HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-04 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
July 4, 2011
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification.
REMINDERS
July 4. 2011
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 P.M.
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES -June 20, 2011
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1 Corrections Update
- Mr. P. Coulson, Provincial Director, Corrections Branch
- Mr. S. DiCastri - Warden, Fraser Regional Corrections District
- Ms. L. Anderson - Warden, Alouette Correctional Centre for Women
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 2011 Homelessness Count Preliminary Report
Verba report by the Director of Community Services
Council Workshop
July 4, 2011
Page 2 of 4
4.2 Bulk Water Fill Station Update
Staff report dated July 4, 2011 providing Information on the existing and planned
bulk water fill stations operated by the District of Maple Ridge.
Note: Item 4.3 has been forwarded from the June 28, 2011 Council Meeting for further
discussion
4.3 2011-035-CP/2011-035-RZ, 23711 & 23735 132 Avenue
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6813-2011
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6818-2011
Update provided by the Director of Parks and Facilities
4.4 2011 Local Elections Update
Verbal update by the Manager of Legislative Services
4.5 Discussion of Purpose of Council Workshop
5. CORRESPONDENCE
6151
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
Recommendation:
Council Workshop
July 4, 2011
Page 3 of 4
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked b
Date: f
Council Workshop
July 4, 2011
Page 4of4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of prope of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropdatton of land or improvemenl.5, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential lit[gation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor -client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
0) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under seaion 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(1) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactmen#, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the author*ty under section 91(other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations_ with Firs# Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
Bulk Water Fill Station Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
DATE: July 4, 2011
FILE NO:
MEETING: WORKSHOP
The District of Maple Ridge presently operates two potable water stand pipes located on municipal
road rights of way. These stand pipes have been in place approximately 20 years. The Provincial
Government water regulations are focused on the provision of safe and secure potable water. The
Fraser Health Authority issues annual water permits to Maple Ridge to operate the municipal water
system. A primary focus of those permits is assurances from the municipality that the water is
secure. In 2010 the Fraser Health Authority requested that the existing stand pipes be replaced with
more secure systems.
The 2010 Business Plan identified the need to replace these stand pipes with more secure systems.
A `Bulk Water Fill Station' was installed on Jackson Road at 106th Avenue in early 2010. The `Bulk
Water Fill Station' is intended to replace the stand pipe located on 102nd Avenue at 244th Street.
The station was used for Operations purposes in 2010 and is being tested by the general public and
commercial users in 2011. The `Bulk Water Fill Station' uses `Smart Card' technology to dispense
water. At this time the existing stand pipes remain operational as the testing continues. A second
bulk water station is planned for Rothsay Street to replace the sand pipe 256th Street and 116th
Avenue for later in 2011.
A public information session is being planned for July 2011 to assist current and potential users
through the transition from the old stand pipe to the new station.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive this report for information
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
In keeping with the 2010 Business Plans the District of Maple Ridge has installed a `Bulk
Water Fill Station' on Jackson Road and has a second one planned as part of the 2011
Capital Works Program on Rothsay Street.
Page 1 of 3 4■2
Prior to the installation of this new station there were two potable water stand pipes both
located on municipal road right-of-way. These water stand pipes are most typically used by
residents to supplement well water when needed. The stand pipes are also accessible to
bulk water carriers.
Stand pipes are open to the public without security and anyone can access these stand pipes
including non Maple Ridge residents. There is no charge for this water.
The Provincial Government water regulations are focused on the provision of safe and secure
potable. The Fraser Health Authority issues annual water permits to Maple Ridge to operate
the municipal water system. A primary focus of those permits is assurances from the
municipality that the water is secure. To meet these requirements the standpipes need to be
replaced with more secure systems.
Smart Card technology is the prevalent approach to dispensing water at fill stations in other
communities across Canada. The new Bulk Water Station uses this technology and is
currently being tested.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome is to provide safe potable water to users of the bulk filling stations. In
doing so the new system is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Fraser Health
Authority.
A second desired outcome is to ensure that the water at these stations is provided to Maple
Ridge residents or businesses only.
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The existing standpipes have been in existence since approximately 20 years. A period of
transition is required in order for users to educate themselves and understand the new
system. A first step in communicating with existing and potential users is to hold a public
information session to provide information and solicit feedback. It is intended to secure a
meeting location for a date in July 2011.
d) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
Through the testing and trial period it is intended to collect sufficient data on the extent and
usage of water from the stations. Based on the data collected an analysis of the costs to the
District of providing this water will be completed. Based on this analysis an update report to
Council will be provided including an assessment on the merits or appropriateness of a user
pay structure.
Page 2 of 3
CONCLUSION:
The `Bulk Water Fill Station' is a modern self-contained, secure method of dispensing potable water
to residents and commercial haulers within the District of Maple Ridge. It meets the requirements of
the Fraser Health Authority. A testing and data collection period is now underway. The transition to
these new stations will require public education and communication. A Public Information session is
planned for July 2011 with -the date to be announced once the venue for the session is secured.
yr.y-
Prepared by: Ed Mitchell AScT, Superintendent of Waterworks
Approved by: F nk Quinn, MBA, PEng.
,General Manager: Public Works & Development Services
t�
Concurrence: J.l (Jim) Rule ti
Cpief Administrative Officer
/em
Page 3 of 3
From: David Boag
Sent: 3une-24-11 3:20 PM
To: Ernie Daykin; Craig Speirs; Al Hogarth; Linda King; Michael Morden; Cheryl Ashlie; Judy Dueck
Cc: Jim Rule; Kelly Swift; Frank Quinn; Ceri Marlo; Jane Pickering
Subject: Correspondence received by Council regarding the proposed OCP amendment at 23711 and
23735 132 Ave
To Mayor and Council
This email is in response to the submission received from Mrs. Leinweber and Mr. Joel Lycan regarding
the public hearing on June 212011 for the proposed OCP amending bylaw at 23711- 132 Ave and
23735- 132 Ave
As Council is aware, the OCP designates a neighborhood park in the Rock Ridge area of Silver Valley, and
there has been demand from the residents in that area to develop the neighborhood park. The OCP
outlines that this park was to be located on a portion the property owned by Mrs. Leinweber at 23711-
132 Ave. Unfortunately the District was not able to reach an agreement with her for the purchase of a
portion of her property and we terminated our negotiations and chose instead to move the park onto
District owned property.
The new location that is being recommended was chosen as it is a superior location for the
neighborhood park, as the site is more level, and has already been cleared. This site also offers
enhanced access with a greater street presence on 132 Ave as well as an additional public walkway
between residences which would provide a shorter walking distance for residents to the East. There is
also potential for a nature trail to the north in the future that would make the park site accessible in
three sides.
Mrs. Leinweber letter
The specific details with respect to the Mrs. Leinweber's property are as follows:
The District worked with Mrs. Leinweber to purchase the northern portion of her property at 23711-132
Ave. Mrs. Leinweber's offer to sell the northern portion of her property to the District for the sum of
$850,000, which is approximately 0.852 acres, was rejected. The portion of her land that is currently
designated as park however is only 0.583 acres, which was previously appraised at $443,000 in 2009. 1
have been advised that Mrs. Leinweber rejected the Districts offer of $443,000 which was based on this
2009 appraisal for the "designated park" portion only.
Mr. and Mrs. Leinweber offered to sell only the designated park portion of the property for $435,000 in
September 2008; however District staff were reluctant to recommend the purchase of the land as land
prices were on the downturn at that time. A subsequent offer by the District in Oct 2009 to purchase
the land for $443,000 was not accepted, and the District was advised that Mrs. Leinweber wanted a
higher price, but did not specify what price would be acceptable. The District chose to move on and
look at another location for the park.
4.3
The proposed OCP amendment regarding moving the park designation to the adjacent property would
increase the size of the proposed park from O.S83 acres to 1.457 acres. Although the entire 3 acre parcel
would now be designated as park, the developed portion of the site could not exceed the 49% that is
currently designated as "low density', as the designated conservation areas would still need to be
respected. Therefore the assertion that the proposed park has grown by 375% is incorrect.
Mr. Lycan's Letter
I provide the following in response to Mr. Joel Lycan's letter
The properties at 23711 and 23735 - 132 Ave are not similarly designated as stated by Mr. Lycan. The
property designations are as follows:
The property at 23711-132 Ave currently has a (0.645 acre) park /open space designation and
13% (approx 0.0256) med / high density designation on the northern portion of the property,
and also has a 16% (approx 0.321 acres) low density designation on the southern portion of the
property. The remainder of the property (middle section) is designated as conservation.
• The property at 23735-132 Ave has a conservation / park designation on 1.517 acres of the
northern portion of the site, and currently has 1.457 acres current►y designated as low density.
This 1.457 acres is the area that Parks staff has recommended be used as park, as the District
has not been able to reach an agreement on the purchase of the designated park site at 23711
132Ave as outlined previously. Ironically this site was previously purchased as the parks portion
of a proposed park/school site in 1997. The School District however abandoned the site to the
East as a school site, however the District has held onto the property since that time.
Mr. Lycan's comments of the appraised values in 2008 and 2009 appear to be fairly accurate, and
appear to support the offer made to the property owner for the portion that is designated park. The
other values suggested by Mr. Lycan are likely not relevant in this case as the District would rely on an
independent appraisal to determine the fair market value of any lands that the District may need to
acquire.
Mr. Lycan's account of what the owner was prepared to sell the northern portion of the land to the
District for is reasonable at $850,000, however the portion that the District would like to acquire is
smaller than the area being offered for sale, and the appraised value of the designated park portion of
the property was only $443,000, which leaves a significant gap between the appraised value and the
asking price.
Mr. Lycan is incorrect in his assumption that the entire site will be developed as parkland, as the
conservation boundaries will still have to be respected, therefore the portion of the park that could be
developed is only 1.457 acres,( of the 2.975 acre site). The size of this proposed park site is consistent
with the guidelines in the Silver Valley plan, which suggests that parks in this area should be 0.5 acres to
1.5 acres in size, and be within 2 to 5 minutes walk from a dwelling. In this case the proposed park site
would be within the guideline at 1.457Acres.
Mr. Lycan's suggestion that that the site has a designation of 36% park and 64% med / high density is
not correct. The site is actually designated as 71% park/conservation/open space, and only 29% Med /
High Density. Therefore any assessment of a yield would require the correct designations allowances to
be used.
Mr. Lycan's suggestion that the District would have a net gain of $388,500 if it was to sell the southern
portion of 23735-132 Ave to a developer, and also purchase the northern portion of 23711-132 Ave,
appears to be inaccurate. Based on the current offer to sell a portion of land at 23711 which exceeds
the park designation area for $850,000, when the designated park portion has been valued at $443,000
would be ill advised. In addition, If the District allows the subdivision for the purposes of designating
the land as park on the slightly larger northern portion to the North at 23711-132 Ave, it would need
public assent to sever the remainder (i.e. sell parkland) previously designated med / high density, in
order to recover the difference between appraised cost of the designated parkland and purchase price
of the northern portion of the site. (Approximately $411,000)
In summary, if the District uses the land that it currently owns at 23735-132 Ave for park purposes, the
District would save the acquisition costs associated with the purchase of the northern portion of the
23711 site, (at either $443,000, or $854,000) and still have a more suitable neighborhood park site than
it can achieve with the original site designated as park, at no additional cost to the taxpayer for park
land acquisition in this part of silver valley. District Staff therefore support the OCP amendments to
accommodate the relocation of the park.
David Boag
Director, Parks and Facilities
Site plan attached
June 21, 2011
RE: Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6813-2011
23711 and 23635 132"d Ave. Maple Ridge.
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am the property owner at 23711 132"d Ave. This property is one of the parcels included in the current
Official Community Plan amendment being considered by Council.
The northern portion of my property has been designated as future park area since the inception of the
Silver Valley Area Plan.
In 2007 we began an effort to have the park area or our property purchased by the District. Negotiations
with the District began at that time and have included a 2008 land value appraisal prepared by Equity
Valuation and Consulting Services Ltd along with an amendment to that appraisal completed in 2009.
This process has taken well over 3 years of which we have been unable to proceed with a sale of our
property.
I feel that we have been negotiating in good faith and that if the District was considering modifying this
park location this OCP amendment proposal should have taken place in 2007 when our negotiations
began!
This OCP amendment will increase the size of the proposed park area from approximately 0.8 acres to
the entire 3 acre parcel at 23735 132"d Ave. this is an increase of 375%! This OCP change, if approved
will also affect the southern portion of my property by effectively eliminating any future potential of 4 -5
single family lots that would have been possible upon the development of the property located at 23735
132"dAve.
This OCP amendment if approved by Council will eliminate the ability to create 10 new single family lots
of which the District owns 5 1/2, and will have caused me to have wasted the past 4 years in
negotiations with the District.
I urge you to consider maintaining the current OCP and continuing with the fair market value purchase
of the northern portion of my property.
Sincerely,
Jean Leinweber
Property Owner
23711 132"d Ave. Maple Ridge
Page 1 of 2
Presentation to Mayor and Council for Public Hearing taking place June 21, 2011
Re: Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6813-2011
Properties located at 23711 and 23735 —132"d Ave, Maple Ridge
Subject Properties — 23711 132"d Ave - 2 acre parcel — Privately Owned
23735 132"d Ave — 3 acre parcel — District of Maple Ridge Lands
OCP Designations (Both properties)
- Northern Portion — Neighbourhood Park and Medium/High Density Residential
Southern Portion — Low Density Residential (RS —1 Lots / 7200 sf)
Property is crossed diagonally by a small creek system creating distinct North and South sections. Historically the
creek setback for ESA has been 15m.
History —
District staff has been in discussions with the property owner since early 2008 regarding the District's acquisition of
the Neighbourhood Park portion of the subject property. In that time the District has had an appraisal (2008) done on
the subject property, along with an amendment (2009) to this appraisal to account for the higher density use on the
Northern Portion and addressing general market fluctuations.
Appraised value from these reports are, 2008 - $800,000 per acre and 2009 $750,000 per acre.
Value —
Using current comparable sales in the Maple Ridge area ground oriented multi -family sites are valued based on yield
at $50,000 to $80,000 per unit, with sales as high as + $120,000 per unit.
The Property immediately west of the subject property is under application for medium/high density residential use
and the 3 acre site one property to the west has currently received 3rd reading for 51 townhouse units.
Based on these values and the configuration of the subject property the property owner was prepared to sell the
northern portion of the property to the District for $850,000 ($60,714.28 per unit). The subject property would yield
approximately 14 townhouse units in a very high quality location. The Northern Portion of the property is partially
designated as Neighbourhood Park with the balance being Med/High Density.
Conclusion —
The District is proposing to forgo the acquisition of the Neighbourhood Park as it is shown in the current OCP. Instead
the District is opting to amend the OCP to allow the property (23735 132"d Ave) to the East of the subject property to
be developed in its entirety as a Neighbourhood Park. This is property the District already owns.
This proposed amendment to the OCP would have the size of the Park component grow
from 3200m2 (0.79 acres) to in excess of 8600m2! (2.13 acres) of usable land area
The Silver Valley Area Plan (Sec 5.3.8(e)) designates 'Neighbourhood Parks' as 0.5 acres to 1.5 acres and
within 2 —5 min walk from a dwelling.
To expand this park area unnecessarily may reduce the Districts ability to provide small neighbourhood
parks in other areas?
Page 2 of 2
This proposed 'New' Park configuration will:
- eliminate 5 Yz proposed RS 1 Building Lots on District owned land (south portion of 23537 132"d Ave —
Raw value $600,000 to $700,000
Sterilize the creation on another 3 1/2 RS 1 Building Lots on the adjoining property (south portion of
23511 132"d Ave)
The Silver Valley Area Plan is already experiencing development yields well short of the original
projections thereby dramatically reducing the projected revenues to the District.
This is in part due to increased protection to natural features and areas with difficult terrain. It is highly
anticipated that the areas to the north of current development will prove to be even more difficult,
therefore further reducing potential yield!
Can the District afford to waste developable lands that are:
o Designated for Residential Development?
and
o Considered exceptionally usable for this purpose?
If the District were to purchase the land as shown, the scenario may look like this:
Land Purchase (Northern Portion of 23711 132"d Ave)
Northern Portion — Usable area 0.891 acres (3606m2)
Designated 36% Park / 64% Med/High Density Res
Assume Value at $61,000 / unit
Yield 16 to 18 units per Acre
0.891 acres x 16 unit per acre = 14 units
Yield 14 units X $61,000 = $854,000
District resells portions not required for the Neighbourhood Park -
64% of parcel size designated Med/High Density
Original purchase price$854,000 x 65% LESS $555,000
NET COST TO DISTRICT $299,000
Revenue from potential sale of District owned lands at 23735 132"d Ave
5 % undeveloped building lots (RS 1 / 7200 SF)
Raw Lot value at $125,000 x 5.5 $687,500
Districts TOTAL REVENUE PLUS $388,500
Plus the ongoing property taxes collected from up to 10 new homes?
(5.5 Lots on the District Property and 3.5 Lots on the property to the west)
In conclusion it is my opinion that Council may be wise to carefully consider maintaining this portion of the
Districts OCP as it is currently, allowing the District to provide this neighbourhood with a reasonable sized
park of 0.79 acres and simultaneously maximize the value of the Districts Land Assets.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Sincerely —
Joel Lycan — 24197 Fern Cres., Maple Ridge, 604-307-0240
N/sap Print Page
Page 1 of 1
https://www3 .mapleridge. ca/RidgeView/app/print-CreatePage. asp
29/11/2010
133 AVENUE
obi
1:1000
NPARK NPARK
1413m2 1764m2
I
I
23
I
24
I
I
I
LOT B RES "SSA
�s 3473m
2193m2 cb
- � s
I
I r r
- I J
ESA
163ft2
3
1
� P
I
15
852m2
74,161 �P�
LOT A 4
668m2 800m2
f N
2 8
680m2
85 __ 20.08 19.90
2 CD
o� 68Qm2 co "
15.0, M
9 10
37.85 IN668m2 668m2
CD 1CD
ob 675m2
132 AVENUE
F--
w
w
V)
N
WALKWAY o
OCT 5 2010
RS-1 MIN 668m2
133 AVENUE
1;1000
MAx�M121 �
e., — NPARK NPARK
kyc 4 5 I'/- •� fie.. *3m2 1764m2
'90T
23 2 4
�
� [, �
� w �
_,
,T B RES s 34 SAS cn
f 2193m2 <
�r
CN
0 ESA
% _ 1633m2 , New of �► + �
`�
Rr 18660m LK A L�5���1►Pr�
8 2m2
1
r`
4
LOT P 668m2 860m2
OCT
r
859n•.2 — I 8
1
g}' 68Om2
Lorc�j I i T6 E 6 Om 2
15,0 9 10
ti 668m2 668m2
l otr'r�� 1 -
b
132 AVENUE OCT 5 2010
RS-1 MIN 668m2
— -- --T ---
Tax Report - 23735 132ND Avenue
Record Updated - 01 / 16/ 2011
Jurisdiction 312-MAPLE RIDGE - DISTRICT a Roll Number 7389800008
Property Addr 23735 132ND AV
Municipality MR -DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE Board Code V
Neighborhood 110-SILVER VALLEY & FERN CRESCENT
Area VMR-Maple Ridge
Sub Area VMRSV-Silver Valley
Gross Taxes $1198.44 (2010)
Tax Amount Updated - 07/07/10
Property ID 006-352-871
More PID's
Water Conn
Owner Name & Mailing Address Information
Owner(s) 1 Name & Address Owner(s) 2 Name & Address
** NOT AVAILABLE **
11995 HANEY PL
MAPLE RIDGE SC
V2X 6A9
Legal Information
Plan # Lot Block Dist Lot Land Dist Section Township Range Meridian
48925 24 36 28 12
Legal Description PL 48925 LT 24 LD 36 SEC 28 TWP 12 Group 1,
Land & Building Information
Width Depth Lot Size 2,98 ACRES
Land Use Actual Use 2AC PLUS SIN FAM DWLL DUP
BCA Description 1 ST SFD AFTER 1930 FAIR Zoning
BCAA Data Updated - 01/15/11
Actual Totals
Land
Improvement
Actual Total
Date
12/01/1997
08/01/1977
09/01/1975
Tax Detail View
Total Value Information
Municipal Taxable Totals
$609,300 Gross Land
$102,000 Gross Improve
Exempt Land
Exempt Improve
$711,300 Municipal Total
School Taxable Totals
$609,300 Gross Land $609,300
$102,000 Gross Improve $102,000
$-585,000 Exempt Land $-585,000
Exempt Improve
$126,300 School Total $126,300
Sale History Information
Price Document # Type of Sales Transaction
$435,000 BL409940 IMPRV SINGLE PROP CASH TRANSAC
$75,000 N87440E REJECT NOT SUITED SALE ANALSIS
$55,000 L82449E IMPRV SINGLE PROP CASH TRANSAC
The enclosed information while deemed to be correct is not guaranteed. 05/24/11 12:35 PM
Silver Valley, Maple Ridge
23735 132ND AV
Lot Area:
Sanitary Sewer:
Storm Sewer:
Water Supply:
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Telephone Serv:
Cable Service:
Prospectus:
Develop Permit:
Bldg Permit Apprv:
Building Plans:
Perc Test Avail:
Perc Test Date:
Legal:
Site Influences:
Restrictions:
Commission:
Listing Broker 1:
Listing Sales Rep 1:
Listing Sales Rep 2:
Listing Broker 2:
Listing Sales Rep 3:
Selling Broker:
Selling Sales Rep:
Owner:
Realtor Remarks:
MLS# V520078
List Price: $699,900
List Date: 24-3an-05
Previous Price: Subdiv/Complex:
Original Price: $699,900 Postal Code: V411 2S5
Land Only
t r,irer
Days on Mkt: 188
Expiry Date: 30-3ul-05
Frontage: 0.000 ffi
Meas. Type: I
Frontage Metric: 0.000
Depth/Area:
Price/SgFt: $ 5.39
PID:
006-352-871
Sub -Type:
Taxes:
$263 / 2004
Exposure: South
Zoning:
RURAL
Permitted Use:
Rezoneable?:
Yes
Title to Land: Freehold NonStrata
Flood Plain:
2.980 ac / Hect: 1.206
/ SgFt: 129,809 / SqM: 12,059
Property Access:
Road Access
Nearby
Parking Access:
Nearby
Fencing:
City/Municipal
Property in ALR:
No
Nearby
Possession:
Nearby
Seller's Interest:
Registered Owner
Available Nearby
Information Pkg:
No
Available Nearby
Sign on Property:
N
Not Required
Sketch Attch:
No
No
Property Disclosure:
No / DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY
N
Trees Logged:
No
Not Available
LT 24 LD 37 SEC 28 TWP 12 PL 48925
Development
3.255-100/1,1625
RE/MAX RIDGE MEADOWS REALTY 604-466-2838 Appointments: GORDON BARTHELS
GORDON BARTHELS gordon@gordonbarthels.com Appointment Ph: 604-466-2838
CORP OF THE DISTRICT OF MR
Please speak with Gordon regarding to offer acceptance process.
House on property presently rented for $750/month. Development of this property must be linked to property to the West,
LND Full Realtor The enclosed information while deemed to be correct, is not guaranteed. 24-May-11 12:34 PM