HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-16 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES MINUTES MINUTES MINUTES –––– April 2, 2012April 2, 2012April 2, 2012April 2, 2012
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1 Discussion with Randy Kamp, M.P.Discussion with Randy Kamp, M.P.Discussion with Randy Kamp, M.P.Discussion with Randy Kamp, M.P.
• Changes to the Fisheries Act
• Medicinal Marijuana Legislation
• National Housing Strategy
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Secondary SuitesSecondary SuitesSecondary SuitesSecondary Suites and Temporary Residential Usesand Temporary Residential Usesand Temporary Residential Usesand Temporary Residential Uses
Staff report dated April 16, 2012 recommending that staff be directed to prepare
a report identifying issues and options pertaining to Secondary Suites and
Temporary Residential Uses.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDACOUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDACOUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDACOUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
April 16April 16April 16April 16, 20, 20, 20, 2012121212
9:009:009:009:00 a.m.a.m.a.m.a.m.
Blaney Room, 1Blaney Room, 1Blaney Room, 1Blaney Room, 1stststst Floor, Municipal HallFloor, Municipal HallFloor, Municipal HallFloor, 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.
REMINDERSREMINDERSREMINDERSREMINDERS
April 16, 2012April 16, 2012April 16, 2012April 16, 2012
Closed Council cancelled
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
April 16, 2012
Page 2 of 3
4.2 Sign Bylaw UpdateSign Bylaw UpdateSign Bylaw UpdateSign Bylaw Update
Verbal report by the Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws
4.3 Cellular Antenna, 27649 110 AvenueCellular Antenna, 27649 110 AvenueCellular Antenna, 27649 110 AvenueCellular Antenna, 27649 110 Avenue
Staff report dated April 16, 2012 providing information on the application by
Alcatel-Lucent to install a tower for wireless communications at 27649 110
Avenue.
5. CORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCE
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.
5.1
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
April 16, 2012
Page 3 of 3
Rules for Holding a Closed MeetingRules for Holding a Closed MeetingRules for Holding a Closed MeetingRules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closedmay be closedmay be closedmay 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 positionholds or is being considered for a positionholds or is being considered for a positionholds 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 bbbbeing considered for a municipal award or eing considered for a municipal award or eing considered for a municipal award or eing considered for a municipal award or
honourhonourhonourhonour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relationslabour relationslabour relationslabour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of propertysecurity of propertysecurity of propertysecurity of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, diacquisition, diacquisition, diacquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvementssposition or expropriation of land or improvementssposition or expropriation of land or improvementssposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcementlaw enforcementlaw enforcementlaw 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 litigationlitigation or potential litigationlitigation or potential litigationlitigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearingadministrative tribunal hearingadministrative tribunal hearingadministrative 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 solicitorsolicitorsolicitorsolicitor----client privilegeclient privilegeclient privilegeclient privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) informationinformationinformationinformation that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Actunder section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Actunder section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Actunder section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal serviceproposed provision of a municipal serviceproposed provision of a municipal serviceproposed 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;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual reportpreparing an annual reportpreparing an annual reportpreparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactmentanother enactmentanother enactmentanother enactment, 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 considerationconsiderationconsiderationconsideration of whether the authority under section 91authority under section 91authority under section 91authority 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 First Nationslocal government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nationslocal government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nationslocal government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
Page 1111 of 7777
District of Maple RidgeDistrict of Maple RidgeDistrict of Maple RidgeDistrict of Maple Ridge
TO:TO:TO:TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: April 16, 2012
and Members of Council
FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: MEETING: MEETING: MEETING: Council WorkshopCouncil WorkshopCouncil WorkshopCouncil Workshop
SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses
EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:SUMMARY:SUMMARY:SUMMARY:
In the recent past there has been discussion regarding the District’s regulations pertaining to
accessory residential units (i.e. secondary suites and temporary residential uses). During the Zoning
Bylaw review discussion at the March 5, 2012 Council Workshop there was dialogue regarding the
Temporary Residential Use provisions, and then again at the Committee of the Whole meeting on
April 2, 2012 while considering an application to vary the size of a detached garden suite. At the
same time, the development community has been suggesting that the municipality consider
reducing the minimum lot size to have a secondary suite and also ease off on some of the design
restrictions that are utilized to discourage the unauthorized construction of secondary suites.
Meanwhile, Licensing, Permits and Bylaw staff continue to receive complaints regarding
unauthorized secondary suites; temporary residential uses that are no longer housing a relative of
the property owner; or discover a suite when reviewing a business license or while on site performing
another inspection.
All of above has led to staff preparing this report which is intended to provide Council with an
overview of the history of secondary suites and temporary residential uses in the District of Maple
Ridge, and to highlight some of the issues that may warrant consideration. It is unknown if Council is
interested in pursuing these issues at this time, however, if there is interest, it is recommended that
staff prepare a report that would contain a series of options and recommendations pertaining to
Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses.
RECOMMENDATION(S):RECOMMENDATION(S):RECOMMENDATION(S):RECOMMENDATION(S):
ThatThatThatThat staff staff staff staff be directed be directed be directed be directed to prepare to prepare to prepare to prepare a report identifying a comprehensive list of issues and options a report identifying a comprehensive list of issues and options a report identifying a comprehensive list of issues and options a report identifying a comprehensive list of issues and options
pertaining to Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses. pertaining to Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses. pertaining to Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses. pertaining to Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses.
DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION:
a)a)a)a) Background Context:Background Context:Background Context:Background Context:
In 1999, the District of Maple Ridge Council was one of the first municipalities in the Lower Mainland
to amend its Zoning Bylaw to provide regulations for Secondary Suites. The Bylaw was initiated for a
variety of reasons, including the need to provide affordable and rental accommodation; recognition
that many property owners used the income as a mortgage helper; a better understanding regarding
the demographic of suite tenants; and recognition that there were numerous unauthorized suites in
the community, and the number was increasing.
4.1
Page 2222 of 7777
The Secondary Suites review that occurred in 1998 can best be described as being a very arduous
and emotional process, with residents being very strongly in favour or opposed to the Bylaw. During
the drafting of the Bylaw it was clear that the public felt strongly that suite owners must pay their fair
share and that owner occupation was an absolute necessity. There were also concerns with how the
District would enforce the Bylaw and that the “legalization” of suites may result in the eviction of
tenants. These were difficult issues to address. However the Council of the day deserves credit for
taking the bold step, and adopting the Bylaw, where other municipalities avoided the matter, leaving
their communities with a lack of clarity regarding how secondary suites would be regulated.
On March 23, 1999, Council adopted the Secondary Suites Bylaw, and then six months later
undertook a brief review that further fine-tuned the Bylaw. The resulting Secondary Suites
regulations were inserted into the District of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw (No. 3150-1985) and has
remained unchanged since that time.
Following the adoption of the Secondary Suites Bylaw, the District received numerous complaints
from residents noting their objection to having to register a Secondary Suite, and undertake Building
Code upgrades because they were housing a family member. In many cases, an elderly parent was
residing in the suite, and surprisingly, there appeared to be a trend of divorced children with children
of their own, moving in with their parents. At the time, Building staff estimated that the cost of
retrofitting an existing suite to meet the Building Code requirements for Secondary Suites would be
in the range of $10,000 - $20,000, which was considered by many home-owners to be extreme
given that their family member was not paying rent. As a result of this concern, staff was directed to
provide an alternative housing option for a family member.
The Zoning Bylaw of the day provided for a Temporary Residential Use which allowed for the care of
an “infirm relative requiring daily nursing care” and it was decided that this definition would be
broadened to include any relative or caregiver (i.e. nanny). Given that the space was housing a
relative, and that there would likely be easy access between the house and the Temporary
Residential Use, the Secondary Suite Building Code would not be applied, but rather the Temporary
Residential uses would need to meet the single family Code requirements. This represented a
significant cost savings for the home owner. The Temporary Residential Use Bylaw was adopted in
November 1999.
b)b)b)b) EEEExisting Bylaw Provisions:xisting Bylaw Provisions:xisting Bylaw Provisions:xisting Bylaw Provisions:
Secondary Suites:Secondary Suites:Secondary Suites:Secondary Suites:
The Zoning Bylaw defines a Secondary Suite as a “residential use accessory to a one family
residential use, limited to one dwelling unit contained within the same building as the one family
residential use”.
Parts 5 and 6 of the Zoning Bylaw list the zones where secondary suites are a permitted use.
Those zones are as follows:
Agricultural 1, 2 and 3, and
Residential – RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, RS-1c, RS-1d, RS-2, RS-3 and SRS.
Section 402(8), General Regulations of the Zoning Bylaw contains the regulations pertaining to
secondary suites as follows:
Page 3333 of 7777
(8) “Dwelling units for a Secondary Suite Residential Use:
(a) shall be limited to one per lot;
(b) shall be contained within the same building as the One Family Residential Use;
(c) shall not be permitted where there is a Boarding Use or Temporary Residential Use on
the lot;
(d) shall have a minimum floor area of 37 m² and a maximum floor area of 90 m², not to
exceed 40% of the total floor area of the building;
(e) shall be permitted on the condition that the registered owner of the lot enters into a
Housing Agreement with the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge under Section
905 of the Municipal Act, which must be executed and delivered to the Municipality
prior to the issuance of any building permit for the land in relation to which the
Secondary Suite Residential Use is permitted. The Housing Agreement includes a term
that either the One Family Residential Use dwelling unit or the Secondary Suite
Residential Use dwelling unit be occupied by the registered owner;
(f) will require proof of notification to the applicable Health Authority or to the appropriate
authority if located on a lot which is not serviced by municipal sewer;
(g) shall not be strata-titled;
(h) shall not be permitted on property situated within a floodplain;
(i) shall not be permitted unless permitted by the provisions of section 601 (A.) of the
Zoning Bylaw.”
Temporary Residential Use (TRU):Temporary Residential Use (TRU):Temporary Residential Use (TRU):Temporary Residential Use (TRU):
A Temporary Residential Use is defined as: “a temporary dwelling unit for the accommodation of a
relative of the property owner”
Section 402(9) of the Zoning Bylaw contains the regulations relating to a Temporary Residential
Use and reads as follows:
(9) “Temporary Residential Use:
(a) shall be limited to one per Residential Lot;
(b) will not be permitted where there is a Boarding Use or Secondary Suite Use on the lot;
(c) will be permitted on the condition that the registered owner of the lot enters into a
Housing Agreement1 with the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge which must be
executed and delivered to the Municipality prior to the issuance of a Temporary
Residential permit. The Housing Agreement includes a term among others that either
the One Family Residential Use or the Temporary Residential Use be occupied by the
registered owner; the Temporary Residential Use is intended to provide affordable
housing to a relative; the property owner will enter into an annual Temporary Residential
Use agreement with the District of Maple Ridge for a fee of $30.25; and the Temporary
Residential Use will be removed within thirty days of the relative no longer residing on
the property;
1 This provision has been removed in the draft Zoning Bylaw
Page 4444 of 7777
(d) will require proof of notification to the applicable Health Authority or to the appropriate
authority if located on a lot which is not serviced by municipal sewer;
(e) shall be contained within the same building as the One Family Residential Use. A lot
0.4 hectares or greater in area may have a Temporary Residential Use contained within
the same building as the One Family Residential Use; a self contained mobile home
certified under certificate Z240 by the Canadian Standards Association; or any other
dwelling unit designated as a Temporary Residential Use by the Director of Licenses,
Permits and Bylaws or his/her designate. A self contained mobile home or any other
designated Temporary Residential Use shall not be sited less than:
(i) 7.5 metres from the front and rear lot line;
(ii) 1.5 metres from an interior side lot line;
(iii) 4.5 metres from an exterior side lot line;
(iv) 6 metres from a building used for one family residential use;
(f) where contained within the same building as the One Family Residential Use, shall not
exceed 40% of the total floor area of the building.
IssuesIssuesIssuesIssues:
As illustrated above, there were a number of restrictions placed on both of these types of accessory
dwelling units, some of which may warrant reconsideration at this time. The following provides a
discussion of the most significant issues that have arisen in the decade following the adoption of
these Bylaws.
• Permitted Zones:
During the creation of the Secondary Suites Bylaw there was much discussion regarding the
minimum lot size that should be required to be eligible for a Secondary Suite use, and it was
determined that the minimum lot size would be 557m2 (5996 ft2). The rationale for this
minimum lot size was that a smaller sized lot would be unlikely to provide the required
parking (i.e. 2 parking spaces for the single family dwelling and 1 additional space for the
Secondary Suite) without eliminating green space on the property. There was also concern
that an inability to provide parking on the property, would result in neighbourhood conflicts,
with neighbours and tenants competing for the same on-street parking spaces. As a result,
Secondary Suites are permitted in most Single Family Zones in the District, with the
exception of the R-1 Residential District (371m2 lot size), R-3 Special Amenity Residential
District (213 m2), and CD-1-93 Amenity Residential District (371 m2) zones. Given the lot
size, the newly adopted R-2 Urban Residential District zone (315m2 ) does not permit
Secondary Suites.
The decision was made however, to permit these smaller sized zones (R-1, CD-1-93,R-3 and
R-2) to have a Temporary Residential Use.
Generally speaking there are two issues relating to the range of permitted zones. The first
one being that there have recently been discussions with a local developer interested in
permitting secondary suites on lots less than 557m2 which would permit Secondary Suites in
the R-1, CD-1-93, R-3 and R-2 zones.
The second issue relates to Temporary Residential Uses that were constructed in compliance
with the Bylaw to house a relative, yet over time the ownership has changed and the unit is
now market rental.
Page 5555 of 7777
• Building Design
Since the adoption of the Secondary Suites Bylaw, and based on discussion with Council of
the day, staff have been reviewing building plans with a goal of eliminating the potential for
“illegal” suites in the smaller lot sized zones (i.e. R-3, R-1, CD-1-93). For example, sliding
rear doors are required (as opposed to a tumbler lock and key system) and side doors
providing direct access to a basement are not permitted. Recently, this element of building
design has been questioned by a local developer contending that the provision of a tumbler
lock door does not automatically result in a suite being installed.
• Temporary Residential Uses
As mentioned earlier in this report, the Temporary Residential Use was established to provide
residents with a more affordable solution for housing a relative, as opposed to updating the
unit to meet the Secondary Suite provisions in the Building Code. It was also established to
provide owners of larger properties (i.e. 0.4 ha/1 acre) with the option of having a detached
unit.
The adoption of the Detached Garden Suite Bylaw has provided owners of acreage with the
option of housing a relative or unrelated tenant in a detached unit, and in many ways has
eliminated the need for a detached Temporary Residential Use.
It is also noted, that in time, many of the units built for a family member have become market
housing, yet do not meet the Building Code requirements for a Secondary Suite. Due to the
age of these homes the cost of retro-fitting the Secondary Suites to meet Code requirements
will, in the vast majority of cases, be cost prohibitive. In most communities where Secondary
Suites are permitted and the owner-occupied requirement is not an issue, there are two
standards of occupancy required based upon the age of the home. For instance in some
jurisdictions, homes built after 2006 must meet the current Building Code standard for
Secondary Suites while homes built prior to that date are given a lesser standard to meet
while still maintaining minimum life/safety requirements.
The other issue that has arisen with Temporary Residential Uses pertains to the size of the
unit. The Bylaw limits the size of the unit (within the house) to being 40% of the total floor
area of the building. In certain instances this has resulted in some very large TRU’s being
constructed. Council may wish to consider limiting the size of the unit
• Owner Occupancy
The issues that have arisen over the past few years regarding the use of Secondary Suites
and Temporary Residential Uses in the District have changed considerably since the
inception of the original program. The concept of requiring the home to be “owner-occupied”
is certainly an area that may warrant review. Most communities have abandoned this
requirement as being unnecessary. Having a separate category of Secondary Suites for
family members only is another area that is difficult to manage from an enforcement
perspective. Properties change ownership on a regular basis and new owners only see the
secondary suite and are most often not notified by the realtors involved that there are any
restrictions on the suite and it gets rented as a mortgage helper. In realty the real issue is
that there is a secondary dwelling unit in the dwelling not who occupies it.
Page 6666 of 7777
c)c)c)c) Next StepsNext StepsNext StepsNext Steps
The current legislation was implemented following a detailed and lengthy public process. That
process was at times contentious with many different viewpoints being expressed. Should
changes be contemplated then some form of public process would be required including a Public
Hearing for amendments to the Zoning Bylaw. It is not suggested that a comprehensive review of
the program be required since it has been quite successful, rather there is an opportunity to
refine some of the Bylaw requirements.
Should Council wish to pursue the above issues further then the next step would be a detailed
report addressing options for each of the issues raised above. The Report would also identify an
outline for a public process.
d)d)d)d) AlternativesAlternativesAlternativesAlternatives::::
Council may wish to not make any changes to the current legislation at this time. Should that be
the case then a follow-up report would not be required.
CONCLUSION:CONCLUSION:CONCLUSION:CONCLUSION:
The current legislation pertaining to Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses has been in
place for over a decade. The legislation was reviewed six month after adoption, however no review
has occurred since then. This report outlines the issues that have arisen over the years and
recommends that a follow-up report be prepared to identify potential options to address these
issues.
____________________________________________________
CoCoCoCo----Prepared byPrepared byPrepared byPrepared by:::: E. S. (Liz) HolitzkiE. S. (Liz) HolitzkiE. S. (Liz) HolitzkiE. S. (Liz) Holitzki
Director: LicencesDirector: LicencesDirector: LicencesDirector: Licences, Permits and Bylaws, Permits and Bylaws, Permits and Bylaws, Permits and Bylaws
____________________________________________________
CoCoCoCo----Prepared byPrepared byPrepared byPrepared by: : : : Christine Carter, Christine Carter, Christine Carter, Christine Carter, M.PLM.PLM.PLM.PL. MCIP. MCIP. MCIP. MCIP
Director of PlanningDirector of PlanningDirector of PlanningDirector of Planning
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Approved by:Approved by:Approved by:Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.EngFrank Quinn, MBA, P.EngFrank Quinn, MBA, P.EngFrank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
General Manager, General Manager, General Manager, General Manager, Public Works & Development ServicesPublic Works & Development ServicesPublic Works & Development ServicesPublic Works & Development Services
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Concurrence:Concurrence:Concurrence:Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) RuleJ.L. (Jim) RuleJ.L. (Jim) RuleJ.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Office Chief Administrative Office Chief Administrative Office Chief Administrative Office
Page 7777 of 7777
APPENDIX “1”APPENDIX “1”APPENDIX “1”APPENDIX “1”
Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Use Dwelling Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Use Dwelling Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Use Dwelling Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Use Dwelling
Zoning Bylaw Zoning Bylaw Zoning Bylaw Zoning Bylaw RequirementsRequirementsRequirementsRequirements
SECONDARY SUITESSECONDARY SUITESSECONDARY SUITESSECONDARY SUITES TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL USETEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL USETEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL USETEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL USE
1.1.1.1. Limited to one per lot 1.1.1.1. Limited to one per residential lot
2.2.2.2. Must be contained in the single family
dwelling
2.2.2.2. Must be contained in the single family
dwelling or if property exceeds 0.4 hectares it
can be in a mobile home or any other dwelling
approved by the Director of Licences, Permits
and Bylaws.
3.3.3.3. Not permitted where a boarding use or
TRU use exists on the property
3.3.3.3. Not permitted where a boarding use or
Secondary Suite use exists on the property
4.4.4.4. Shall have min. floor area of 37 m2 and
a max floor area of 90 m2 not exceeding
40% of total building floor area.
4.4.4.4. Where contained in single family dwelling
shall not exceed 40% of total building floor
area.
5.5.5.5. R/O must enter into registered Housing
Agreement with District under section
905 of LGA.
No payment required under Bylaw.
5.5.5.5. R/O must enter into annualannualannualannual registered
Housing Agreement with District under section
905 of LGA. (deleted in Draft Zoning Bylaw)
Payment of $30.25 per application required.
6.6.6.6. Health Dept. approval required if
property not connected to sewer.
6.6.6.6. Health Dept. approval required if property not
connected to sewer.
7.7.7.7. Suite cannot be strata titled 7. Permitted in all residential zones and all
agricultural zones except A-5.
8.8.8.8. Shall not be located on property situated
within a floodplain
8.8.8.8. The registered property owner must occupy
the dwelling or the TRU and a relative as
defined must occupy the remaining dwelling
unit or TRU.
9.9.9.9. Must be permitted under section 601A.
Also permitted in all agricultural zones
except A-5.
10.10.10.10. One additional parking space required
for suite.
11.11.11.11. Registered property owner must occupy
the primary dwelling unit or the
Secondary suite and a tenant can
occupy the remaining primary dwelling
unit or Secondary Suite.
-1 -
District of Maple Ridge
TO:His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE:April 16, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM:Chief Administrative Officer ATTN:Workshop
SUBJECT:Cellular Antenna
27649 110 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Alcatel-Lucent is seeking to install a tower for wireless communications at the subject property
referred to above.Seeking to improve their coverage in this area,the company is in the required
consultation phase of this process under the Federal default guidelines for this process.This memo
will discuss this application as it relates to Federal Government guidelines, and to the
neighbourhood context of this proposed site.The pertinent information is appended to this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
That comments provided during discussion of the proposed tower for wireless communications at
27679 110 Avenue be forwarded to Alcatel-Lucent.
DISCUSSION:
Cellular antenna structures are governed by the Federal government, under the jurisdiction of
Industry Canada. The mandate of Industry Canada is to support and ensure the orderly
development and efficient operation of radio communications in Canada. The Minister of Industry
may approve all antenna structures in event of a conflict with the local government; however, it is
generally recognized that there is some flexibility in siting these facilities while still meeting
operational requirements. For this reason, all applicants are required to consult with the local
government and to address relevant concerns that may be raised within the community.The Federal
government also considers environmental effects and safety standards prior to issuing licenses.
a)Desired Outcome:
The goal of the federal legislation is to meet the operational requirements of radio communications
providers while avoiding or mitigating potential adverse effects within the community.The
expectation is that the applicant and the local government will collaborate towards a satisfactory
siting of the antenna facility, and that relevant community concerns will be addressed.
b)Strategic Alignment:
Concerns related to environmental effects will have to be addressed prior to the municipality
providing concurrence with the consultation process. Potential environmental concerns relate to the
proximity of the watercourse on the subject property and the slope stability of the proposed siting of
the facility.The District may not have the jurisdiction to require the proponent to apply for a
Watercourse Protection Development Permit or a Natural Features Development Permit for this
purpose. However, the District can require the proponent to submit professional assurances from
qualified professionals prior to providing concurrence on the application.
4.3
-2 -
c)Citizen/Customer Implications:
The proponent reports that they are seeking to improve coverage near 272 Street from Lougheed to
Dewdney Trunk and east to 286 Street in Maple Ridge.The applicant states that the feasibility of
utilizing existing structures was investigated,but no other site was determined as suitable.
A number of respondents have expressed concerns about this facility.
d)Policy Implications:
Industry Canada’s Default Consultation Process
For cellular antennae siting, the District of Maple Ridge uses Industry Canada’s default consultation
process. This process allows the District to work directly with the applicant and indicate their
concerns to allow the applicant to address them.
Industry Canada's default process has three steps whereby the applicant:
1.provides written notification to the public, the District and Industry Canada of the proposed
antenna system installation or modification (i.e. public notification);
2.engages the public and the land-use authority in order to address relevant questions,
comments and concerns regarding the proposal (i.e. responding to the public); and
3.provides an opportunity to the public and the District to formally respond in writing to the
proponent regarding measures taken to address reasonable and relevant concerns (i.e.
public reply comment).
Public Notification
Applicants must ensure that the local public, the District and Industry Canada are notified of
the proposed antenna system. As a minimum, proponents must provide a notification
package (see Appendix 2) to the local public (including nearby residences, community
gathering areas, public institutions, schools, etc.), neighbouring land-use authorities,
businesses, and property owners, etc. located within a radius of three times the tower height,
measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure,
whichever is greater. For the purpose of this requirement, the outside perimeter begins at
the furthest point of the supporting mechanism, be it the outermost guy line, building edge,
face of the self-supporting tower, etc.
It is the proponent's responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at least 30 days for
written public comment.
In addition to these public notification requirements, as of November 2010, proposals
involving antenna-supporting structures that are 30 metres or more in height must place a
notice in a local community newspaper circulating in the proposed area.
Relevant concerns
Examples of concerns that proponents are to address may include:
Why is the use of an existing antenna system or structure not possible?
Why is an alternate site not possible?
What is the proponent doing to ensure that the antenna system is not accessible to the
general public?
How is the proponent trying to integrate the antenna into the local surroundings?
-3 -
What options are available to satisfy aeronautical obstruction marking requirements at this
site?
What are the steps the proponent took to ensure compliance with the general requirements
of this document including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), Safety Code
6, etc.?
Concerns that are not relevant include:
disputes with members of the public relating to the proponent's service, but unrelated to
antenna installations;
potential effects that a proposed antenna system will have on property values or municipal
taxes;
questions whether the Radiocommunication Act, this document, Safety Code 6, locally
established by-laws, other legislation, procedures or processes are valid or should be
reformed in some manner.
CONCLUSION:
It is noted that this application is in its required consultation phase, and its outcome is yet to be
determined.It is recommended that comments received be forwarded to the proponent.The
District’s practice in processing cell tower applications is in compliance with Federal guidelines.A
dispute resolution process has been outlined with the Federal policy. If this application is found to
be deficient in its notification, or if relevant concerns have not been addressed, the District will
withhold concurrence on this application.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by:Diana Hall
Planner
_______________________________________________
Approved by:Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by:Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence:J.L.(Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
DH/dp
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Subject Map /Aerial photo
Application Details (elevation of structure and site plan)
Map showing antennae locations within the District.
-4 -
-5 -
-6 -
-7 -