HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-14 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES –April 30, 2012
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Transportation Plan Update -Presentation by John Steiner,Urban Systems
4.2 Amenity Zoning -Update
Staff report dated May 14, 2012 recommending that the staff report dated May
14, 2012 providing an update on the process, scope of work and timeline for the
amenity zoning review be received for information.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
May 14, 2012
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
May 14, 2012
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
May 14,2012
Page 2 of 3
4.3 Design Criteria –Small Lots
Staff report dated May 14, 2012 recommending that staff be directed to amend
the Zoning Bylaw for small lots with regard to external basement doors.
4.4 Matrix Update
See attached revised Matrix (Appendix I)
Forwarded from the April 30, 2012 Council Workshop Meeting
5.CORRESPONDENCE
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
Recommendation:
6.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8.ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
May 14,2012
Page 3 of 3
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 property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition 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 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 litigation 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;
(j)information 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 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;
(l)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 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 consideration of whether the authority 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 Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 14, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Amenity Zoning - Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In May 2011 Council briefly discussed the topic of zoning for amenities and the potential use in
Maple Ridge. The May 2011 staff report included an overview of the provisions for amenity zoning in
the Local Government Act, the principles of amenity zoning and the context for Maple Ridge.
However, given that the Town Centre Incentive Program was just starting to gain momentum and the
uncertain status of the economy at that time, Council deferred any detailed discussion on the issue
to Business Planning..
As part of the 2012 Work Program, Council approved a review of Amenity Zoning and its potential
use in Maple Ridge. The Amenity Zoning Review has been awarded to CitySpaces Consulting, the
consultant engaged in completing the new Zoning Bylaw.
Since Council’s discussion on Amentity Zoning to this point has been relatively brief , components of
the May 2011 report have been included in this report for Council’s information and further
discussion. This report also provides Council with an update on the process, scope of work and
timeline for the Study.
Input from the discussion on this report will be forwarded to CitySpaces.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the staff report dated May 14, 2012 be received for information and discussion.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
In 2011 the concept of amenity zoning as a potential mechanism to achieve amenities was
raised with Council. Council deferred discussion on the topic to the 2012 Business Plan. As part
of the Planning Department’s 2012 work plan, Council approved funding for a review of amenity
zoning. As Council is aware, the Zoning Bylaw is nearing completion and is expected to be
forwarded to Council for First Reading in June. The Amenity Zoning Review has been awarded to
CitySpaces Consulting who are preparing the Zoning Bylaw.
Other than a brief discussion in 2011, Council has not had a detailed discussion on amenity
zoning. The following overview provides context to the work being done by CitySpaces. Prior to a
4.2
2
presentation to Council on a draft amenity zoning framework, Council’s consideration of this will
be helpful input for the work being undertaken by CitySpaces.
b) Amenity Zoning - Overview:
Local Government Act
The underlying principle of amenity zoning is to acquire a community benefit by permitting
additional density to be built on a specific site. It is also referred to as density bonusing. The
ability to utilize amenity zoning is governed by Section 904 of the Local Government Act as
outlined below:
Zoning for amenities and affordable housing
904 (1) A zoning bylaw may
(a) establish different density regulations for a zone, one generally applicable for the
zone and the other or others to apply if the applicable conditions under
paragraph (b) are met, and
(b) establish conditions in accordance with subsection (2) that will entitle an owner
to a higher density under paragraph (a).
(2) The following are conditions that may be included under subsection (1) (b):
(a) conditions relating to the conservation or provision of amenities, including the
number, kind and extent of amenities;
(b) conditions relating to the provision of affordable and special needs housing, as
such housing is defined in the bylaw, including the number, kind and extent of
the housing;
(c) a condition that the owner enter into a housing agreement under section 905
before a building permit is issued in relation to property to which the condition
applies.
(3) A zoning bylaw may designate an area within a zone for affordable or special needs
housing, as such housing is defined in the bylaw, if the owners of the property
covered by the designation consent to the designation.
Section 904 empowers a local government to indicate areas where increased density will be
allowed if amenities for community benefit are provided. Essentially, each zone could clearly set
a base density for development and then an enhanced density where a provision for an amenity
contribution is provided.
Amenity Zoning Principles
The Provincial Government issued some clarifying guidelines in 1997 soon after Section 904
was added. Those guidelines combined with municipal experience since then have created some
guiding principles for this approach:
3
The amenity should benefit the area in which it is located so that the neighbourhood
which is absorbing the new growth is the recipient of the benefit;
Density bonuses should not be used to fund infrastructure that would normally be funded
by property taxes, DCC’s or other mechanisms;
Municipalities are discouraged from using density bonuses as a means of raising cash
and were advised that a bylaw requiring money in exchange for development could be
declared invalid. This does not preclude pooling of contributions to achieve a larger
amenity but a municipality must clearly define the purpose of and reason for the cash
contribution;
Base zoning levels should not be so low that all rezoning applications are required to
provide an amenity. Basic zoning rights to build a suitable building in a particular zone
should be retained;
The type of amenities being requested need to be clearly identified as necessary;
Amenity zoning can be applied throughout the municipality or be tailored for specific
areas;
Recouping the entire value attributed to a property after a rezoning occurs (commonly
known as lift) is unlawful. Some municipalities attempt to recoup this “lift” in value
through “voluntary” contributions but legal advice indicates that this is unlawful;
Formulas for achieving amenity zoning should be clear, well thought out and easily
accessed.
Amenity Zoning Tools
As communities grow, so too does the cost of that growth. New residents and new employers
place demands on infrastructure and community facilities which must be expanded or upgraded
to meet increased need. Every municipality must have a strategy to pay for capital costs that are
necessary to create strong and attractive communities.
Municipalities are largely dependant on income from property taxes and contributions to
development cost charge funds to help pay for new infrastructure, but there are often also
opportunities for provincial and federal funding or funding from less traditional sources like
gaming revenues. While it is possible to accommodate all capital costs through property taxes
and DCC contributions, it may not always be practical do so. Generally property tax rates are
established to cover municipal operating costs and a portion of capital costs but not all the costs
associated with growth.
The practice of seeking amenities or financial contributions from development projects is
becoming more common in B.C. but is not universally accepted as appropriate. Those on the
development side tend to view fees and infrastructure costs as burdens and poi nt to them as a
contributing factor in the increase of housing in Metro Vancouver. They feel that it is unfair to
charge new development for the amenities that benefit the whole community and should,
therefore, be funded by the whole community or at least to make a “fair” contribution to those
costs.
Local government, on the other hand, is struggling to fund the needs of growing communities
and provide both “hard” and “soft” infrastructure to their citizens in a fiscally responsible way.
Traditional tools such as capital programs and the collection of DCC’s are proving to stretch the
limits of municipal coffers and their ability to deal with development pressures.
4
There are basically three main tools available to municipalities which allow them to acquire
infrastructure from growth. They are:
Direct provision of works or lands;
Development Cost Charges;
Zoning based contributions or amenity zoning
Direct provision of works or lands is the most routine method used for the acquisition and
construction of infrastructure. Development projects are required to construct or pay for works
and services that are adjacent to development sites or that are directly required to serve the
proposed development. Section 941 of the Local Government Act also enables mun icipalities to
require the dedication of 5% of the site area for parkland dedication. Council is familiar with both
these methodologies as they are regularly used in development projects in Maple Ridge.
Development Cost Charges are a means of collecting fees from all projects so that these fees
can be pooled to fund area wide infrastructure improvements necessitated by growth. DCC’s can
be collected for water, sewer, roads, drainage, and park land acquisition; must be expended on
the purpose for which they were levied; and must be spent within the geographic area in which
they were collected. DCC’s cannot be used to raise revenue for recreational facilities, cultural
facilities, library, emergency service facilities or other important community facilities. Council is
familiar with DCC’s and their application as they are regularly used in Maple Ridge.
Zoning based contributions or amenity zoning is an area that some municipalities have
investigated in order to acquire funding for those items that are not provided for through the
other two areas of funding mentioned. As indicated earlier, the ability to use amenity or density
bonusing is given through Section 904 of The Local Government Act. This section indicates that
the zone should specify the number, kind, and extent of amenity that is being provided. This
suggests that amenities should be well-defined and in the form of an actual physical amenity
provided on the site that is contributing. For example, a childcare space or open space could be
provided on the development site making the contribution. However, and particularly in Maple
Ridge, many development projects are too small to actually accommodate a physical amenity on
site or the amenity is too large to be accommodated on the site. Consequently, some
municipalities have developed a cash-in-lieu approach to contributions so that every project can
obtain bonus density by contributing to a fund that is used to provide community amenities.
While there are different ways to structure an amenity or density bonus zoning system, the
principle behind them is basically the same – the Zoning Bylaw defines a base density that can
be achieved without an amenity contribution and then defines additional density that can be
achieved if the project provides an amenity (or cash-in lieu). In all cases, the development must
still meet all other requirements of the development process and the Zoning Bylaw.
Common Practices from other Metro Vancouver Municipalities
The following are examples of some of the practices being utilized by municipalities in Metro
Vancouver.
1. Surrey – used in new residential development areas. Zoning allows developers to build low
density residential development with no amenity contribution or build higher density in
exchange for cash contributions toward parkland development, library books, community
buildings, etc. The amount of higher density given and the expected amenity are laid out in
5
the Zoning Bylaw so sites can develop without rezoning. This eliminates the zoning “risk” f or
the developer;
2. Burnaby – allows bonus density in multi-family zones in their four town centers. The zones
specify a base density that can be built with no amenity contribution and additional density
that can be built if an amenity is offered. Developers interested in building the bonus density
are required to rezone in a comprehensive development zone for each site. Burnaby
calculates the value of the additional floor space on a case by case basis and asks for
amenity contributions for each project. Amenity categories are contained within the Zoning
Bylaw and staff suggest to the developer which type of amenity would be appropriate. This
approach is labour intensive and requires case by case analysis.
3. Vancouver – operate under different legislation than other communities so their approach is
not transferable to communities outside Vancouver. They currently expect $3 per square foot
from smaller, simpler rezoning outside of the Downtown and negotiate for either cash or in -
kind community amenity contributions for all other rezoning.
4. New Westminster – have been negotiating amenity contributions from all rezoning on a site
by site basis. They are working towards a more comprehensive approach for larger, more
complex applications.
5. Port Coquitlam – considering applying amenity provisions in one townhouse zone after
receipt of their report on amenity contributions from a consultant.
6. Pitt Meadows – do not have provisions for amenities based on additional density, due to
parking issues related to the high water table in the municipality, but they do take a voluntary
contribution for recreational amenities for single family ($2500 per unit) and multi family
($1200 per unit) developments.
Maple Ridge Context
The Official Community Plan acknowledges the community need and benefits that may be
achieved by utilizing amenity or density bonuses. Section 2.3 Financial Sustainability indicates
that efficiencies can be accomplished by “identifying potential sources of non-traditional
revenues to diversify the tax base.” Policy 3-30 says: “Maple Ridge will undertake a further study
to consider density bonuses as a means of encouraging the provision of affordable, rental and
special needs housing and amenities.” Section 11.1.2 Official Community Plan Implementation
Strategy also acknowledges that a study on density bonuses would be a part of the strategy
dependent on Council decisions during business planning.
The Official Community Plan also offers a density transfer provision in the Albion Area Plan
section for the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands. Under this provision, current
zoning is utilized and property owners have the potential to transfer a maximum of 2.5 units per
net hectare to a more buildable part of the land thereby protecting the environmentally sensitive
lands. This provision has not been widely used in Albion but has been effective in some
situations. Additionally, it applies to the entire area and it is clearly laid out so that the terms of
the transfer are evident to all involved.
When the RM-6 Regional Town Centre High Density Apartment Residential zone was created,
density bonus provisions were built into the zone in order to encourage certain forms of
6
development in the Town Centre. Extra density was added to the building for providing parking in
an underground structure, non-market housing units, and for achieving various levels of LEED
rating system. The District did not receive any community amenities from this increase but chose
to have all the benefits attached to the individual property. As with the example in Albion, the
regulations are adopted within the Zoning Bylaw, apply to all who may use this zone and are
plainly evident to anyone who may wish to use them.
One of the issues that will need to be factored into any approach to amenity or density bonus
zoning is the need to base the amenity provisions on factors that are attractive to the developer
so that they will want to utilize the provisions. In any amenity approach, the developer must be
able to easily analyze the benefit of the extra density and measure that against the cost of the
amenity. The density is the valuable factor in that formulation. In addition, as the developer
should easily be able to identify the benefits, so should the community. The community benefits
from granting extra density must be clearly evident to all involved. The methodology, the
locations in which the bonus applies, the amount of the bonus and the value of the amenity
received must be identifiable and publically accepted. All of these issues should be discussed
and analyzed for their applicability to Maple Ridge as a strategy is formulated.
Amenity Zoning Study
In order to achieve the best alignment with the Zoning Bylaw Review, staff CitySpaces Consulting
has been contracted to complete the Amenity Zoning Review. CitySpaces is currently in the
process of finalizing the amended Zoning Bylaw and as such has the experience and knowledge
of that process to provide a seamless alignment between the two bodies of work.
As part of the Amenity Zoning Study, CitySpaces also includes G. Paul Rollo and Associates to
ensure that the Study is reflective of development realities in Maple Ridge and analysis of a
number of ‘typical’ development scenarios.
The work program for the Amenity Zoning Review includes:
1. Develop the Maple Ridge Context –build on the discussions that have already occurred
as part of the Zoning Bylaw Review; outline the legislative authority; identify a variety of
tools that could be considered; and identify key priorities for the District.
2. Amenity Zoning Brief – to summarize the regulatory background, pros and cons of the
various approaches and tools considered and best practices from other Metro Vancouver
municipalities. This stage will also include the economic review by GP Rollo and
Associates.
3. Council Workshop – to provide Council with a detailed information package on the
regulatory authority, options and economic assessment of a draft amenity zoning
framework. This stage will also include a process for aligning the Amenity Zoning Study
with the Zoning Bylaw Review, including an anticipated timeline for completion. This
workshop is expected to occur in mid to late July.
4. Consultation – on the proposed Amenity Zoning Framework with the Zoning Bylaw
Working Group for additional input, feedback and comments prior to presenting the final
draft to Council.
7
5. Zoning Bylaw Regulations – following Council’s final direction on the components desired
for amenity zoning, to be prepared and incorporated into the larger Zoning Bylaw Review.
Albion Area Plan Amendment
Council has directed the Planning Department to undertake a review of the densities within the
northern portion of the Albion Area Plan (north of 108th Avenue). An Open House has been
scheduled for Wednesday May 30, 2012 to discuss the proposed density increases with the
neighbourhood.
As part of the work the CitySpaces team will be undertaking, a market review of development
impacts can be partially focused on the proposed changes within the Albion Area Plan area.
Examples of the types of amenity zoning components CitySpaces will be asked to evaluate will
include:
Parkland improvements
Affordable Housing
Contributions for community facility upgrades, renovations or new construction.
Staff will provide Council with an update from the Open House at the Ju ne 18, 2012 Council
Workshop. At that time, options for amenity zoning within the Albion Area Plan area will also be
presented for Council’s discussion.
Council will recall that as part of the Albion Area Plan work discussed at the March 27, 2012
Council Workshop, there are a number of development applications for single and multi-family
residential within the north Albion area. At that time, the following process was presented to
Council:
“2. Applications that are in-stream or new, but have not proceeded on to Public Hearing, are
proposed to be deferred until such time as the Albion Area Plan Amendments proposed in
[that] report, are presented at Public Hearing and given Third Reading by Council.”
c) Interdepartmental Implications:
Representatives from other departments will be invited to participate in the initial staff workshop
and throughout the process as necessary.
d) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
This project has been included in the Planning Department’s 2012 Business Plan with a
maximum budget of $25 000. The scope of work, including the requested consultation
component will not exceed that amount.
CONCLUSIONS:
Council has approved a budget for the Amenity Zoning Study as part of the Planning Department’s
2012 Business Plan. The proposed process, scope of work and timeline will provide Council with
8
detailed information from which to provide direction on the components that are to be incorporated
in the draft Zoning Bylaw for approval. Council’s input at this stage will be beneficial to the Review.
Additionally, as the developer should easily be able to identify the benefits, so should the community.
The community benefits from granting extra density must be clearly evident to all involved. The
methodology, the locations in which the bonus applies, the amount of the bonus and the value of the
amenity received must be identifiable and publically accepted. All of these issues should be
discussed and analyzed for their applicability to Maple Ridge as a strategy is formulated.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP
Manager of Community Planning
_______________________________________________
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
"Original signed by Jim Charlebois"
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
"Original signed by Charles R. Goddard"
for
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: May 14, 2012
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Design Criteria – Small Lots
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 16th, 2012, Council discussed a report entitled: “Secondary Suites and Temporary
Residential Uses”. Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive list of issues and options
pertaining to this topic and report back. That work is currently underway, however one of the issues
identified in the report namely, the practice of limiting through design the potential for illegal
secondary suites on small lots, has some currency. As such this report is seeking Council direction
on this issue.
In 1999 the Zoning Bylaw was amended to permit secondary suites in a limited number of large
format (557 sq. m and greater) single family zones. At that time as part of this discussion staff was
directed to discourage the creation of illegal secondary suites on smaller lots through use of design
elements. This was done to deal with the rising tensions among neighbours over issues such as:
lack of street parking; emergency access concerns; appropriate building design and general
complaints relating to illegal secondary suites. This was implemented by the use of a Development
Permit for intensive residential lots (R-3) and discouraging R-1 zoned house designs that have
independent external doors to the basements, no second basement kitchens, limited basement bar
sinks and counter sizes and good internal connectivity with the other areas of the house. While
these measures do not prevent the illegal installation of a secondary suite in zones where the use is
not permitted, they do make it harder to do so and reduces the need for enforcement against illegal
secondary suites. This practice has been in place since 1999.
This design review process has given rise to a measure of resistance among some developers and
builders. They point to the fact that the restrictions are not codified in the Zoning Bylaw and thus are
practice driven. Although used for many years and accepted by developers in the past, currently
some developers are questioning the design limitations, especially the non-allowance of an external
tumbler lock side door to the basement. Sliding doors are accepted. The contention is that the
District should not pre-judge what a future home owner may or may not do to his/her basement.
Conversley the District has the right and responsibility to regulate land uses and structures that are
built and inevitably is drawn into public debate and conflicts between neighbours on issues related
to parking and illegal uses.
Should Council wish these design elements to continue to be implemented then an amendment to
the Zoning Bylaw will be made. This report also provides an alternative for Council’s consideration
which would see the practice discontinued and no amendment to the Zoning bylaw on th is issue
being advanced.
4.3
2
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to amend the Zoning Bylaw for small lots (R-1, CD-1-93, R-2 and R-3) to codify
the current practice with regard to external basement doors.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
On April 16th, 2012, Staff prepared for Council a report entitled: “Secondary Suites and Temporary
Residential Uses”. Council instructed staff to prepare a comprehensive list of issues and options
pertaining to this topic and report back. One of the issues identified in the report was the practice of
Planning Department staff reviewing Building Permits on small lots to limit the potential for illegal
secondary suites.
In 1999 Council took the important step of amending the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites in
a limited number of large format (557 sq. m and greater) single family zones. This was done to
increase affordable housing options in the District, as well as, to deal with the rising tensions among
neighbours over issues such as: lack of street parking; emergency access concerns; appropriate
building design and general complaints relating to illegal secondary suites. As part of this solution
staff was directed to review building permits on smaller lots to discourage the creation of illegal
secondary suites. This was done by the use of a Development Permit for intensive residential lots (R-
3) and discouraging R-1 zoned house designs that have independent external doors to the
basements, no second basement kitchens, limited basement bar sinks and counter sizes and good
internal connectivity with the other areas of the house. While these measures do not prevent the
illegal installation of a secondary suite in zones where the use is not permitted, they do make it
harder to do so and makes enforcement against illegal secondary suites easier.
This design review process has recently given rise to a measure of resistance from some developers
and builders. They point to the fact that the restrictions are not codified in the Zoning Bylaw and
thus are practice driven. Although used for many years and accepted by developers in the past, the
practice has recently been questioned, especially the non allowance of an external side door to the
basement. Some developers believe the District should not pre-judge what a future home owner
may or may not do to his/her basement. The reverse argument is the District has the right and
responsibility to regulate land uses and structures that are built and inevitably is drawn into public
debate and conflicts between neighbours on issues related to parking and illegal uses.
b) Existing Bylaw Provisions and Practice:
In 1999 the Zoning Bylaw was amended to contain provisions to regulate the use of secondary
suites. However, with the exception of permitting only one set of cooking facilities per dwelling unit,
the Zoning Bylaw has no limitations on the design of single family residential buildings. The case is
different for R-3 zoned lots because they are considered intensive residential development and like
townhomes and apartments, are subject the Section 920 of the Local Government Act and must
therefore obtain a Development Permit (DP). The DP controls the form and external design and
character of the resulting homes. The R-3 lot DP’s often do not show basements at all and if they do,
the practice for the past decade has been to not allow external side doors into them.
Based on discussions with Council when the secondary suite provisions were adopted, it was clear
efforts needed to continuing to prohibit the spread of secondary suites in small lots where they were
not deemed appropriate by Council. As such, staff continued to review building permits for the R-1,
3
CD-1-93, R-3 and now the R-2 zones with the intent of discouraging conversions of basements into
illegal secondary suites. Central to this effort has been the rejection of plans showing external side
doors fitted with tumble lock and key systems. Staff has suggested there replacement with sliding
doors into the rear yards which are less convenient for secondary suite use. Some developers and
builders have opted for this solution or simply placed the side door into the garage rather than the
basement. Acceptance of a small basement bar sink and counter top area have also been
implemented over the years to allow the basement to be more functional.
c) Issues:
For over a decade the Planning Department staff has been reviewing Building Permits on smaller lots
with the intent of limiting the potential of illegal secondary suites. Many projects have been built
with either no external side doors or unfinished basements with strong interconnection to the main
living areas of the home. While undoubtedly some illegal secondary suites continue to grow in small
lot areas, their growth has been made more difficult without permitting basement side doors.
There has been some concern expressed by some developers and builders to this review but most
understand the Zoning Bylaw prohibition and the problems that have arisen in areas containing
unregulated suites. They contend that the basement side door is an issue of convenience to the
buyer and that the District can still enforce against the owner who installs an illegal secondary suite
through the normal enforcement avenues.
d) Alternatives:
While understandably illegal suites have been built in small lot developments, the use of the practice
of not permitting external side doors has had a measure of success in reducing the amount of
enforcement required. However, an alternative is to discontinue this practice. Under this alternative
there would be a greater reliance on the homeowner not to avail of easier access to install a suite.
This may be an acceptable risk in order to accommodate owners who simply prefer a tumbler lock
door to a sliding door.
CONCLUSION:
The current legislation and review practice pertaining to secondary suites has been in place for over
a decade. This report outlines the issues that have arisen with respect to the staff review of Building
Permits and efforts to limit the illegal conversion of basement areas to secondary suites by design
restrictions. It is recommended that Council direct changes to the Zoning Bylaw to codify the current
practice with regard to external basements doors.
____________________________________________________
Prepared by: Charles R Goddard BA MA
Manager of Development & Environmental Services
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
General Manager, Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
"Original signed by Charles R. Goddard"
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Council Work Schedule Matrix 2012 (January 1 to September)APPENDIX 1
ITEM DIVISION
DATES OF
COUNCIL
MEETINGS
STATUS AND COMMENTS
1 BC Hydro - Smart Meters Admin January 23 Complete - Presentation provided
2 Council Matrix C&FS January 23 Complete - Review; adopted at the January 24,
2012 Council Meeting
3 2012 Property Assessments
Review
C&FS January 23 Complete - Presentation provided
4 Albion Flats Plan PW&DS January 23 Complete - Discussion on Agricultural Land
Commission comments; recommendation
adopted at the January 24 Council meeting
5 E-Comm C&FS February 6 Complete - Presentation provided
6 Albion Flats Plan PW&DS February 6 Complete - additional discussion not requested
at this time
7 Building Bylaw PW&DS February 6 Proposed amendments - rescheduled to April
30, 2012
8 Fire Department C&FS February 20 Complete - Update provided
9 RCMP Contract C&FS February 20 Complete - Update provided February 6
10 Commercial/Industrial Review PW&DS February 20 Complete - Process review
11 Neighbourhood Traffic Calming PW&DS February 20 Complete - Initiatives Process Report eg. River
Road, Shady Lane, 132 Avenue
12 Customer Service Standards
Initiatives Update
PW&DS February 20 Complete - Progress report
13 Council Compensation Admin March 5 Complete - Policy review - recommendation that
Council remuneration remain as that paid in
2011 adopted at March 27, 2012 Council
Meeting
13 Council Compensation Admin March 5 Complete - Policy review - recommendation that
Council remuneration remain as that paid in
2011 adopted at March 27, 2012 Council
Meeting
14 Town Center Incentive Admin March 5 Complete - Program update - forwarded to the
March 13 Council meeting for presentation
15 Cultural Mapping Report CDP&R March 5 Complete - Report on results
16 Zoning Bylaw PW&DS March 5 Complete - Zoning Bylaw review update
17 Recreation Vehicles and Tents PW&DS March 5 Complete - presentation provided on
Recreational Vehicle Parking/Storage
18 Healthy Community Initiatives CDP&R March 19 Update on work with Fraser Health Authority -
rescheduled to June 4
19 Preliminary Year End Results C&FS March 19 Complete - preliminary year end results
20 Business License Bylaw - Update
on Mobile Licence
PW&DS March 19 Complete - Council input received; bylaw to be
finalized and forwarded to Council for first
reading; anticipated for June 2012
21 Municipal Property Downtown PW&DS March 19 Complete - review of development of property
process - process endorsed
4.4
Council Work Schedule Matrix 2012 (January 1 to September)APPENDIX 1
ITEM DIVISION
DATES OF
COUNCIL
MEETINGS
STATUS AND COMMENTS
22 Citizen Survey Admin April 2 Complete - presented on April 16
23 Wildlife Interface Management
Strategy
CDP&R April 2 Complete - Update by Conservation Officer
24 Bear Aware Program CDP&R April 2 Complete - overview of program
25 RCMP C&FS April 2 Complete - update provided
27 Sign Bylaw Review PW&DS April 16 Complete - verbal update - rescheduled from
April 2
28 Secondary Suites Temp Res Use
Update
PW&DS April 16 Complete - update provided on April 16 -
rescheduled from April 2
29 Resident Only Parking PW&DS April 30 Policy discussion - rescheduled from April 16
29 Council Matrix Update C&FS April 30 Review - received; add updates; report back to
future Council meeting for adoption
30 Business Planning Guidelines C&FS April 30 Complete - Proposed guidelines presented
31 Food Waste and Yard Trimmings
Collection
PW&DS April 30 Policy discussion - resolution put forward to
bring in consultant - report back to Council
32 On-line Services Review C&FS
PW&DS
May 14 Update
33 Reserve Accounts C&FS May 14 Complete - presentation provided April 2
34 Albion Flats Plan PW&DS May 14 Further discussion if required
35 Amenity Zoning PW&DS May 14 Update
36 Transportation Plan Update PW&DS May 14 All mode of transportation, eg. Vehicles,
walkability, cycling etc. - rescheduled from April
30
36 Transportation Plan Update PW&DS May 14 All mode of transportation, eg. Vehicles,
walkability, cycling etc. - rescheduled from April
30
37 Special Events CDP&R June 4 Town Centre Events update
38 Silver Valley Parks Update CDP&R June 4 Process update
39 Community Development Policy CDP&R June 4 Update - rescheduled from April 16
40 Tax Rate Survey C&FS June 4 Annual survey results
41 Dog Control Bylaw PW&DS June 4 Consolidation of existing bylaws
42 BC Hydro - Ruskin Dam Project PW&DS June 4 Date to be confirmed with BC Hydro
43 TransLink Update Admin June 18 Date to be confirmed
44 Economic Development Update Admin June 18 Presentation
45 Firefighter's Park CDP&R June 18 Process update
46 Affordable Housing Strategy CDP&R June 18 Process update - rescheduled from May 14
47 RCMP Integrated Teams Update C&FS June18 Chief Superintendent Janice Armstrong
48 Flood Plain Fill Policy PW&DS June 18 Progress report - rescheduled from April 30
49 BC SPCA PW&DS June 18 Presentation on the Spay/Neuter Program for
cats
Council Work Schedule Matrix 2012 (January 1 to September)APPENDIX 1
ITEM DIVISION
DATES OF
COUNCIL
MEETINGS
STATUS AND COMMENTS
50 Port Haney Neighbourhood
Change Project Report
CDP&R July 9 Neighbourhood group update on change
process51Neighbourhood Development
Initiatives
CDP&R July 9 Update of projects
52 Library Update CDP&R July 9 Presentation
53 Vacant Building Review C&FS July 9 Policy discussion - rescheduled from April 30
54 Customer Service Standards
Initiative
PW&DS July 9 Update
55 Community Services Update CDP&R July 16 Presentation
56 2011 Annual Report C&FS July 16
57 Capital Works and Development
Tour
PW&DS July 16 Update
58 Silver Valley Municipal Lands Admin Sept 10 Status update
59 Parks, Recreation and Culture
Master Plan
CDP&R Sept 10 Proposed progress update - rescheduled from
April 16
60 Allocation of money set aside for
Agriculture - Policy
C&FS Sept 10 Update
62 Permissive Tax Exemptions C&FS Sept 10 Update
63 Resident Only Parking PW&DS June Staff to develop policy addressing resident
parking issues in residential neighbourhoods
adjacent to areas of high demand such as
hospitals, transportation or commercial hubs -
see Item 29
64 Diversion of Organic Waste as
Mandated by Metro Vancouver’s
ISWRMP
PW&DS June That staff retain services of a consultant - see
Item 31
64 Diversion of Organic Waste as
Mandated by Metro Vancouver’s
ISWRMP
PW&DS June That staff retain services of a consultant - see
Item 31
65 Cell Tower Discussion Admin Sept 10 Policy discussion
Legend
Abbreviation
Admin
CDP&R
C&FS
PW&DS
Administration (includes SEI and Sustainability)
Community Development Parks & Recreation
Corporate and Financial Services
Public Works & Development Services