820,545 RCMP cell block blankets 816 15,821,361 Municipal Pension Plan BC Employee benefits premiums
356,614 Newlands Lawn & Garden Mainten Grass cutting 18,060 Open Storage Solutions Inc CVault annual software maintenance 20,793 Paletar, Miroslav & Alena Compensation for road dedication
15,073 Paul Bunyan Tree Services Roadside overhead brushing 15,842 Pitt Meadows Heritage & Museum Semi-annual fee for service 38,195 Raincity Janitorial Serv Ltd Janitorial services:
Firehalls 6,637 Library 6,423 Heritage Hall 489 Municipal Hall 3,130 Operations 3,151 Randy Herman Building 4,638 RCMP 3,320 South Bonson Community Centre 5,540 33,328 Receiver General
For Canada Employer/Employee remit PP12/13, PP12/14 & PP12/15 1,065,735 RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd Ice rental June 55,509 Curling rink operating expenses May 2,549 58,058 Ridge Meadows
Seniors Society Quarterly operating grant 49,018 Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Monthly contract for recycling July 104,180 Weekly recycling 315 Litter pick-up contract 1,848 106,343
Road 13 Dyking District 2012 collections 112,161 Rodgers, Simon J Security refund 20,320 Shanahan Ltd Library toilet partitions 13,430 Randy Herman Building coin locker hinges 1,688
15,118 Strohmaiers Excavating Ltd Ansell St sanitary sewer local area service 80,177 Surrey Fire Service Dispatch operating charges -Fire Dept. 74,074 Dispatch operating charges -Public
works 12,081 86,155 Surtaj Construction Ltd Security refund 46,896 Targa Contracting Ltd 119 Ave road & drainage improvements (York St to 221 St) 142,412 The Birks Company AquaLoader
bulk water station 45,968 Tretheway Edge Dyking District 2012 collections 35,265 Tybo Contracting Ltd Dewdney Trunk Road watermain replacement (Laity to 216) 184,636 Valley Traffic
Systems Inc Traffic control 18,069 Warrington PCI Management Advance for Tower common costs 60,000 Workers Compensation Board BC Remittance 2nd qtr 2012 86,763 Young, Anderson -Barristers
Professional fees May 18,007 Disbursements In Excess $15,000 24,345,107 Disbursements Under $15,000 810,826 Total Payee Disbursements 25,155,933 Payroll PP12/14 & PP12/15 1,816,077
Purchase Cards -Payment 116,748 Total Disbursements July 2012 27,088,758 GMR \\mr.corp\docs\Fin\05-Finance\1630-Accts-Payable\01-General\AP Disbursements\2012\[Monthly_Council_Report_2012.xlsx]JUL'1
2
District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: Aug. 27, 2012 and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W. SUBJECT SUBJECT:
Adjustments to 2012 Collector’s Roll EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BC Assessment (BCA) has revised the assessed value for the 2012 Collector’s Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls
04 and 05. The Collector is required to make all the necessary changes to the municipal tax roll records and reports these adjustments to Council. RECOMMENDATION(S): The report dated
Aug. 27 27, 2012 , is submitted for information. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Eight folios were adjusted in total: A commercial/residential mix property on River Road at 223rd
St. has been awarded heritage status and is therefore exempt from property taxes and three properties had their farm status reinstated. A correction was made to a residential property
that had been incorrectly assessed for improvements which no longer existed. A successful appeal to the Property Assessment Appeal Board (PAAB) by the owners of a residential property
in the Webster’s Corner area resulted in a reduction of the assessed value of their land. A sawmill in the Albion area appealed their assessment and was also awarded a reduction to
land value. An appeal that was started in 2011 has resulted in a reduction to the land value of approx. 8 acres east of 248th at 106th, adjacent to the gravel pit, for both 2011 and
2012. (Municipal tax revenue changes: Decrease in Class 1 (Residential) $21,259; Decrease in Class 5 (Light Industrial) $14,395; Decrease in Class 6 (Business) $4,766; Increase in Class
9 (Farm) $741) b) Business Plan/Financial Implications: There is a total decrease of $ 39,679 in municipal tax revenue. 1133
CONCLUSIONS: Corrections by BC Assessment and an appeal settled by PAAB resulted in a decrease of $2,888,700 to the Residential assessment base, a decrease of $1,630,600 to the Commercial
assessment base, and an increase of $27,556 to the Farm assessment base. This report dated Aug. 27, 2012 is submitted for information and is available to the public. ________________________________
_______________ Prepared by: Silvia Rutledge Manager Manager, Revenue & Collections _______________________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A.; C.G.A. General Manager:
Corporate & Financial Services _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer "Original signed by Silvia Rutledge" "Original
signed by Paul Gill" "Original signed by J.L.. (Jim) Rule"