Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-09-08 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA September 8, 2014 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: If required, there will be a 15 -minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair.• Acting Mayor 1. DELEGAT/ONS/STAFFPRESENTAT/ONS- (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERV/CES Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes. Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 2014-054-RZ, 23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue, Text Amendment Staff report dated September 8, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7103-2014 to allow for a reduced lot area in exchange for dedication of developable lot area for tree protection purposes be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, B, F and G of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with the information required for a Subdivision application. Committee of the Whole Agenda September 8, 2014 Page 2 of 3 1102 2013-103-RZ, 12366 Laity Street, RS -1 to R-1 Staff report dated September 8, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7042-2013 to rezone from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit a subdivision of 4 lots in the first phase and 2 lots in a second phase be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1103 Request for Accessory Employee Residence - 28487 108th Avenue Staff report dated September 8, 2014 recommending that the practice of seeking approval from the Agricultural Land Commission for a non-farm use application for an accessory employee residential use on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve continue. 1104 Award of Contract ITT-EN14-46: Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Staff report dated September 8, 2014 recommending that Contract ITT-EN14- 46: Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements be awarded to Imperial Paving Limited, that a contract contingency be approved, that the Financial Plan be amended to reallocate funds from LTD 8861; and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 2015 Permissive Tax Exemptions Staff report dated September 8, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 7105-2014 be given first, second and third readings. 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 Panorama Strata LMS - 4011 Proposed Bylaw Revision Staff report dated September 8, 2014 recommending the amendment of Panorama LMS 4011 bylaws to reflect cost distribution in place since 1999. 5. CORRESPONDENCE 1171 Committee of the Whole Agenda September 8, 2014 Page 3 of 3 6. OTHER ISSUES 1181 7. ADJOURNMENT 8. COMMUNITY FORUM 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 Checked by: Date: District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 8, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-054-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading (Text Amending) Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7103 - 2014 23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DAMAX Consultants Ltd. has approached the District of Maple Ridge with a proposal to develop the subject properties, located at 23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue, to the RS -1C (One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential) zone standard. The subject properties have a combined land area of approximately 3.4 ha (8.4 acres), including some riparian setback lands along the South Alouette River. Under the current Estate Suburban Residential land use designation, and the current RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone, subdivision into approximately seven one acre lots serviced by municipal water and sanitary sewer is possible. The subject properties are characterized by significant stands of trees comprising primarily of Hemlock, Cedar and Fir trees, which are scattered throughout the property located at 23627 Dogwood Avenue as well as portions of the property to the west. Maple Ridge's Tree Protection Bylaw regulates tree cutting within 15 metre riparian areas and steep slopes in rural areas, therefore the bylaw would offer little protection for most of the trees on the subject properties. Rather than a conventional one acre lot subdivision plan, the applicant is proposing a more unique approach to the development of the subject properties. The applicant proposes to dedicate a minimum of 25% of the developable lot area to the District for tree protection purposes in order to ensure the long term preservation of the existing significant stands of trees. In exchange for the tree protection dedication, the applicant is seeking reduced lot sizes of 1,200 m2 (12,917 ft2) to 1,598 m2 (17,200 ft2) . These lots conform with the RS -lc (One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential) zone, and the submitted subdivision plan is for 14 single family lots. In order to achieve the development as proposed, a site specific Zoning Bylaw text amendment is required to the RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone. This text amendment will allow for the reduced lot area, in exchange for dedication of 25% of the developable lot area for conservation of the site's significant and unique tree stands based on a density bonus framework. Staff support the proposal, and to proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined in this report. 1101 RECOMMENDATIONS: 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, and; That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7103 - 2014 be given first reading; and That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, B, F and G of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999, along with the information required for a Subdivision application. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Owner: Damax Consultants Ltd. AFN Enterprises Inc. Legal Description: Parcel One (Exp. Plan 8154) of Parcel "B" (Reference Plan 8155) of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, TWP 12 NWD Lot 1 Except: Firstly: Part on Plan 7806, Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 38973, Section 28 TWP 12 NWD Plan 1105 OCP: Existing: Estate Suburban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential), with a site specific Zoning Bylaw text amendment Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential -2- East: West: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: b) Site Characteristics: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Single Family Residential RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Estate Suburban Residential Single Family Residential RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Estate Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 3.4 ha (8.4 acres) Dogwood Avenue Urban Standard The subject properties are located directly south of the South Alouette River, and the eastern property extends into the river. The topography of the properties is flat, with the exceptions of a steep bank portion leading down to the river on the eastern property, and a ridge in the south eastern corner of the same property. The properties are significantly treed, with an open lawn area in the northwestern portion of the western property. The trees appear to be mature second growth, with approximately 80 trees with diameters greater than 0.9 metres (3 feet), half a dozen of which have diameters of 1.2 to 1.8 metres (4 to 6 feet). Although both properties front onto Dogwood Avenue, the road allowance is not constructed. More that half of the properties' area is located within the localized floodplain of the South Alouette River, and the properties are also located above an aquifer. Several small cabins and a single family home are currently located on the subject properties. c) Project Description: The site can best be described as a river front estate parcel historically used as a family retreat. The applicant proposes to dedicate a minimum of 25% of the net developable area in addition to nine tree protection restrictive covenant areas to ensure protection of significant stands of trees, predominantly on the eastern property located at 23627 Dogwood Avenue. Additionally, the applicant has designed the subdivision layout to maintain a large isolated stand of mature trees through the creation of a `parkette' within the road allowance. The `parkette' feature is land in excess of the road allowance requirement. The proposed road will loop around this stand of trees so that they can be preserved in their natural state. The portion of the subject properties located within 30 metres of the South Alouette's top of bank will be dedicated for conservation purposes. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) 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 proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. -3- d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The subject properties are currently designated Estate Suburban Residential. The majority of properties designated Estate Suburban Residential in the OCP are within the Metro Vancouver Urban Containment Boundary, but outside of the District of Maple Ridge Urban Area Boundary. While the District's Urban Area Boundary aligns with the Silver Valley Planning Area, the Regional Urban Containment Boundary includes the Estate Suburban Residential designated lands directly south of Silver Valley. In total, there are approximately 207 hectares (512 acres) of Estate Suburban Residential designated land within the Regional Urban Containment Boundary not included in the District's Urban Area Boundary. The Estate Suburban Residential designation also aligns with land that is serviceable by the regional sanitary service within the Fraser Sewer Area and municipal water, which allows greater opportunity for densification than for Suburban Residential designated lands, which is serviceable by a private sanitary septic only. The following OCP policies guide the form and density supported in the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation: Policy 3-14 Urban -level residential densities will not be supported in areas designated Estate Suburban Residential Policy 3-15 Maple Ridge will support single detached and two-family residential housing in Estate Suburban Residential areas. The Estate Suburban Residential land use designation is characterised generally by 0.4 hectare lots. The single detached form and RS -lc (One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential) proposed by the applicant meet the intent of the above mentioned policies. An OCP amendment will be required to re -designate a portion of the subject properties to Conservation for the riparian setback area of the South Alouette River. Additionally, lands dedicated for tree conservation will be designated Forest. The Forest designation is described in the OCP as a designation for the protection and maintenance of the ecological diversity and integrity of forested land within the District. The preservation of forested lands is recognized as both environmentally and economically beneficial to the community, as outlined in two key OCP policies: Policy 5-13 Policy 6-62 Maple Ridge will promote the retention of urban and mature trees and of natural forests and woodland areas, and ensure that additional trees and plant material are provided as part of all development proposals. To enhance the ecological integrity of the District, the use of native trees, plants and naturescape principles will also be encouraged. To protect ecological diversity and the integrity of forested lands, Maple Ridge will retain parts of the northern slope of Thornhill as Forest. Innovative development proposals that protect unique site characteristics, ecologically sensitive areas, or amenities on lands designated Forest and within private ownership, may be considered for a density bonus. The value of the density bonus will be at Council's discretion, in return for the development providing an identified community benefit. In particular, Policy 6-62 speaks to a density bonus framework as a mechanism for protecting unique site characteristics, such as forested lands, that provide an identified community benefit. The density bonus structure proposed for this development application, while site-specific presently, will set a precedent for other Estate Suburban Residential development applications that are seeking -4- densities greater than the RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone, which allows a minimum parcel size of one acre and aligns with the Estate Suburban Residential designation. It is noted that the OCP supports using a density bonus framework in three specific development scenarios. In addition to Policy 6-62, specific policies allow higher densities for lands in the Albion Area Plan through the Community Amenity Program (Chapter 10), and as a tool for securing affordable, rental, and special needs housing (Chapter 3). Any application for similar or greater densities without providing one of the three permissible density bonus options would not be supportable. The subject application is supported for two important reasons. Firstly, the subject properties are serviceable by sanitary sewer due to their location in the Fraser Sewer Area. Secondly, the proposed development will ensure long term protection of significant stands of mature second growth trees in dedicated parkland in alignment with Policy 6-62 of the OCP. This protection would not be afforded under the Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw, and many of the trees are located within developable land that is not within an environmentally sensitive area subject to an environmental development permit. The proposed density bonus structure used to accommodate the RS -lc (One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential) zone will not require an OCP amendment; rather a Zoning Bylaw text amendment will be established to create the density bonus framework. This approach is similar to the Albion Area Community Amenity Program, with some important changes. Whereas a density bonus charge is required for all developments taking advantage of the density bonus program in Albion, this application will be providing additional parkland dedication for tree protection rather than a cash contribution. As a result, a reserve fund is not required. Zoning Bylaw: The current application for the subject properties located at 23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue will use a site specific text amendment to the RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to allow a smaller lot size, minimum width and area which mirrors the RS -lc (One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential) zone. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw: Tree cutting in Maple Ridge is regulated by bylaw, and has separate regulations for urban and rural areas. Rural areas are defined as lands outside of the Urban Area Boundary, therefore the subject properties follow these regulations. A tree cutting permit is required in the rural area for clearing taking place on steep slopes, within 15 metres of a watercourse top of bank,or for trees within a forest reserve. Based on this criteria, with the exception of the South Alouette River setback area, no permit or regulation of tree cutting is required for the majority of the subject properties. Should clearing beyond 35 % take place prior to the issuance of a development permit or subdivision approval, an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit is required to limit the extent of soil erosion and ensure water quality standards are maintained. Development Permits: Pursuant to Sections 8.9 and 8.10 of the OCP, a Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit application are required for all developments within 50 metres of the top of bank of all watercourses and wetlands; and for all development activity in identified floodplain areas and forest lands shown on Schedule "C" of the OCP. The purpose of these development permits is to -5- ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas; and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. 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. e) Intergovernmental Implications: Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy includes six land use designations and sets an Urban Containment Boundary. The subject properties are designated General Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy and are located within the Urban Containment Boundary. The General Urban designation indicates that the subject properties can be serviced with sanitary sewer without requiring approval from the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, as they are within the Fraser Sewer Area. Consequently, this regional designation gives Council some flexibility to direct land uses on Estate Suburban Residential designated lands, as no regional approvals are required in order for this application to proceed as proposed. Although the subject properties are not considered available for urban levels of development under OCP policies, Council may consider using density bonusing to achieve specific community benefits as outlined in Policy 6-62. f) 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) Licenses, Permits, and Bylaws Department; e) Parks Department; and f) School District 42. 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. This evaluation will take place between first and second reading. -6- g) Early and Ongoing Consultation: In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an Official Community Plan amendment, it is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. h) 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 OCP Application (Schedule A); 2. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B); 3. A Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application (Schedule F); 4. A Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); and 5. A Subdivision Application. The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. CONCLUSION: Policy 6-62 in the OCP clearly supports the use of a density bonus framework in exchange for the protection of ecological diversity and the integrity of forested lands. Given that there are significant stands of trees on the subject properties that would be lost if the lands were to be developed in a conventional manner, the applicant has proposed the use of a density bonus framework. In exchange for smaller lots and greater numbers of lots, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a minimum of 25% of the developable land area to the District in order to preserve the unique natural amenity and area character that the existing trees provide. The Planning Department supports this proposal, as it is both sensitive to the environment and to the character of the neighbourhood, and is in compliance with the policies of the OCP. The subject application is supported for two important reasons. Firstly, the subject properties are serviceable by sanitary sewer due to their location in the Fraser Sewer Area and the Metro Vancouver Urban Containment Boundary. Secondly, the proposed development will ensure long term protection of significant stands of mature second growth trees in dedicated parkland. It is recommended that Council not require any further additional OCP consultation. It is expected that once complete information is received, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7103 - 2014 will be amended and an OCP Amendment to adjust the Conservation boundary will be required. It is therefore recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. -7- The proposed layout has 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 of Maple Ridge's Approving Officer. "Original signed by Amelia Bowden" Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Planning Technician "Original signed by Christine Carter" 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 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. 7103 - 2014 Appendix C - Concept Development Plan Appendix D - Site Context Photos Appendix E - Site Context Map Appendix F - Proposed Subdivision Plan -8- 3 2 P 6735 1 P 6734 A 13034 v M N M N m N P 6734 B 9 FERN CR N N N M N N SUBJECT PROPERTIES N N N M A ^. P 2637 2 Rem 16 N DOGWOOD AVE. N N N rn rz � N N 3 4 N 5 N N A M N 2 P 1105 N EP 8154 ` \ P6 3 4,1 8 " 20343 m in o_ in 2 rz Rem 1 Pcl. 1 1 P 6438 2 ct a_ a 0) N � 77771 3 4c P 46567 12g9`' �' 12865 co P 6438 4 ^ti�G 37 P 46567 38 ' 1 12870 rz P 38973 (0 N 0 r` N 1 12835 i I � m IM; I N I I P 77771 4 A N 24 u) P 50674 42 W N . M N 41 a) N P N N N — - — . ���- — .—. - - ----.— --.— --------------------------- 128 AVE -.— — — — — — — _� 12788 P 45932 9 N4 Scale: 1:2,500iiim Cit` _.f Pitt Meaows_4 9 i c 23598 & 23627 DOGWOOD AVENUE r �.`, o ` CORPORATNOFIO THE DISTRF '«" . wis" ' 2 - �''� ,, �a i I6F�'di.� 00 11,4 1) - icto.W dr, i ,.....4440 I._ MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE District Of N*Nifilligle� - I ' British Columbia PLANNING DEPARTMENT Langley a dil o DATE: Jun 16, 2014 FILE: 2014-054-RZ BY: PC - — --- FRASER R. APPENDIX B CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7103 - 2014 A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7103 - 2014." 2. That Section 601 B REGULATIONS FOR PERMITTED USES OF LAND, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES be amended by adding the following after item (15): (16) Density Bonus Amenity Contributions are permitted on the parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: 23598 Dogwood Avenue, Lot 1 Except: Firstly: Part on Plan 7806, Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 38973, Section 28 TWP 12 NWD Plan 1105 AND 23627 Dogwood Avenue, Parcel One (Exp. Plan 8154) of Parcel "B" (Reference Plan 8155) of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, TWP 12 NWD, identified on Schedule "J", zoned RS -2 One Family Suburban Residential zone. 3. That Section 601 C REGULATIONS FOR THE SIZE, SHAPE AND SITING OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES be amended by adding the following after item (17): (18) Estate Suburban Density Bonus A Density Bonus Amenity Contribution in the form of park dedication for the purpose of tree preservation exclusive of Environmentally Sensitive Area lands and park dedication requirements outlined in the Local Government Act Section 941 Provision of Park Land, a Density Bonus is permitted on the property described as: 23598 Dogwood Avenue, Lot 1 Except: Firstly: Part on Plan 7806, Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 38973, Section 28 TWP 12 NWD Plan 1105 AND 23627 Dogwood Avenue, Parcel One (Exp. Plan 8154) of Parcel "B" (Reference Plan 8155) of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, TWP 12 NWD, identified on Schedule "J", zoned RS -2 One Family Suburban Residential zone. Density is determined by the area applied to lot size, lot width, and lot depth. In addition to the park dedication requirements outlined in the Local Government Act Section 941 Provision of Park Land, a Density Bonus may be applied in exchange for park dedication for tree preservation of developable land through the regulations stated in Section 601C (18)(1) as follows: 1) For the RS -2 zone, the base density is a minimum net lot area of 4,000 m2, minimum lot width of 36 metres, and minimum lot depth of 60 metres. A Density Bonus is an option in the RS -2 zone and shall be applied as follows: a. A park land density bonus amenity contribution of 25% developable area of the net property area will be required in any subdivision containing one or more lots with an area of less than 4,000 m2, to be dedicated as a condition of subdivision approval by the Approving Officer. b. The maximum density bonus option is: i. Minimum net lot area of 1,200 m2 ii. Minimum lot width of 24 m iii. Minimum lot depth of 36 m c. Zoning requirements consistent with the RS -lc zone will apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS -2 zone. 4. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of READ a second time the day of PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a third time the day of ADOPTED, the day of , 20 ,20 ,20 , 20 , 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 3 2 / P 6735 1 P 6734 A44 I 1 I P7739 1 13034 2 N 3 DCO N P7739 4 M N 5 °r' M N W 1/2 P 6734 M M N M N- a N B P ` 1*\g9 o �, D E F . N 0 �, P17199 N N M N. M N M N h M M A Q Urban Area P 2637 Boundary Rem 16 DOGWOOD AVE. co N 09o a M co N Q1 � a N M N N 0[) M N N M N W M '. N rn CV w 4 IY in rn D_ 3 4 5 A 2 N P1105 EP8154 P 6438 3 A P 20363M co 7 0 o 0_ Rem 1 Pcl. 1 1 P 6488 2 0) 0 0 M N 0 < D 33 77771 3 00 N N N P4 co V in coco 2 12g9 '286s co w P 6438 4 X50 e - rye 37 P 46567 38 0 12870 0_ P 38973 34 N l` 1 V M0 N 1 12835 m m P 77771 4 A M N 24 L <0 P 50674 42 (34 LL - . M N 41 10 W co N N 21 12788 P 45932 20 1 9 12788 L\,, N 1:2500 BYLAW N 0. 7 / 1 03-2014 SCHEDULE " I I " Alit CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SC HE E J103 2014 DATE: Aug 15, 2014 BY: DT n1c s - o c7 k- _ 1* >' /7,41. ",v1looA AJe Goth e - vV APPENDIX C ail aftar.+Ni . mar w _-'UP' thfr ®���. .,ElliFAIIIC It- 49,IA Iill iiiil. , It tanoini 4. ' * . & 4— %` bie forot-er avad 1,2420 / 2-41-A/ 910 M �- PJM damax consultant ltd. 103-1600 west 8th ave:.. vancouver, b.c. v61 1r3 tel. 604 224 6827 tL - 4)4 A PENDIX D -1A�2 to Ify svi - o441-- damax consultants ltd. 103.1600 west 6th ave. vancouver, b.c. v6j 1r3 te1.604 224 6827 damn Otelus.net damax consultants ftd. 103-1600 west 6th ave. vanoouver, b.c. v6j 1r3 te1.604 224 6827 damaxOtelus.net ® 201- o'74- P% damax consultants itd. `03-1600 west 6th ave. vancouver, b.c. v6j 1r3 te1.604 224 6827 damaxOtelus.net © i5) 41 , per.. va damax consultants ltd. '03-1600 west 6th ave. vancouver, b.c. v6j 1r3 te1.604 224 6827 damax©teius.net O ® s _.¢...5.iripir --1!11•..!•-- --....... damax consultants ltd. 103-1600 west 6th ave. vancouver, b.c. v6j 1r3 te1.604 224 6827 damexOtelus.net splay ' k- ►22 damax consultants ltd. `03.1600 west 6th ave. vancouver, b.c. v6j 1r3 te1.604 224 6827 damax®telus.net / . ._ . „ . I '- P6735 34 . r x —_ 4 r ,1111 -P 1 CJ { ,A, do. E,... ii• • , ■ 276 'I 7b •:41q 2v m ' K i s'ODDAIE.�� ///// ...- . - P1; ' in Rem 9 . . : F Psl�4 Pd. 1 �� Ai Fproximate 30m ' South Alouette Rern I I setbackfrom River ti -� Approx. Floodplain boundary .1 is + 010 A. r F 1 } 1 -- _ The Corporation of the District of rylaple Rice makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or present status of the information shown on this map. ...:t. -'1J J1JJ' - ��-- a - h /1,101AL: N Scale: 12,500 Legend Slope Trails Percentr� OC P STATl1 S 0 0-14 Dogwood t, and 128 Ave. �1 r Site Context a � -- DESIRED— ESIRED is -25 RPRATIF THE DISTRICT OF —E7CISTING 0a.- .30 Pends ]+ — =laser 41uerFbodp9h 't `_ J ,v_. (2A08 MCImor 11el�nds L _ 7Abuette =bodpmh [Mh.ofEru. 1591} Creek Cenlre!hes r.1..I I - 11:�=� I i i MAPLE RIDGE P_l4NNF D AR T}.lE JT v--=: se:: 2. 2014 FILE: U i Ued BY: RS -.GPS SKETCH OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PROPOSED LOTS ARE RS -1(c) PAPER SIZE: 22" X 17 REVISED: AUGUST 27, 2014 SCALE 1: 500 25 5P 11 4b Dogwood Avenue NO BUILD/ NO DISTURB TREE 7x4..11rnm2 2 4013 1 7250.4 m2 00 �p. 3x3 5530 2 14205 m2 NO BUILD/ NO DISTURB TREE COVENANT N 00 coco 57.67 476.9 m2 3 1598.8 m2 4 TREE R/C l 103.9 m2 130.34 16.00 Rem 60.73 1360.2 m2 TREE R 0742 m2 50.41 5 1214.5 m2 9277' 9277' 47.98 1057' 6 7533.3 m2 NO BUILD/ 476.9 m2 NO DISTURB TREE COVENA 26.93 A O 5 76.50 29.94 9 4.43 14 1412.9 m2 9 q 62.59 13 1453.1 1112 NO BUILD/ NO DISTURB EE COVENA T 352.5 m2 '9/04,6, gOjq r J S ^ by 58.50 12 c° 1314.5 m2 4995 so 1 e 15 3x3 Road 4229.8 m2 9P° 9.00 i` a ry pp O9 1 g00`n 057' 7000 Parkette 1758.8 m2 1303.8 m2 42.6 NO BUILD NO DISTURB TREE COVENANT 405.4 m2 h BEND ESA 2705.7 m2 Park 6601.1 m2 PCI 7200 54.48 h R/C 2 10 7205.7 m2 50.00 a 9 1200.0 m2 10 00 ?QJ 011 by 12.00 50.04 3x3 16.50 0. 8 1277.6 m2 43 20 TOTAL AREAS: PARENT PARCELS: 33021.4 m2 ESA: 2105.7 m2 PARK: 6601.1 m2 TREE R/Cs: 2193.3 m2 PARKETTE: 1158.8 m2 ROAD: 4229.8 m2 264 13.89 24 59.61 45.72 5.78 BEND 4000 45.78 4 Terra Pacific Land Surveying Ltd 22371 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC Tel: 604-463-2509 File: MR13-946sk_SUB 4 MAPLE RIDGE $nlishColumbia District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 8, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-103-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Second Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7042 - 2013 12366 Laity Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 12366 Laity Street, from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit a future subdivision of approximately 4 lots in the first phase, and an additional 2 lots in a second phase in the future. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7042 - 2013 on December 10, 2013. This application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP). No parkland is required from the subject property; therefore it is recommended that Council require the developer to pay to the District an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land required for parkland purposes, as determined by an independent appraisal. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7042 - 2013 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 2. That Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer to pay to the District an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land, as determined by an independent appraisal, in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with Section 941 of the Local Government Act; and, 3. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i. Road dedication on Laity Street, as required; ii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Tree Protection; iii. In addition to the Site Profile, a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject property. If so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a contaminated site. 1102 DISCUSSION: A. Background Context: Applicant: Owner: OTG Developments Gurpreet and Jiwanwant Rakhra Legal Description: Lot 2, District Lot 248, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan 7478 Existing: Urban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) OCP: Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential 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: Single Family Residential Zone: RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.405 ha (1 acre) Access: Cul-de-sac off Laity Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2013-103-SD/VP B. Project Description: The subject property is approximately 0.4 ha (1 acre) in size and is bound by single family residential properties to the north, east, and south, and Laity Street to the west (see Appendix A). A single family home is located on the east side of the property and is proposed to be maintained in the first phase of the subdivision. The current application proposes to rezone the subject property from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District), to permit future subdivision into approximately 6 single family residential lots. The subdivision is proposed to occur in two phases, with the first phase consisting of 4 single family lots, allowing the existing house to remain. The second phase would -2- occur at a later date and would subdivide the remaining large single family lot into approximately 2 single family lots. Access is proposed to be off a cul-de-sac constructed off of Laity Street, constructed within an 11 m (36 ft.) road right-of-way. The first phase will construct a temporary turnaround for access. The second phase will construct the northern half of the cul-de-sac. The southern half of the cul-de-sac will be constructed through a future development by the adjacent southern property owner, if they choose to develop. Variances will be required to allow the narrower road right-of-way for the cul-de-sac, and the narrower road carriageway. The required urban services can be provided within the proposed 11 m (36 ft.) road right-of-way. Once built, this road width will be adequate for two cars or emergency vehicles to pass. In the future, should the southern properties choose to develop, they will be required to provide 4 m (13 ft.) of road dedication, which will allow for the completion of the boulevard. Applications accompanying this rezoning application include a Development Variance Permit application and a Subdivision application. C. Planning Analysis: i) Official Community Plan: The subject property is currently designated as Urban Residential - Major Corridor category in the OCP. This designation is characterized by having frontage on a major road corridor as identified on Figure 4 of the OCP, or has frontage on a road built in whole or part to a collector, arterial, translink major road, or provincial highway standard. This designation includes ground -oriented housing forms such as single detached dwellings, garden suites, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, apartments, or small lot intensive residential, subject to compliance with major corridor residential infill policies. The proposed rezoning and subdivision for the four single detached dwellings meets the Major Corridor infill policies by providing a housing form of single detached dwellings, which is compatible with the neighbourhood of single family residences. The development will construct a new road that will serve the new lots and the new lots are proposed to have double -car parking garages, plus space for two cars on the apron, thereby minimizing the adverse parking and traffic impacts on the existing neighbourhood. Offsite trees are proposed to be maintained, and new trees are proposed to be planted along the northern property line to provide for privacy for adjacent properties, in addition to several replacement trees proposed to replace two onsite trees that will be removed. ii) Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject property from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) (see Appendix B) to permit future subdivision into approximately 4 single family lots. Three of the lots are proposed to be approximately 400 m2 (4,306 ft2) and the remaining lot is proposed to be approximately 1,900 m2 (20,451 ft2). A preliminary review of the plans indicates that the proposal generally complies with the Zoning Bylaw; however, several variances will be requested, as outlined below. -3- iii) Proposed Variances: A Development Variance Permit application has been received for this project and involves the following variances (see Appendix C): 1. To vary the minimum front yard setback from 5.5 m (18 ft.) to 1.2 m (4 ft.) to the existing building; 2. To vary the minimum rear yard setback from 8 m (26 ft.) to 7.8 m (25.6 ft.) for proposed Lot 1; 3. To vary the minimum road right-of-way from 15 m (49 ft.) to 11 m (36 ft.); and 4. To vary the minimum road carriageway from 8.6 m (28 ft.) to 6.7 m (22 ft.). The requested variances to the R-1 (Residential District) zone and the Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw will be the subject of a future report to Council. iv) Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held at the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Preschool Room on July 17, 2014. Approximately 15 to 20 people attended the meeting. A summary of the main comments and discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant, and some forms were submitted directly to the District of Maple Ridge. Issues of concern include the following: 1. Request for trees along the northern property line to add privacy to all parties and provide a cleaner look to the development. 2. Concern regarding the variance for the road width. 3. Concern regarding the potential number of lots. 4. Concern around turn -around for local traffic and emergency vehicles. 5. Concern for privacy for the neighbours to the south (retention of trees lining the current panhandle, new streetlights shining into their yards, increased noise). 6. Concern regarding parking on the street and increased traffic. 7. Concern in general regarding the new development impacting current homeowners, including potential negative impact to property values and construction inconveniences (noise, dust, etc.). The following were provided by the applicant in response to the issues raised by the public: 1. The owner will install a row of trees along the northern property line. 2. Servicing will be provided within the reduced road right-of-way, and the carriageway is wide enough to allow for two cars or emergency vehicles to pass. No parking will be permitted along the road. 3. The zoning is in compliance with the OCP designation. The applicant's response was that the Public Hearing is related to the rezoning application for land use and not the subdivision application for the number of lots. 4. A hammer -head turnaround would be provided for the first phase of the subdivision, and half of the cul-de-sac would be constructed in the second phase of the subdivision. The cul-de-sac would be completed at a later date, if the property owners to the south choose to develop in the future. 5. The owner has offered to plant/keep trees in areas to maintain the neighbours' privacy. The rear yard privacy of the neighbour to the south wouldn't likely be impacted until the second phase of the subdivision, when the existing home would be demolished and new lots would be created. -4- 6. The increase in traffic will be minimal, and the single family homes will have garages to accommodate two vehicles, plus driveway aprons to accommodate two more vehicles for visitors. 7. The rezoning application is in compliance with the OCP designation. v) Parkland Requirement: As there are more than two additional lots proposed to be created, the developer will be required to comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 941 of the Local Government Act prior to subdivision approval. For this project, no parkland is required from the subject property; therefore it is recommended that Council require the developer to pay to the District an amount that equals the market value of 5% of the land required for parkland purposes. The amount payable to the District in lieu of park dedication must be derived by an independent appraisal at the developer's expense. Council consideration of the cash -in -lieu amount will be the subject of a future Council report. D. Environmental Implications: The Arborist Report and the Stormwater Management plan have been reviewed. The civil engineer and arborist are to coordinate their efforts to ensure the environmental objectives are achieved. In order to retain the trees at the south of the property, trenchless excavation techniques and placing the new road at or above existing grades would have the least amount of impact and would allow the trees to be retained. If a trench is excavated, every effort should be made to move the services northward to reduce the impact to those trees. Arborist supervision will be required to monitor the work within the root zones of the trees and to determine tree stability post construction. Offsite tree removal requires written permission from the owner prior to removal. E. Interdepartmental Implications: i) Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has identified that all the services required in support of this development will be required as a condition of the subdivision application, with the exception of the 3 m (10 ft.) of road dedication along Laity Street, which is required through the rezoning application. The internal road dedication will occur in the subdivision stage of this application. A variance is being requested to reduce the road right-of-way and road carriageway; however, all of the required services will be provided within the reduced widths provided. Once the lots to the south develop, the remaining road dedication, the bottom half of the cul-de-sac, and the southern boulevard treatment will be completed. As this subdivision is proposed to occur in two phases, the Engineering Department will require additional road dedication at the subdivision stage to ensure that the properties to the south (12350 and 12358 Laity Street) may develop without having to wait for the second phase of the subdivision to take place. This will allow for the servicing to be extended and will eliminate the need for an access easement shared between multiple properties. -5- ii) Fire Department: The Fire Department requires a road carriageway of 6.1 m (20 ft.) in width and a temporary turnaround that is 6 m (19.7 ft.) wide by 8 m (26 ft.) in depth, until such a time that the cul-de-sac is constructed. A municipal fire hydrant is also required at the intersection of Laity Street and the proposed new road. The proposed plan is acceptable to the Fire Department. F. Citizen Implications: Several letters of opposition have been received on this application. The main concerns have been summarized in the Development Information Meeting section above. The Public Hearing will provide a venue for the public to voice their concerns on this application. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7042 - 2013 and that application 2013-103-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. This Public Hearing would be for the rezoning component of the application, and the first phase of the subdivision, consisting of four lots. A second subdivision application will be required for the second phase which would permit two more additional lots. An acceptable road width will be provided with the first phase of the subdivision. It is further recommended that Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer to pay to the District an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land, as determined by an independent appraisal, in lieu of parkland dedication. "Original signed by Michelle Baski" Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT Planning Technician "Original signed by Christine Carter" 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 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. 7042 - 2013 Appendix C - Subdivision Plan (for Phase 1 and Phase 2) -6- 410 ,�� 12305 co 306 r 21280 N O a) N P 51180 r M r 21320 EP 53233 (P 51180) D(D 3 21336 M r r (A 12404 304 307 12403 205 204 201 0 200 199 51180 M 0 322Lo Li) CZ 21279 O 21289 O N 51180 193 N r N 21307 O 21317 O cn P 51180 196 N coM r N 197 co r N 21355 O co 9• r R. M N L 12386 124 AVE 124 303 12397 / o oo 12383 o N N1 SUBJECT PROPERTY (17, r N co r N 302 308 2 19 03Ii- 12375 LMP 11193 F�`23730 A , 9 N 309 a_ 283 12367 2 12369 N N / 310 P 7478 18 20 123 282 12355 12366 vii 0 ri 8 21229 311 12358 .— ti z0 12370 N J 21228281 12343 113 a 312 112 a 12353 Q 21 Q P 37928 17 N N 12331 J 12350 12350 280 313 12343 12330 5 P15784 16 22 12323 o P 56039 12336 M 317 316 315 6 7 8 12323/25 N12322 N NNN r <) N r N 314 4 Z 0) N COM O M r r 24 co co r N N 23a g3 r 12324 N N N 123 AVE. oo N N N _ co N 12291 ccoo 3 N N M r N o r N 7, N c N co N 34 N N 0 35 2 209 Rem 4 P 5330 Rem 5 7 2L.° 14 13 VA P 15784 11 10 0 33co 1 12277 4,1,1,1, a ( 1-, N Scale: 1:1,500 Citf Pitt Measows_ _ X 12366 LAITY STREET r .`, I•o� . e_ '=. - a CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF ;�ium1�i1�. 1 g yii 1� to �� ; � MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia MAPLE RIDGE FINANCE DEPARTMENT District ofVIM, 4 e'f_�"-_w' ���� ' Langley g y � o a � DATE: Oct 29, 2013 FILE: 2013-103-RZ BY: PC — —"ILL FRASER R. APPENDIX B CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7042-2013 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. 7042-2013." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 District Lot 248 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 7478 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1601 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to 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 10th day of December, 2013. READ a second time the day of PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a third time the day of ADOPTED the day of , 20 ,20 , 20 , 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER N NI CO 1 N 7 0) u� co co I co co Tr N N N N N 12461 207 N N O M M M M 180 N N N N1 N N N N 12460 155 AVE. _AS DOUGLAS AVE. 12411 1241 72 181 295 DAWSON PL. 305 N 306 21280 O �N P 51180 M 21320 8P 53233 (P 51180) 1y7, I m 21336 21340 O co Fs,-, 156 1 12407 N N w N CD 296 12404 304 307 243 IN 205 I RW 204 51181 200 199 — — 51180 157 1 12401 � 297 ?1279 O ?1289 N 51180 ?1317 01 P 511 21341 p 21355 O O P 37851 12395 298 o 322 co Li, a 193 `, N N 194 M N 196 °' N CO N 97 M 98 U, CO 12387 N N 299 ` 12386 124 AVE. 303 12397/ o o co \ /_12377 300 0 12383 308 N N 1 co 2 N 0) C N o B co M N 19 M N N W N 3\ M 12380 301 12375 LMP 11193 F 23730 A m g 309 ' a 12370 ?86 285 284 283 12367 2 12369 N 71- N 310 P 7478 °) N N `L�� I 12; N N 71) 282 12355 12366 18 20 17- d 8 375 21229 311 12358 ` z 12370 C) LUM CT. 21228 12343 113 a a 2 CO 281 312 112 a 12353 < h h 7 N a N JTY ST. P 37928O 17 21 N N N12331 N 12350 12350 277 278 279 280 313 12343 12330 P26485 5 P 15784 16 22 27 coup 121241 12323 ‹ 0 M O 21297 N- 25 P 560 12336 7 8 12323/25 O 20 M —N— 319 co O \I — N— 318 co N N— 317 NM C \I —N—N 316 C \I - a 4 12324 N cv)M24 N N 12322 N a 23 M N M N 0,314 NC 17412 35282 LMP 35019 / LMP 35291 123 AVE. 00 v RW M 171- M M 2( 4 _MS 2173 cn 21206/08 21216 O N O co 21222 N12291 _MP 35283 - N N 3 N N p N N O N M N co N co 34 N N O 12296 Rem 4 P 53302 Rem 5 14 13 12 P 15784 11 10 35 c9 33 3C • — — 12277 12294 a N 12287 -r)— — — 12270 h- cr, MN. 1 P 80424 2 J LMP 1 2 11733 M 3 4 6 a 32 31 `o 199a7 n°` ��5,7 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 7042-2013 Map No. 1601 From: RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) To: R-1 (Residential District) L \. N SCALE 1:2,000 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia I9n,E..9•,30z W0644.9 D'HASE,1 L APPENDIX C IFESETia:" PROPOSED 1500%1000%1000 " 2415r1rGT5OrA7ZIE'RMAIN AT DEVELOPER'S COST 021270 521282 *21296/621298 161310/821314 R. ROAD DEOICAM I 4 50 r r2.0-- 1 - '- I - PR 1500 1 0 , 11,511 ItIl I I I I I ,0 ___. °PAWL OULDER 00 -50/-001LLJ -.- _1 AN CONN pir„,777' ----- i:tt--,, I \ &_ - 2 .. ,,, 10. SAN CZN.A1' IIMSUIZOMMr:1111$41 0 / i o ,, mlimimilo- iv L NI . A 1 Aggill____.....L11 . --IMM MMIIF 1111111 l_i 10. D WATER MAN 11"Ibr7—'..131111.1.1.1.11 . I,' 74. 9000 DETENRON PVC PIPE 0 0 % STORAGE VOLUME 1.16 L2.rT116 #11 #11 -1 A 1 4 7 P 1000' N'C IAREATIG.11 Nal SAN 0 2.0% 521330 35 4 - 375: CONC 1 0% 17, NEE -0 roZza°,,="Tss / EN. 600 OP tr,g2 EX. 3750 CONC. 'S.15°1 EX. 2000 AC. '5111 EX. 2500 ACIr6,51 172'3°372' SZILEIVCIN'TST5; ORIFICE OIA.. 50.5mm DETENTION VOLUME REQUIRED: 46.6m2 DETENTION VOLUME AVAILABLE 48.0m PLAN SCALE LOD ZONING INFORMAITON: MIN BUILOPTO DIM'gSIONS X 12m LEGALINFORMATM: LT2. OL 245: NNO. PL NWP 7478 LEGEND — DUSTING PROPERTY LINE ---- EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO BE DISCHARGED — PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE FUTURE PROPER,' UNE — — BUILDING SETBACK SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY CURVE DATA 0g0),TEISMI %TEMA; DETAIL A SCALE: NTS L'431 a49r.nrE1411"" EDVSE'"U" APPROVE/ SODOISDE ROAD' I'ELIIOATI I 150 .1 ENT PR GRAVEL SHOULDER PR 5 D R. HYDRANT r - PR 0.007C STORM P 15. 1..Z SANITARY TYPICAL SECTION -PROPOSED URBAN ROAD SCALE: N S No. DATE REVISIONS / SUBMISSIONS ENGINEER CLIENT PROJECT SEAL CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LOT 2: 248: NWO PL NWP 7478 REmSED AS PER CITY COMMENTS 09 JLILY 2014 RENSED AS PER CITY COMMENTS 27 JUNE 2014 PREUMINARY CONCEPT PLAN 24 OCT 2013 POP OISCUSDON PURPOSES CoreConcept CONSULTING LTD. #220-2639 Viking Way, Richmond BC, V6V 3B7 te1.604.245..5.10 fa, 604.549.5041 www.coreconceptconsulth‘g.com PAVAN RAKHRA E-mail: payanrakhradgmailcom 13082 SITE ADDRESS 12366 LAITY STREET DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, BC 09 JULY 2014 KEY PLAN PHASE • 1 BTR DRAWING NUMBER 1 OF 1 CHECKED: 505 00R. SCALE AS SHOWN ENGINEER ..114 VER. SCALE AS SHOWN .A DESTROY ALL PRINTS BEARING PREVIOUS REVISION NUMBER 4 _I r PLAN EONING INFORMATION, PROPOSED 2014,12, :RA; I UMiNSICINS THE SURDIMSION PLAN WAS PREPARED ON LEGEND - EASPNG PROPERTY UNE ---- EXIST. PROPERTY UNE TO BE DISCHARGED - PROPOSED PROPERTY UNE SOODINSION BOUNDARY sZTEITAI AppRoym DETAIL - A SCALE: NTS TYPICAL SECTION - PROPOSED URBAN ROAD SCALE: NTS 1 No. DATE REVISIONS / SUBMISSIONS ENGINEER = CLIENT PROJECT SEAL CORPORATIONEGOETEHENGSTACRMOF TMAPLE RIDGE A LOT2; OL248; NWO; PL NWP 7478 rg AS PER CITY COMMENTS 24 OLT 2013 FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES CD CoreConcept CONSULTING LTD. 0220-2639 Viking Way, Richmond. 8C. V ap6� fax. G04.2403041 www.corecoaSB9 PAVAN RAKHRA 13082 SITE ADDRESS 12366 LAITY STREET DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, BC 22 May 2014 KEY PLAN PHASE - 2 KOS DRAWING NUMBER 1 OF 1 CRE.E0. 804 BOR. SCALE 1.200 ENGINEER PREVIOUS xumeER DESTROY ALL PRINTS BEARING4 J MAPLE RIDGE Bri{rsh Columbia District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 8, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Request for Accessory Employee Residence - 28487 108th Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the August 25, 2014 Committee of the Whole meeting, a presentation was made to Council regarding a request for an accessory employee residence at 28487 108th Avenue. The proponent presented Council with information relating to their authority to approve a building permit for an accessory employee residence without the need for a referral to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). A copy of the information presented to Council is included in this report as Appendix A. The proponent has been made aware that the District's standard practice in these cases is for the owners to make an application for a non-farm use to the ALC, prior the building permit being issued. This practice is consistent with ALC Policy #9 and the ALC staff has consistently noted their support for this approach. The proponent has expressed the opinion that it is within Council's authority under Section 19 (9) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to issue a building permit. Council has requested that staff provide information to help determine if a non-farm use application is required in this situation. Based on the review contained in this report it is recommended that the current practice continue. RECOMMENDATION: That the practice of seeking approval from the Agricultural Land Commission for a non-farm use application for an accessory employee residential use on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve continue. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: On August 25, 2014, the agent for the owners of 28487 108th Avenue appeared as a delegation before Council and expressed the opinion that Council approve a request for a building permit for an accessory employee residential dwelling unit. The Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw (No. 3510-1985) defines an accessory employee residential use as: "...a use accessory to an agricultural use or a resource use where a building is used for one dwelling unit for the accommodation of an employee or employees working on the same lot." 1103 The following section of the report provides an overview of the recent history of the property and the ALC Policy #9 regarding Additional Residences for Farm Use. ALC Policy 9 Additional Residences for Farm Use: The ALC Policy 9 identifies that Council may approve an additional residence for accessory employee residential purposes, provided that Council is fully convinced that there is a "legitimate" need for the additional dwelling unit(s). The ALC policy clearly states that if there is "any doubt", that an application for a non-farm use [Section 20(3) of the ALC Act] is required. A copy of the ALC Policy 9 is included in this report as Appendix B and a link to the policy can be found at: http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/legislation/policies/Po19-03 add-residences.htm District of Maple Ridge practice: • Based on the ALC policy and recognition that the ALC and Ministry are experts with regards to the policy, ALC regulations and farming need, the District has consistently directed property owners seeking an accessory farm residence(s) to submit a non-farm use application. These applications have all been forwarded to the ALC for the Commission's consideration. • The Commission has consistently noted that it concurs with the District of Maple Ridge approach. • This approach recognizes that Local Government may not be in a position to determine whether the need is legitimate and is intended to be fair to everyone. • This practice is consistent with the practice used in many other municipalities, including the City of Pitt Meadows, Chilliwack and Sunshine Coast Regional District. • The District does not have any guidelines or policies in place to assist in the determination of need for a farm help residence, and rely on the expertise of the ALC. • The request that Council authorize the issuance of a building permit is of concern as it is inconsistent with District practice; and potentially places Council in a difficult position of assessing need. • The District does have the authority to issue a building permit for an accessory employee residential dwelling if it believes that the scale of the agricultural operation is such that a building for farm help is required. In addition to the information provided to Council in August 2014, a compilation of examples of enquires related to the use and/or development of properties within the Agricultural Land Reserve, which have arisen over the past few years. These examples include: • When evaluating agricultural operations, the question is often not whether farm activity takes place on the property. Instead, the question is whether the magnitude of the farm operation is sufficient to justify housing for both a full time farm operator and an employee. It should be noted that excessive capital investment in residential development may increase the selling price of farmland and may be an economic barrier to farming. • It is very difficult to keep track and enforce compliance with the removal of a building should the farm use cease. As example, upon review of an application for subdivision in the ALR, it was revealed that the applicants had 10 years earlier received approval for an accessory employee residence. The property had not been farmed for several years, and the applicants were basing their subdivision application on the fact that there were already 2 residences on the property. A restrictive covenant on file clearly stated that the second dwelling would have to be demolished should the farm use cease. 2 • Many of the requests for accessory farm help received by District staff may be questionable with respect to need. Example: An individual was trying to identify an estate residential property for an affluent client, with accessory farm help, in order that the client would receive the tax concession and have a residence for their groundskeeper. Being notified of the non- farm use application requirement was a sufficient deterrent from proceeding further. • Assessment information of farm activity can be misleading. Colliers did a recent research paper on property taxation for Metro Vancouver. One of the findings was that where multiple properties were involved, gross farm income was treated as an aggregate, and the actual income from an individual property was not reviewed. This means that a property that was part of a larger farm operation could receive farm class even if its specific earnings were significantly less than the minimum required. This practice also enables property owners who lease their land for lower value farm activities such as cutting hay, are not required to have sufficient minimum gross farm income. As long as the leasing farm operator earns sufficient farm income to meet this minimum standard, the property owner will receive this concession, even if they are not actively involved in farming. On this basis, farm class status should be a prerequisite, but not the sole factor in determining need. • A farm operation that utilizes multiple properties generally has no legal obligation to retain all of them in perpetuity. What this means is that if permission is granted for an accessory farm help under these circumstances, there is no guarantee that the farm operation will not in future sell these properties that have helped to define defensible need. If multiple jurisdictions are involved, assessing need would be difficult. A possible approach could be to allow the accessory employee residence to proceed, but in exchange, a no build covenant should be registered for residential development on one of the other properties utilized by the farm operation. This would be difficult where multiple jurisdictions were involved. • ALC regulations are becoming increasingly complex and the types of farm help are likely to evolve. The permitted uses that are recognized as bona fide farm use could potentially include retail, product processing, and agri-tourism uses, that could potentially have a staff component. Traditional methods such as standard animal units to assess the size of farm operation that could form a rationale for permitting farm use may no longer be valid. For this reason, it makes sense to keep the Commission involved in these decision making processes, as they are in a better position to see the bigger picture than are individual municipalities. • Staff are of the opinion that the ALC is in the best position to evaluate applications of this nature. This is their focus, and they are experienced in a wide range of farming activities, and at times come up with creative solutions and conditional approvals that help to meet their objectives. b) Policy Implications: There are no direct Official Community Plan or Council Policy implications associated with the request for an accessory employee residential dwelling. However, ALC Policy # 9 does provide Council with the authority to issue a building permit for an accessory employee residential dwelling if Council is "convinced there is a legitimate need for an additional residence." The policy goes on to state "if there is any doubt with respect to the need, an application [for a non-farm use] under Section 20(3) of the Act is required." 3 In this particular situation doubt was raised based on the following recent history: • In early 2011, the property did not have farm tax status at the time, although has since received it. • In February 2011 a non-farm use application was submitted but was not processed at the request of the applicant. • In 2012 the District was informed that the property was listed for sale. • In June 2014 the owners advised they had done the following and it is unclear if this activity represents a legitimate need for an accessory employee residential dwelling unit: o removed field overgrowth and stumps; o site grading, drainage and access installation; o installed perimeter fencing; o drilled a well; o built a barn for animal and produce storage; and o installed new hydro service. • The owners are proposing a beef and apple orchard operation on this site, in addition to an orchard in Penticton. The owners will not be residing full-time on the property. • The applicant has been advised that a single family dwelling with a secondary suite; garage; and manufactured home for a member of the immediate family would be permitted on the property and would not require ALC approval. The District's practice has been to require a non-farm use application to be submitted to the ALC for their approval, prior to issuance of a building permit for an accessory employee residential dwelling. c) Alternatives: The following alternatives are presented for Council's consideration: 1. If Council is convinced that there is a legitimate need for an accessory employee residence at 28487 108th Avenue, staff can be directed to issue a Building Permit for the proposed dwelling unit. 2. If Council wishes to change the current practice of requiring a non-farm use application for an accessory employee residential dwelling unit, that staff be directed to prepare a set of guidelines to determine when an application for non-farm use will be required for an accessory employee residential dwelling on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve. CONCLUSIONS: Council has requested that staff provide clarification on whether or not a non-farm use application for an accessory employee residential dwelling at 28487 108th Avenue is required. The information provided provides Council with an overview of current District practice, the Agricultural Land Commission Act Policy #9 and examples of enquiries the Planning Department has received over the past few years related to agricultural and development activities within the ALR. Council has the authority under Policy 9 of the ALC Act to issue a building permit for an accessory employee residential dwelling without requiring a non-farm use application be made to the ALC for approval. However, that policy (attached as Appendix B) clearly states that a municipal council must be convinced that there is a legitimate need for the additional residence, otherwise a non-farm use application is required. 4 It remains Council's discretion to determine if they feel the request at 28487 108th Avenue is based on a legitimate need. "Original signed by Jim Charlebois" Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP, RPP Manager of Community Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" 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 J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A: Presentation submitted to Council on August 25, 2014 by Mr. Slade Dyer, agent for the property owners; Appendix B: Agricultural Land Commission Act Policy #9 - Additional Residences for Farm Use, March 2003 5 APPENDIX A Mayor and Council, District of Maple Ridge Your Worship and members of Council, Re: Council consideration of an accessory employee residential use at 28487 108th Avenue. Pursuant to Maple Ridge Council Procedure Bylaw No. 6472-2007 I have requested to appear as a delegation to Council respecting the above noted item. I am also providing this information package as required under Section 50 of the Bylaw. The matter that I am asking Council to address has come about through considerable discourse with Municipal staff and the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). The property owners have a farm operation in Penticton and operate a connected farm operation at 28487 108th Avenue in Maple Ridge. Connected farm operations are not uncommon, however farm help is needed and a farm help presence is required. The Maple Ridge property is zoned A-1 (Small Holding Agricultural) and is in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). According to the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw an accessory employee residential use is permitted in the A-1 zone. However when such property is in the ALR the statutory provisions of the ALC must also be applied. Section 18 of the ALC Act provides that a local government may not "approve more than one residence on a parcel of land unless the additional residences are necessary for farm use." ALC Policy #9 provides that "The Act and Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation do not set a limit on the number of additional residences for farm help per parcel, but all residences must be necessary for farm use." Policy #9 also states that the "Local government must be convinced that there is a legitimate need for an additional residence for farm help." The ALC has advised that the local government has the authority to approve additional residences for farm use in the ALR, providing that the local government is satisfied of the need for such an additional residence. The ALC further advised that such a decision would be based upon the facts associated with each case and if the local government is satisfied of the need for an additional residence, a building permit may be issued. "Local government" is defined under both the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Local Government Act as; "local government" means in relation to land within a municipality, the municipal council. So for purposes of an accessory employee residential unit in the ALR, under the ALC Act, a determination of Council respecting need is required, before a building permit can be issued. My clients have applied for a building permit for a standalone garage with an employee residential suite on the second floor. Such a permit cannot be issued without authorization of Council. For such authorization to be granted, Council must be satisfied that there is a need for a farm help residence. My clients have been actively improving the subject property for farm purposes over the last few years with such works including: • Removal of field overgrowth and stump grinding. • Site grading, drainage and access installation. • New 5 strand perimeter fencing. • New drilled well for irrigation and water service. • New 3,000 square foot barn for animals and produce storage. • New 400 amp hydro service to the site. Over $185,000 has been spent to date on these farm improvements with more to come. A building permit for a primary residence for the site owners has recently been issued and construction will be proceeding shortly. Construction of the garage and employee suite coincident with construction of the primary residence would be ideal. The land owners recognize that Council must determine that there is a need for an employee residential unit before a building permit can be issued. They have a farm help residence on their Penticton farm property and are seeking a building permit for a farm help residence on their Maple Ridge farm property, as they cannot be present on the property full time and need assistance in the ongoing operation of this farm. An overview of the two farm operations, including improvements, has been provided by the owners and is attached below. This overview also includes the connectivity between the two operations. We are asking that Council consider the information presented and determine if you are satisfied that a farm help residence is needed on the Maple Ridge property, so that a building permit for such use can be issued. Municipal staff have advised that they are "not in a position to assess whether such a residential use would be necessary for farm help or that the long term interest in this property is for farming purposes." We are of the opinion, given the current and projected farm operation, that a farm help residence is necessary and needed. However such a determination falls to Council, as provided for under the ALC Act and ALC policies in this respect. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely Slade Dyer (agent for 28487 108th Avenue) Slade Dyer & Associates Inc. 33219 Brown Crescent, Mission, BC, V2V-2R3 Ph. #604-826-5009 Maple Ridge Farm - 26487 108th Avenue, Maple Ridge Beef Cattle & Apple orchard Field View (2014) • Above is a photo of the property when we purchased it and starting working on it. • In this pictured we had already cut quite a bit of overgrowth down and started the driveway. • All fencing had Alders trees growing through them and all needed replacing. Beef Cattle, Cow Calf Pairs • We had cattle on the property for a couple of years, but after they got out twice and we did not receive our farm hand accommodation permit, we put in for on January 26 2010, we had to take them off the property and board them at Hank Ten Brinks in Whonnock. • Once we have our building permits we will bring them home. Fencing Front View • Our new fencing Bud installed, five string barbwire with five to six inch posts concreted in. • Background is our driveway for our barn. • Property has been cleared and chipped, making way for pasture. • From 108th fence to driveway in front of barn will be high-density apple trees. Corner of 284th and 108th • The photo above it a view from 284th and 108th. • The water source is a newly drilled well on the left. All drainage from the property comes to the right, into the District of Maple Ridge culvert. Our water line will have to be buried three feet to protect from freezing, which will be above the culvert level. Completed Barn Photo • This is a photo of our completed barn. • Cattle will go into the barn at the rear right hand side, where we have stanchions. • On the left hand side front is insulated and cooled storage for our Apples and Juice. • We just need to get our permits for our house, garage and farm hand suite so we can bring our cattle home and get on with our apple tree planting. • We are waiting for our power to be hooked up or we would have put in electric fences in for the cattle. Internal land fencing for the cattle is to be installed as well as corrals for bringing in and loading out animals. • Once our power is hooked up, we will have water and we will be able to plant our high-density Apple trees as they require overhead and drip line irrigation. Approximately 1000 trees are to be planted. We have been living on this property since February of this year and upon completion of our new home (building permit expected the week of July 7th) this will be our primary residence. In addition to the farm operation in Maple Ridge we also own and operate an orchard in Penticton. A description of this operation is as follows. Ambrosia / Spartan Orchard Pinot Gri /Merlot Vines 1060 Pearson Rd, Penticton, BC Ambrosia / Spartan Orchard (2013) • Ten thousand Apple trees, one hundred and fifteen thousand pounds of Apples produced in 2013. • Improved from thirty six thousand when purchased four years ago. • We sell our Apples premium picked directly to a grocery in the Fraser Valley. • We have a Juice Company come to the Orchard and make us tree ripened Juice, which we currently sell farm gate in Whonnock. • We planted five hundred vines three years ago, which produced fifty cases of wine, which we have Township 7 make. • Our property is checked by people traveling on quads every week from March until the end of October. We have to spend a considerable amount of time in our Orchard to meet all of the requirements. We have a full overhead and drip line irrigation system, which has to be checked and maintained regularly. Back Right View of Property (2013) • Grapes are planted around the perimeter of our acreage to make this a very productive, clean, showy agricultural property. Front Right View Of Property (2013) Maple Ridge and Penticton Farms The Maple Ridge and Penticton farms are to be operated in concert and require regular travel between the two sites for maintenance and operation purposes. Although the two sites are independent they are linked as to operation. • Apples and apple products from Penticton will be transported and stored in the new storage facility on the Maple Ridge site. • Penticton apples and apple products will be sold Farm Gate at the Maple Ridge Farm. • Apples will be stored at the Maple Ridge Farm until the grocery market sells all the stock. Usually sold by December 30th. (We have had to pay $3500 each year for storage.) • Beef products will also be sold Farm Gate as well as at a few Local Corner Stores. • We are a family owned Farm. Our kids each did the 4H Beef and Sheep program, which taught them how to market livestock and soft fruit products. Our kids are very involved in our endeavors. • Our Grapes supply Township 7 in Naramata as well as being transported to their Langley Location. This type of linked farming or farm operation is not an uncommon practice and can function well if recognized and supported by local governance. A farm help residence is located on the Penticton farm site and we are seeking a building permit for a farm help residence on the Maple Ridge site, as we cannot be present on the property full time and need assistance in the ongoing operation of this farm. APPENDIX B Copyright © 2003: Agricultural Land Commission, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada This is not the official version. Only the printed version issued by the Agricultural Land Commission is the official version. Copies of the official version may be obtained from the Agricultural Land Commission, Room 133 - 4940 Canada Way, Burnaby, BC V5G 4K6, telephone: 604 660-7000. Copyright in the electronic version of this Policy belongs exclusively to the Province of British Columbia. This electronic version is for private study or research purposes only. REFERENCE: Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, Section 18 18 Unless permitted by this Act, the regulations or the terms imposed in an order of the commission, (a) a local government, or an authority, a board or another agency established by it or a person or an agency that enters into an agreement under the Local Services Act may not (li) approve more than one residence on a parcel of land unless the additional residences are necessary for farm use INTERPRETATION: The Act and Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation do not set a limit on the number of additional residences for farm help per parcel, but all residences must be necessary for farm use. However, see Section 3 (1) (b) of the Regulation which permits a 'manufactured home' for family members of the owner. This Section also permits a secondary suite within a residence. See Commission Policy "Permitted Uses in the ALR: Residential Uses". Local government must be convinced that there is a legitimate need for an additional residence for farm help. One criteria is that the parcel should have `farm' classification under the Assessment Act. In coming to a determination, a local government should consider the size and type of farm operation and other relevant factors. To help determine the need and evaluate the size and type of farm operation, a permitting officer may wish to obtain advice and direction from staff of: a) the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries b) the Agricultural Land Commission. Local government bylaws should not necessarily be the basis for making a determination about the necessity for farm help. Some bylaws may automatically permit a second residence on a specified size of parcel in the ALR. This is not an appropriate determination under the Act and should not be used as the basis for issuing a building permit for an additional residence for farm help. Some local governments have adopted detailed guidelines as a basis for determining legitimacy of a request for additional residences for farm help, in which a threshold for different types of agricultural operations is specified. In these instances, it may be appropriate to consider these as factors in interpreting Section 18 of the Act. If there is any doubt with respect to need, an application under Section 20 (3) of the Act for permission for a non-farm use is required. Policy #9 March 2003 ADDITIONAL RESIDENCES FOR FARM USE ALC Agricultural Land Commission Act This policy provides advice to assist in the interpretation of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002 and Regulation. In case of ambiguity or inconsistency, the Act and Regulation will govern. REFERENCE: Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, Section 18 18 Unless permitted by this Act, the regulations or the terms imposed in an order of the commission, (a) a local government, or an authority, a board or another agency established by it or a person or an agency that enters into an agreement under the Local Services Act may not (li) approve more than one residence on a parcel of land unless the additional residences are necessary for farm use INTERPRETATION: The Act and Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation do not set a limit on the number of additional residences for farm help per parcel, but all residences must be necessary for farm use. However, see Section 3 (1) (b) of the Regulation which permits a 'manufactured home' for family members of the owner. This Section also permits a secondary suite within a residence. See Commission Policy "Permitted Uses in the ALR: Residential Uses". Local government must be convinced that there is a legitimate need for an additional residence for farm help. One criteria is that the parcel should have `farm' classification under the Assessment Act. In coming to a determination, a local government should consider the size and type of farm operation and other relevant factors. To help determine the need and evaluate the size and type of farm operation, a permitting officer may wish to obtain advice and direction from staff of: a) the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries b) the Agricultural Land Commission. Local government bylaws should not necessarily be the basis for making a determination about the necessity for farm help. Some bylaws may automatically permit a second residence on a specified size of parcel in the ALR. This is not an appropriate determination under the Act and should not be used as the basis for issuing a building permit for an additional residence for farm help. Some local governments have adopted detailed guidelines as a basis for determining legitimacy of a request for additional residences for farm help, in which a threshold for different types of agricultural operations is specified. In these instances, it may be appropriate to consider these as factors in interpreting Section 18 of the Act. If there is any doubt with respect to need, an application under Section 20 (3) of the Act for permission for a non-farm use is required. 4 MAPLE RIDGE Brit rah Columbia District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 8, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5255-40-175 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Award of Contract ITT-EN14-46: Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Project is included in the District's approved Capital Plan and the project objectives are to improve pedestrian safety through the construction of a sidewalk along what is a significant pedestrian corridor in Hammond. The project scope consists of concrete sidewalk with concrete curb and gutter, minor road widening, storm sewers, catch basins and lawn basins, and new pavement markings. Overall the project aims at improving walkability, pedestrian safety and community connectivity from Tolmie Park to Hammond Elementary School. The Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Project was tendered on July 28, 2014 and closed on August 19, 2014. The lowest compliant tender price was submitted by Imperial Paving Ltd for $353,241.92. To fully fund the project including an appropriate contingency, an additional $103,290.00 is required, and approval to reallocate funds from the completed Kanaka Way Traffic Circle project (LTC 8861) is recommended. In addition to the sidewalk construction, The District has been monitoring the intersection of Maple Crescent and Lorne Avenue. The 2014 warrant analysis indicates that a 4 -way stop is warranted. While not part of the original project scope, it is recommended that the intersection improvements be constructed, and as such, $50,000.00 from the Annual Pedestrian Safety/Accessibility Improvements Program will be allocated to provide the pedestrian enhancements at the intersection of Maple Crescent and Lorne Avenue. Council approval to award the contract is required for the work to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Contract ITT-EN14-46, Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements, be awarded to Imperial Paving Limited in the amount of $353,241.92 excluding taxes; and THAT a contract contingency of 5% or $17,633.75 be approved to address additional contract items; and THAT the Financial Plan be amended to reallocate $103,290.00 from LTC 8861; and THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1104 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Project is included in the District's approved Capital Plan and the project objectives are to improve pedestrian safety through the construction of a sidewalk along what is a significant pedestrian corridor in Hammond. The project scope consists of concrete sidewalk with concrete curb and gutter, minor road widening, storm sewers, catch basins and lawn basins, and new pavement markings. Overall the project aims at improving walkability, pedestrian safety and community connectivity from Tolmie Park to Hammond Elementary School. The Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements project was originally identified in 2010 to improve the facilities on this route for pedestrians, particularly children, walking to Hammond Elementary School. An Open House was held in April 2011 that proposed the construction of a raised asphalt sidewalk with a concrete curb and gutter. At the Open House, concerns were raised around drainage and intersection safety. The District presented a revised design of an asphalt shoulder at a second Open House in February 2012, concerns were expressed about a widened shoulder and intersection safety concerns. The District was requested to consider the installation of a concrete sidewalk with a concrete curb and gutter. To reach a logical consensus, staff developed a decision matrix to provide a rationale for the selection process. In 2013 the District reviewed the project and design for a concrete sidewalk with curb and gutter, as well as storm sewer improvements. This revised concept was presented at a May 26, 2014 Open House and was favourably received by the residents. This revised design would provide a needed connection to Tolmie Park and is in line with the recommendations in the Draft Strategic Transportation Plan. The intersection of Lorne Avenue and Maple Crescent has been monitored on an ongoing basis to determine the need for a 4 -way stop and a recent warrant analysis confirmed that intersection improvements in the form of a 4 -way stop are now warranted at the intersection. The design and construction of this work was not included in the original Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Project. The residents have indicated through the public process that these improvements are as important to them as the sidewalk construction. To minimize costs, staff recommend that the design and construction of the intersection improvements be incorporated into this project. The scope would include concrete curb extensions at each crosswalk locations to limit pedestrian exposure, construction of a concrete island to better direct traffic east on to Lorne Avenue, installation of a 4 -way stop and an on -street parking lane. To fully fund this additional work including an appropriate contingency, $50,000.00 is being allocated from the Annual Pedestrian Safety/Accessibility Improvements Program. If this portion of the project is undertaken separately, it is estimated that the cost would total $90,000.00, an increase of 80%. Tender Evaluation The contract for the Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements was tendered on July 28, 2014 and closed on August 19, 2014. Seven compliant tenders were received ranging from $353,241.92 to $594,600.00 excluding taxes. The following seven tenders received are listed in order from lowest to highest price: Imperial Paving Limited UCC Group Inc. Targa Contracting Ltd. Triahn Enterprises Ltd. Winvan Paving Ltd. Jack Cewe Ltd. Larfarge Canada cob Columbia Bitulithic Tender Price (excluding taxes) $353,241.92 $360,887.00 $409,875.50 $414,909.00 $484,870.00 $578,011.00 $594,600.00 Staff have reviewed the tenders and the lowest compliant bid was $353,241.92 from Imperial Paving Limited that has completed a number of projects for the District and is suitably qualified for the works. b) Desired Outcome: The construction of a sidewalk will improve pedestrian safety along what is a significant pedestrian corridor in Hammond, as well as provide community connectivity from Tolmie Park to Maple Crescent an on to Hammond Elementary School. Intersection improvements at Maple Crescent will improve traffic operations as well as pedestrian visibility and safety and improve access to the Lower Hammond area for residents. c) Strategic Alignment: The Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Project supports the following key strategies identified in the District's Strategic Plan: Maintain and enhance a multi -modal transportation system within Maple Ridge to provide citizens with safe, efficient alternatives for the movement of individuals and goods Promote alternative modes (pedestrian, bike, public transit) of travel to reduce reliance on the automobile d) Citizen/Customer Implications: There have been three Open Houses hosted for this project as noted previously, and the project was included in the first Hammond Area Plan Open House held on June 5, 2014. Discussions were also had with the Hammond Elementary Parent Advisory Committee. The estimated construction duration is approximately 6 weeks, starting in late September 2014. It is anticipated that the the work zone will be reduced to single lane alternating traffic, but the road should stay open at all times. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The Operation and Planning Departments have provided input to the design. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The original budget for this project was developed in 2010 and was based on the construction of an asphalt sidewalk. Staff developed a decision matrix to help guide the material choice based on use, destination, etc. The project scope was revised to allow for the installation of a concrete sidewalk with concrete curb and gutter. The remaining budget allotted for the project is $267,854.00 which is less than the tendered price of $353,241.92 thus additional funding of $103,292.00 will be reallocated from LTC 8861 (Kanaka Way Traffic Circle). The intersection improvements will be funded from the Annual Pedestrian Safety/Accessibility Improvements Program. CONCLUSIONS: The tender price of $353,241.92 by Imperial Paving Limited for the Lorne Avenue Pedestrian Improvements is the lowest tendered price. It is recommended that Council approve the award of the contract to Imperial Paving Limited and approve the reallocation of funds to allow the project to proceed. "Original signed by Jeff Boehmer" Prepared by: Jeff Boehmer, PEng Manager of Design and Construction "Original signed by David Pollock" Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer "Original signed by Trevor Thompson" Financial Review by: Trevor Thompson, CGA Manager of Financial Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. General Manager: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia Deep Roots Greater Heights TO: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: 2015 Permissive Tax Exemptions DATE: September 8, 2014 FILE NO: ATTN: Committee of the Whole 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, or where the service is the responsibility of senior governments. If exemptions were granted in these instances then tax payers would be funding programs that were not intended to be funded by property taxes. Over the past several years Council has maintained limited growth in Permissive Tax Exemptions recognizing that any increase in exemptions results in a shift of the tax revenue to be collected from the remaining taxable properties. Each year additional requests for financial assistance are received, either in the form of property tax exemptions or community grants and Council must consider all of those requests in balance with the overall Financial Plan. There were two applications received for consideration of Permissive Tax Exemptions for 2015 where the applicants have not received previous exemptions. The Friends in Need Food Bank Society has applied for permissive tax exemption for property leased at #8-22726 Dewdney Trunk Road and Canadian Red Cross -HELP Depot has applied for permissive tax exemption for property leased at #5-11435 201A Street. The recommendation is to deny both of these applications. One recipient of the permissive exemption in 2014 has not applied for exemption in 2015 and is no longer included in the Bylaw. All other applicants being recommended for a permissive tax exemption in 2015 also received the exemption in 2014. In accordance with the Community Charter and Council Policies 5.16 to 5.23, the properties listed in Bylaw No. 7105-2014 are recommended for property tax exemption for the 2015 taxation year. RECOMMENDATION: That "Maple Ridge Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 7105-2014" 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. Page 1 of 4 1131 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 a 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 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 Municipal tax 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 2015 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, 2014 to exempt properties from municipal property taxation for 2015. 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 Page 2 of 4 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 being recommended for a 2015 permissive tax exemption were also approved for a permissive tax exemption for the 2014 taxation year. One permissive tax exemption recipient from 2014 has not applied for the 2015 exemption. CornerStone Neighbourhood Fellowship Baptist Church no longer leases property at 9975 - 272nd Street and now shares space with another church. This year two new permissive tax exemption applications were received from two essential not for profit organizations operating in Maple Ridge. The Friends in Need Food Bank Society lease property at #8- 22726 Dewdney Trunk Road to operate their various programs providing food and other essentials for low-income families and individuals. The Canadian Red Cross Society leases property at #5-11435 201A Street to operate their Health Equipment Loan Program (HELP) Depot providing basic equipment on short term loans to assist people coping with illness, injury or recovery at home. Both of these societies provide services to the residents of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows and are among a large number of not for profit agencies that contribute to a healthy community. In evaluating these applications, consideration must mainly be given to whether or not the services provided are an extension of Municipal services and programs and if their funding should fall under the responsibility of local government. These two societies are largely supported by personal and corporate donations and provide services that should be funded through social assistance or healthcare branches of the provincial government and are not a responsibility of local governments. It is for this reason that the recommendation is to deny these applications. Many not for profit agencies have requested support from Council from time to time and it has been Council's decision in the past to consider support of these programs on a request by request basis through the Community Grants program. This allows Council the flexibility to consider each application annually and does not create an expectation of ongoing financial support for these or other worthy not for profit organizations. In the past, the Friends in Need Food Bank has received grants through the Community Grants program, recently receiving $15,000 in 2014. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Based on the 2014 assessed values, and using the estimated tax increase for 2015 from the financial plan, the estimated amount attributable to the 2015 proposed tax exemptions for the Municipal portion of taxes is $662,111. The total tax revenue estimate in the financial plan is $ 69,374,378, putting the proposed exemptions at less than 1% of that total. The estimated municipal portion of property taxes for 2015 for the properties not being recommended for exemption are $6,633 for Friends in Need Food Bank Society and $13,627 for Canadian Red Cross - HELP Depot. f) Policy Implications: g) 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. 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. Page 3 of 4 CONCLUSIONS: In reviewing the requests for permissive exemptions, Council should consider that any increase in exemptions results in a shift of the tax revenue to be collected from the remaining taxable properties. Requests for financial assistance, whether in the form of a permissive tax exemption or community grant application must be considered in balance with the overall Financial Plan. Each permissive tax exemption application should be evaluated under the following criteria: 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. "Original signed by Catherine Nolan for" Prepared by: Kathy Gormley Manager of Business Systems "Original signed by Paul Gill" Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA GM - Corp. & Fin. Services "Original signed J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer :kg Page 4 of 4 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7105-2014 A Bylaw to exempt from taxation, certain properties within the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge WHEREAS, pursuant to provisions of the Community Charter, S.B.C., 2003, Chapter 26, a Municipal Council may exempt certain land and improvements from taxation, where, in the opinion of the Municipal Council, the use of the land and improvements qualifies for exemption; AND WHEREAS, the Municipal Council deems it expedient to exempt certain land and improvements; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw shall be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 7105-2014". 2. That in accordance with Section 224(2)(i) of the Community Charter, the following lands and improvements owned or held by an athletic or service club or association and used principally as a public park or recreation ground or for public athletic or recreational purposes be exempt from taxation: (a) Owned by the Ruskin Community Hall Roll No.: 94856-0000-8 28395 96th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $311,500 4,108 4,242 4,380 (b) Owned by the Girl Guides of Canada Roll No.: 05322-0300-1 26521 Ferguson Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $612,600 8,079 8,342 8,613 (c) Owned by the Scout Properties (B.C./Yukon) Ltd. Roll No.: 05299-0100-0 27660 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $1,169,000 15,417 15,918 16,436 (d) Portion of Land and Improvements owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: Ridge Meadows Senior Society Roll No.: 52700-0001-0 12148 224th Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $3,592,000 47,089 48,620 50,200 (e) Owned by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, Maple Ridge Aerie #2831 Roll No.: 73878-0300-6 23461 132nd Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $564,100 7,440 7,681 7,931 3. That in accordance with Section 224(2)(i) of the Community Charter, the following lands and improvements owned or held by an athletic or service club or association and used principally as a public park or recreation ground or for public athletic or recreational purposes be exempt from taxation; and in accordance with Section 225(2)(e) of the Community Charter, the following land and improvements that are eligible golf course property, being land maintained as a golf course be exempt from taxation: (a) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: Maple Ridge Golf Course Ltd. (Public Golf Course) Roll No.: 21238-1001-1 20818 Golf Lane 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $2,270,800 29,604 30,566 31,558 4. That in accordance with Section 224(2)(a) of the Community Charter, the following land and improvements that are owned or held by a charitable, philanthropic, or other not for profit corporation, and the council consider are used for the same purpose be exempt from taxation: (a) Owned by the Maple Ridge Search and Rescue Society Roll No.: 84120-0005-0 23598 105th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $591,000 7,748 8,000 8,260 -2- 5. That in accordance with Section 224(2)(d) of the Community Charter, the interest in land and improvements owned by a public or local authority that are being used by a corporation or organization that would be eligible for exemption if the land and improvements were owned by that corporation or organization, shall be exempt from taxation: (a) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Roll No.: 84292-0257-0 10235 Jackson Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $2,613,000 34,255 35,368 36,518 (b) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: Katie's Place Roll No.: 84292-0100-0 10255 Jackson Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $187,900 2,463 2,543 2,626 (c) Owned by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Leased to: Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Roll No.: 84112-0001-0 10092 236th Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $1,221,000 16,007 16,527 17,064 (d) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Arts Council Roll No.: 31711-1000-0 11944 Haney Place 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $11,201,000 146,840 151,612 156,539 (E) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: Alouette Home Start Society Roll No.: 42274-0000-4 11932 221 Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $388,000 1,783 1,841 1,901 - 3 - 6. That in accordance with Section 224(2)(f) of the Community Charter, in relation to property that is exempt under section 220(1)(h) [buildings for public worship], the following land and improvements, that have been deemed as necessary to the building set apart for public worship, be exempt from taxation: (a) Owned by Wildwood Fellowship Church Roll No.: 05071-0100-5 10810 272nd Street Exempt 2014 Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $246,600 3,252 3,358 3,467 (b) Owned by Pt. Hammond United Church Roll No.: 10622-0100-0 11391 Dartford Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $125,300 1,653 1,706 1,762 (c) Owned by Christian & Missionary Alliance - Canadian Pacific District Roll No.: 20804-0401-1 20399 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $381,400 5,030 5,194 5,362 (d) Owned by the St. Pauls Evangelical Lutheran Church of Haney B.C. Roll No.: 20861-0100-4 12145 Laity Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $350,100 4,617 4,767 4,922 (e) Owned by the St. John the Divine Anglican Church Roll No.: 20920-0100-1 21299 River Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $387,200 5,107 5,273 5,444 (f) Owned by Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver Church Roll No.: 21140-0400-1 20285 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $647,000 8,533 8,810 9,097 -4- (g) Owned by the Christian Reformed Church of Maple Ridge B.C. Roll No.: 21142-3300-3 20245 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $387,300 5,108 5,274 5,445 (h) Owned by the Burnett Fellowship Baptist Church Roll No.: 21190-0001-0 20639 123rd Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $291,200 3,840 3,965 4,094 (i) Owned by the President of the Lethbridge Stake (Mormon Church) Roll No.: 21255-0201-X 11750 207th Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $380,700 5,021 5,184 5,352 (j) Owned by the Trustees of the Maple Ridge East Congregation of Jehovah's Roll No.: 21335-2200-2 11770 West Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $406,200 5,357 5,531 5,711 (k) Owned by First Church Christ Scientist Roll No.: 31678-0000-8 11916 222nd Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $200,600 2,646 2,732 2,820 (I) Owned by The Church of the Nazarene Roll No.: 41990-0000-8 21467 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $422,053 5,566 5,747 5,934 - 5 - (m) Owned by the High Way Church Roll No.: 42162-0000-X 21746 Lougheed Highway 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $470,200 6,201 6,403 6,611 (n) Owned by the Trustees of the Congregation of the Haney Presbyterian Church Roll No.: 42176-0000-8 11858 216th Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $525,900 6,936 7,161 7,394 (o) Owned by the Trustees of St. Andrews Congregation of the United Church of Canada Roll No.: 42249-0100-6 22165 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $1,311,900 17,302 17,864 18,445 (p) Owned by M.R. Baptist Church Roll No.: 42331-0100-1 22155 Lougheed Highway 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $3,661,700 48,292 49,861 51,482 (q) Owned by the Trustees of Webster's Corner United Church Roll No.: 63029-0100-5 25102 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $232,600 3,068 3,167 3,270 (r) Owned by Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada Roll No.: 63163-2300-2 11756 232nd Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $750,000 9,891 10,213 10,545 -6- (s) Owned by Lord Bishop of New Westminster (St. John Evangelical) Roll No.: 94720-0001-0 27123 River Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $432,300 5,701 5,887 6,078 (t) Owned by Ruskin Gospel Church Roll No.: 94803-0100-3 28304 96th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $255,600 3,371 3,481 3,594 (u) Owned by Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver Roll No.: 52788-0000-8 22561 121st Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $273,700 3,610 3,727 3,848 (v) Owned by The B.C. Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Churches Inc. Roll No.: 20762-0305-0 20450 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $2,143,000 28,263 29,181 30,130 (w) Owned by The Parish of St. George, Maple Ridge Roll No.: 63157-2001-1 23500 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $336,300 4,435 4,579 4,728 (x) Owned by Generations Christian Fellowship and Colleen Findlay Foundation Roll No.: 21034-0000-8 11601 Laity Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $855,000 11,276 11,643 12,021 -7- (y) Owned by Apostles of Infinite Love, Canada Roll No.: 94906-0000-3 27289 96th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $215,000 2,836 2,928 3,023 (z) Owned by Timberline Ranch Roll No.: 52982-0000-X 22351 144th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $30,700 405 418 432 7. That in accordance with Section 224(2)(g) of the Community Charter, land or improvements used or occupied by a religious organization, as tenant or licensee, for the purpose of public worship or for the purposes of a hall that the council considers is necessary to land or improvements so used or occupied, be exempt from taxation: (a) Leased by Maple Ridge Vineyard Christian Fellowship Roll No.: 31594-0000-1 22336 Dewdney Trunk Road 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $548,900 5,822 6,011 6,207 8. That in accordance with Section 224(2)(h) of the Community Charter, in relation to property that is exempt under section 220(1)(1) [private schools], any area of land surrounding the exempt building shall be exempt from taxation: (a) Owned by Haney - Pitt Meadows Christian School Association Roll No.: 20806-0302-0 12140 203rd Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $395,400 5,184 5,352 5,526 (b) Owned by Meadowridge School Society Roll No.: 63414-0002-0 12224 240th Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $940,000 12,323 12,723 13,137 -8- (c) Owned by Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver Roll No.: 52788-0000-8 22561 121st Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $258,000 3,382 3,492 3,606 9. That in accordance with Section 225(2)(b) of the Community Charter the following Heritage lands and improvements shall be exempt from taxation: (a) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: The Maple Ridge Historical Society (Haney House) Roll No.: 31790-0000-4 11612 224th Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $454,000 2,086 2,154 2,224 (b) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: The Maple Ridge Historical Society (Haney Brick Yard Office & Haney Brick Yard House) Roll No.: 31962-0502-3 22520 116th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $533,000 6,987 7,214 7,449 (c) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: The Maple Ridge Historical Society (St. Andrew's United Church) Roll No.: 31428-0000-1 22279 116th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $202,000 2,648 2,734 2,823 (d) Owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Leased to: Fraser Information Society (Old Japanese School House) Roll No.: 31492-0000-3 11739 223rd Street 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $278,700 3,654 3,772 3,895 -9- (e) Owned by Prince David Temple Society (Masonic Lodge) Roll No.: 31429-0100-0 22272 116th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $377,500 4,979 5,140 5,307 10. That in accordance with Section 224(2)(c) of the Community Charter, "land or improvements that the council considers would otherwise qualify for exemption under section 220 [general statutory exemptions] were it not for a secondary use", the council may, by the adoption of a by-law, determine the proportions of the land and improvements that are to be exempt and taxable; and Section 224(2)(i) of the Community Charter, land or improvements owned or held by an athletic or service club or association and used principally as a public park or recreation ground or for public athletic or recreational purposes, shall be exempt from taxation as by the proportions set in accordance with Section 224(2)(c) of the Community Charter. (a) Land and Improvements owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, Herein called Cam Neely Arena, shall be exempted from 90% of taxation Roll No.: 84120-0002-0 23448 105th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $3,787,200 49,648 51,262 52,928 (b) Land and Improvements owned by the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, Herein called The Golden Ears Winter Club, shall be exempted from 95% of taxation Roll No.: 84120-0004-0 23588 105th Avenue 2014 Exempt Assessed Value Estimated 2015 Exemption Estimated 2016 Exemption Estimated 2017 Exemption $2,841,260 37,248 38,458 39,708 Included within each of the exemptions 1O(a) and 1O(b) is a proportionate share (based on the square footage areas of Cam Neely Arena, The Golden Ears Winter Club, and the remainder of the building) of all entrances, lobbies, change rooms, stairs, elevators, hallways, foyers and other common use areas of the lands and improvements. 11. The exemptions from taxation as herein before noted applies for the year 2015. - 10 - 12. The exemptions granted by this bylaw are without prejudice to any claim for entitlement to exemption based on any other provisions of the Community Charter or any other legislation. READ a FIRST TIME the day of , 2014. READ a SECOND TIME the day of , 2014. READ a THIRD TIME the day of , 2014. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED the day of , 2014. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER - 11 - 410* MAPLE RIDGE British Colombia District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: September 8, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: PANORAMA STRATA LMS - 4011 PROPOSED BYLAW REVISION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The property management company for the Panorama Strata Council (RMSS) has advised the strata that as a result of a new rule introduced by the Real Estate Council of British Columbia, all real estate management companies are now required to strictly follow the bylaws of the strata that they manage. The property management company (Baywest Management Corp.) has identified a discrepancy with the Panorama Strata Council's by-laws on how common area operating fees are split between commercial sections and residential sections of the facility. As a result, the Strata must rectify this by (a) imposing the fees identified by the Panorama bylaws or (b) amending the bylaws to reflect the cost share formula that has been in place since 1999. RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to work with the Panorama Stata Council to amend the Panorama LMS 4011 Bylaws to reflect the cost distribution that has been in place since 1999. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The District of Maple Ridge currently owns the recreational portion of the building which is the equivalent to approximately 10 strata units in LMS 4011- Panorama. Panorama is operated by the RMSS and the Strata Council is comprised of one District staff member, RMSS board members and Panorama Resident representatives. The District previously appointed Mr. Michael Millward to represent the District of Maple Ridge on the Strata LMS 4011. Mr. Millward provides the strata with technical advice on building maintenance, lifecycle and major capital repairs. On behalf of the District, he also participates as a voting member of the Strata Council at monthly meetings. b) Desired Outcome: Amending the bylaws to reflect the past practice would certainly be most preferable to the residents of the strata as the default "unit entitlement costs", identified in the current bylaws, are not considered by the residents' or the District's representative to be a fair and representative distribution of costs. c) Strategic Alignment: This request is consistent with Council's strategic direction to promote the use of partnerships such as the RMSS to operate the Seniors Centre as well as other not for profit groups to provide services in a cost efficient and timely manner. 1151 d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The District's representative has confirmed that the current cost share arrangement, although contrary to the bylaws, represents actual use and costs of the common spaces within the building. Imposing the original fee structure as noted in the current bylaws would significantly increase the unit entitlement costs for the residents therefore; it is recommended that the bylaw be amended to formalize the current cost share arrangement that has been in place since 1999. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: If the Panorama LMS 4011 bylaws are not amended as noted above, there is a potential for up to $60,000 of reallocation of costs from the District of Maple Ridge to the residents of Panorama, which has understandably caused considerable concern for the residents of this facility. However in the absence of a vote in favor of changing the bylaws, significant additional costs will be passed on to the residents of the building. f) Policy Implications: The amendment to the Panorama LMS 4011 is considered to be housekeeping that should really have been remedied by parties to the agreement in 1999. g) Alternatives: To direct staff to vote against the amendment at the Strata Council meeting which would in effect defeat the motion as 100% approval from the membership is required to amend the bylaw in this regard. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that staff be directed to vote in favor of the amendment in order to formalize the current practices of cost distribution for both the residential and commercial/recreational portions of the facility which reflects a fair distribution of costs. "Original signed by Michael Millward" Prepared by: Michael Millward Facilities Manager "Original signed by Wendy McCormick/per" Approved by: David Boag Director Parks and Facilities "Original signed by Kelly Swift" Approved by: Kelly Swift General Manager, Community Development, Parks and Recreation Services "Original signed by Jim Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer mm:db