HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-04 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES –February 18, 2013
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Proposed Update Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw 7000-2013
Presentation by Brent Elliott, Consultant, City Spaces
Staff report dated March 4, 2013 recommending that the report titled “Proposed
Updated Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw 7000-2013 be received for input and
discussion and that the draft Zoning Bylaw be finalized and presented to an
upcoming Committee of the Whole for consideration to forward to Council for first
reading.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
March 4, 2013
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
March 4, 2013
Closed Council cancelled
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
March 4, 2013
Page 2 of 4
4.2 Wireless Industry Co-Location Research
Staff report dated March 4, 2013 recommending that report titled “Wireless
Industry Co-Location Research” be received for information.
4.3 Maple Ridge Commercial and Industrial Strategy – Consultation Process Update
Staff report dated March 4, 2013 recommending the report titled “Maple Ridge
Commercial and Industrial Strategy – Consultation Process Update” be received
for information.
4.4 Secondary Suites Review – Consultation Feedback Update
Staff report dated March 4, 2013 recommending that the report titled “Secondary
Suites Review – Consultation Feedback Update” be received for information
4.5 Vibrant Downtown Task Group Update
Verbal update by the General Manager of Community Development, Parks and
Recreation Services
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:
Council Workshop
March 4, 2013
Page 3 of 4
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
March 4, 2013
Page 4 of 4
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.
District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
February 18, 2013
The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on February 18, 2013 at
9:00 a.m. in the Blaney Room of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple
Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular Municipal business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor E. Daykin J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Ashlie K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor C. Bell Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor J. Dueck P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor A. Hogarth F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor B. Masse Services
Councillor M. Morden C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other Staff as Required
F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications
S. Wheeler, Director of Community Services
C. Carter, Director of Planning
J. Charlebois, Manager of Community Planning
L. Zosiak, Planner
Note: These Minutes are posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted with the addition of the following:
4.5 Property located at 240th Street and Dewdney Trunk Road
2.MINUTES
R/2013-064
Minutes It was moved and seconded
February 4, 2013
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of February
4, 2013 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil 2.0
Council Workshop Minutes
February 18, 2013
Page 2 of 4
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Bar Watch Update
• Inspector Dave Fleugel, Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment
Inspector Fleugel provided a PowerPoint presentation detailing the
progress of the Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge Bar Watch program. He
outlined the issues addressed through the program.
Inspector Fleugel spoke to the Community Safety Officer Pilot Program. He
advised that the pilot program is being reviewed and that municipalities
will be asked for feedback in the near future as to how to enhance this
program.
4.2 Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society (“KEEPS”)
- Kanaka Creek Stewardship Centre
• Ross Davies, KEEPS
• Wendy DaDalt, East Area Manager, Metro Vancouver
• Denise Coutts, Pacific Parklands Foundation
Mr. Davis gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining activities currently being
facilitated by KEEPS.
Ms. DaDalt advised on progress in the construction phase of the Kanaka
Creek Watershed Stewardship Centre facility and outlined potential future
programming. She also advised that the official opening of the new hatchery
is scheduled for April 21, 2013.
Ms. Coutts outlined contributions made toward the Kanaka Creek Watershed
Stewardship Centre and spoke to local initiatives and efforts to complete
Phase II for the community.
4.3 Ending Homelessness Action Plan
Staff report dated February 18, 2013 recommending that the Ending
Homelessness Action Plan be accepted as information and be included as
background information in the development of the Housing Action Plan.
The General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation
Services provided background information on the development of a housing
action plan for Maple Ridge.
Council Workshop Minutes
February 18, 2013
Page 3 of 4
The Director of Community Services introduced Michelle Ninow and Darrell
Pilgrim as representatives of a recently formed Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows
Katzie Housing Planning Table, a standing committee of the Maple Ridge Pitt
Meadows Community Network.
Mr. Pilgrim provided a history of the work being carried out currently by the
Housing Planning Table and outlined the groups engaged in the formation of
the homeless action plan.
Ms. Ninow provided a PowerPoint presentation giving an overview of the 2003
Homeless Action Plan and the action plan for 2012. She outlined facilities
currently available in Maple Ridge, the planning process involved in the
formation of the current plan, spoke to the current five year homeless action
plan and the three main issues to be addressed.
Note: Councillor Dueck left the meeting at 9:51 a.m.
The Director of Community Services reviewed the report.
R/2013-065
Ending Homelessness
Action Plan It was moved and seconded
Receive for information
Forward to SPAC
That the Ending Homelessness Action Plan be received as
information and be forwarded to the Maple Ridge Social
Planning Advisory Committee for comment.
CARRIED
4.4 Heritage Procedures Bylaw and Development Application Fee Amendment
Bylaw
Staff report dated February 18, 2013 recommending that the Heritage
Procedures Bylaw No. 6951-2012 and Development Application Fee
Amendment Bylaw No. 6952-2012 be forwarded to the February 26, 2013
Council meeting for consideration of first, second and third readings.
The Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation providing background, intent and
main components to be included in the heritage application. She spoke to the
heritage inventory and outlined application fees and guidelines and covenants
for a Heritage Revitalization Agreement and a Heritage Alteration Permit.
Council Workshop Minutes
February 18, 2013
Page 4 of 4
R/2013-066
Heritage Procedures
Bylaw; Development It was moved and seconded
Application Fee
Amendment Bylaw
Forward to Council
That the staff report dated February 18, 2013 titled “Heritage
Procedures Bylaw and Development Application Fee
Amendment Bylaw” be forwarded to the February 26, 2013
Council Meeting.
CARRIED
4.5 Property located at 240th Street and Dewdney Trunk Road
Councillor Hogarth requested further information be provided on property
owned by the District of Maple Ridge located south of Dewdney Trunk Road on
240 Street.
The Director of Planning advised that this property is not considered a
remnant property by the Agricultural Land Commission.
The General Manager of Public Works and Development advised that further
information pertaining to the property can be included in a forthcoming staff
report on industrial and commercial lands review.
5. CORRESPONDENCE - Nil
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8. ADJOURNMENT – 11:13 a.m.
_______________________________
E. Daykin, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 4, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Proposed Updated Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw 7000-2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Planning Department is pleased to submit for Council’s consideration the updated Maple Ridge
Zoning Bylaw 7000-2013. The attached draft Zoning Bylaw is the culmination of intensive review
and consultation, geared towards achieving the modernization and update of the current Zoning
Bylaw (No. 3510-1985) which is now almost three decades old.
The goal of the review is to achieve an updated Zoning Bylaw that:
Aligns with current regulatory language, Provincial legislation and policies in the 2006 Official
Community Plan;
Identifies and resolves issues/concerns raised by Council, the public, the development
community and various District Departments;
Responds to new market trends and the District’s sustainability goals and vision; and
Improves consistency and format to result in a Zoning Bylaw that is user-friendly, easily
interpreted, enforceable and effective in regulating land use in the District.
A Zoning Bylaw is, by its very nature, a complicated document being regulatory in nature, far reaching
in scope, and extensive in detail. The Zoning Bylaw is essentially the engine that powers and gives
form to the community vision as outlined in the Official Community Plan. Its impact is significant;
influencing directly both the form of the community as well as the activities and land uses permitted.
Given these characteristics, the Zoning Bylaw should be described as a living document. As such, it
should be both relevant and flexible enough to respond to new initiatives by Council, the market and
the aspirations of community and other interested parties. Changes and challenges to its provisions
may also arise from time to time, all necessitating changes. In fact, overriding provincial legislation
exists for this purpose in the form of: Development Variance Permits; Board of Variance appeals and
finally, Provincial Court legal challenges.
While this is the first major comprehensive review of the bylaw since 1985, many changes to the
bylaw have occurred since then and by necessity will continue to be made. Housekeeping
amendments are a normal occurrence that ensures long term maintenance and relevancy of the
bylaw. Current Council initiatives such as: Medical Marihuana Regulations, Amenity Zoning; the
Albion Flats Area Study and the Commercial and Industrial Strategy, may also necessitate some
change to the new Zoning Bylaw (No. 7000-2013).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the report entitled “Proposed Updated Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw 7000-2013” dated March 4,
2013 be received for input and discussion, and
That the draft Zoning Bylaw be finalized and presented to an upcoming Committee of the Whole for
consideration to forward to Council for First Reading.
4.1
- 2 -
BACKGROUND:
The District of Maple Ridge has had three comprehensive Zoning Bylaws since the early 1960s, each
of which acted as a foundation for the next and introduced new components that were relevant at
that time. Zoning Bylaws are regulatory and technical in nature and should be “organic” as they need
to evolve and react to new trends and policies and are expected to ensure consistency in
implementation and predictability in application. The District’s current Zoning Bylaw (No. 3510-
1985) is no exception to this and has been amended many times since 1985. Minor Zoning Bylaw
amendments have occurred on a fairly regular basis for many years. A comprehensive Zoning Bylaw
review is overdue.
DISCUSSION:
The Zoning Bylaw review began in earnest in 2010. Efforts focused defining the scope of the work,
which helped determine the resources, time and efficiency needed to complete the review. In
general, the scope of the review included the following: identification of issues, concerns,
discrepancies; re-formatting for ease of use and language; review of all zones & definitions for
consistency; possible consolidation of zones; intensive review of the commercial and industrial
zones; introduction of additional illustrations/ graphics as required; introduction of provisions that
reflect the goals of the District and are consistent with the Official C ommunity Plan policies; staff &
public consultation sessions as required; ensuring legality and updating zoning map and various
schedules.
Much of this work was accomplished internally with existing resources to reduce cost and to
streamline the review process when the consultant was hired. In the Fall of 2010, a consultant was
selected (Citi-spaces and Brook and Associates) to spearhead the technical review effort and
consultation process. Both consultants are qualified and experienced in this line of work and have a
good understanding of the importance of producing a clear, concise and user-friendly Zoning Bylaw.
In general, the consultant team, assisted by District staff, undertook a review of all sections of the
Zoning Bylaw.
In addition countless staff meetings, formal department working group meetings and a number of
technical and workshop sessions were head with developer representatives. The District is
extremely grateful to those parties and individuals identified on Schedule B of this report for
contributing there time and efforts in reviewing the draft new Zoning Bylaw. They provided both
useful feedback and constructive input. Many of their suggestions and improvements have been
incorporated in the new bylaw.
NEXT STEPS:
To finalize the bylaw a number of small formatting issues and adjustments of the illustrations and
diagrams are required. It is anticipated this could be done through March of 2013, with a possible
Committee of the Whole meeting in April/May and the public hearing in the June 2013.
- 3 -
CONCLUSION:
There is always a reason to postpone a review of the Zoning Bylaw as the next new initiative needs to
be incorporated into the bylaw, but it must be recognized that no Zoning Bylaw is truly finished. The
goal of this comprehensive review is to create a Zoning Bylaw that is clear, concise, and legally
enforceable. This has been achieved through the efforts of many interested parties. The Zoning
Bylaw Review is a significant piece of work.
While Zoning Bylaw 7000-2013 builds on its predecessors, it is new in some important ways. It is far
more user friendly and understandable to all user groups than before. The language tries to convey
complicated and technical issues in a simple language and even utilizes diagrams to do so. New
sections exist that have never existed before dealing with emerging issues such as; the District’s
sustainability efforts and comprehensive landscape and screening provisions. A Table of Contents,
consolidated Zoning Categories and an updated Definition and General Regulations section makes
Zoning Bylaw 7000-2013 a significant improvement that should serve the District well into the
future.
This report recommends that the bylaw be received for input and discussion. This report
recommends that with the input received from Council that the bylaw be finalized and placed on an
upcoming Committee of the Whole. At that Committee of the Whole meeting, Council will consider
forwarding the bylaw to Regular Council and First Reading and sending the bylaw to Public Hearing.
“original signed by Charles R. Goddard”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Charles R. Goddard BA MA
Planning Technician
“original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A – Consultation Participants
APPENDIX A
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 04, 2013
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Wireless Industry Co-Location Research
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
During the review of our telecommunications tower consultation policy, in November 2012, Council
expressed a desire for staff to investigate the feasibility of building a second District
telecommunications tower. As well, Council wished for more information on the locational protocols
being developed, in Vancouver and Surrey for example, to accommodate smaller scale
telecommunications antennas in rights-of-way.
Staff retained a consultant to assist in the research of wireless industry market demand and to
characterize the need for sites. The results of that investigation are contained in Appendix 1.
In summary, although the existing Grant Hill tower is in demand, there is strong or some interest in
four areas of the Municipality, and at the Operations Centre, for a co-location tower. However, many
of the respondents in the wireless industry were awaiting further market development, or more
research, before committing to any large tower co-location site. Several market representatives
identified their specific areas of interest, but the broader appeal of the identified areas was unclear.
There would be little justification to invest District resources to build a tower that would not be in full
demand.
To further define the future opportunities and constraints, staff will be following up with industry
representatives to determine the location and need for a shared tower site particularly focusing on
the sites of strong interest. As well, staff are investigating other business models that would require
no, or minimal, District investment in funding a tower build that would be located on District property
and that would yield a revenue stream.
The mobile phone industry were also interested in ‘infill’ situations, to address areas of poor cellular
reception. There was an obvious preference to locate on District lands or infrastructure in these
situations, but it looked to be more on a case-by-case basis. Staff plan on working our way through
these site specific interests as demand warrants.
This process of reviewing specific site needs with industry representatives has begun as District staff
have had meetings with Telus staff about colocation opportunities at the Operations Centre and on
District infrastructure along rights-of-way. These discussions are continuing.
Finally, Council also expressed interest in innovative efforts to locate smaller antenna structures in
public rights-of-way. There have been experiments, notably in Vancouver and Surrey, to prepare for
the evolution of cellular technology to the so-called “fourth generation” (ie - 4G). These involve
1 4.2
smaller antenna structures and associated support equipment on lamp posts, for example, along
rights-of-way. They are expected to be the wave of the future. However, some additional large
centralized towers will still be necessary across the community to support burgeoning demand for
wireless data services.
The demand for antenna space on District infrastructure in support of the new services may provide
significant potential revenue to the District for the future with limited land use impacts. Staff have
had preliminary discussions with one of the mobile phone service providers in the community,
regarding locating on District infrastructure in rights-of-way in support of the new technology
standard, and will be reporting back when locations and commitments become clear, and District
staff have resolved an application and review process.
Staff have also had meetings with other Municipalities, through a regional association, about
accommodating the new 4G technology standards in rights-of-way and will continue monitoring
efforts in those communities for possible application to Maple Ridge.
It is worthy of note, that District staff have also been negotiating with a cable service provider to
implement a Wi-Fi radio network in selected parts of the community. This project also meets
Council’s interest in innovative efforts to locate smaller antenna structures in support of modern
communications technology.
This Wi-Fi project is in support of the providers plans for data services in public spaces, but it also
has a public benefit component. The discussions are close to concluding an implementation plan
that meets the needs of the provider while yielding significant District and public benefits for no cost,
and staff will be returning with a report to Council seeking support for this plan when it is better
defined.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the report on wireless tower co-location research be received for information.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Council will recall the November 2012 discussions around a communications tower consultation
policy. Council adopted a policy directing those wishing to construct wireless communication towers
to follow a procedure to allow notification and increased public consultation of proposed works.
At that time, Council also expressed a desire to deal with wireless industry demands in a
comprehensive manner by developing a strategy to utilize Municipal lands and facilities first when it
comes to accommodating industry demand for tower locations. As well, during discussions there was
a desire expressed to consider innovative strategies to accommodate smaller wireless antenna
installations in the street right-of-way such as has been piloted in Vancouver and Surrey.
This memo updates Council on the status of feedback on our consultation policy, and provides the
status of staff investigations on the remaining two initiatives: the need for a second Municipal
telecommunications tower, and the demand for smaller scale wireless installations on District
infrastructure.
2
b) Consultation Policy Feedback:
The adopted communications tower consultation policy (November 2012) was referred to Industry
Canada at that time. There has been no feedback as yet from the agency responsible for approving
tower installations.
In addition, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) review of appropriate consultation
practices leading to the development of a model policy is not ready as yet. This may provide an
opportunity for the District to review our practices in comparison to a widely developed policy
recommendation. However, it will not be available until later this month, and will need to go through
an Industry Canada review before being considered for implementation.
Staff will be reporting back upon receiving the Industry Canada assessment of our policy, and the
Industry Canada review of the FCM proposals.
c) Second Municipal Tower:
The development of a second Municipal communications tower was seen as a companion strategy to
adopting a public consultation policy. Developing another tower could be a means to off-set
demands for construction of towers on private property by encouraging co-location onto Municipal
infrastructure, and perhaps raise a secondary revenue source.
Staff retained a consultant to investigate the market demand for a large tower, similar to the Grant
Hill installation, and the need for in-fill sites on Municipal facilities. The research involved
approaching 10 wireless service providers and users and seeking advice on their interests in Maple
Ridge. Their responses are detailed in Appendix 1.
In summary, although the existing Grant Hill tower is in demand, there is strong, or some, interest in
these locations:
- Approximately 248 St and 105 Avenue;
- 232 St south of Dewdney Trunk Road;
- Rock Ridge;
- Kanaka Industrial Park; and
- the Operations Centre.
Many of the respondents in the wireless industry were awaiting further market development, or more
research, before committing to any large tower co-location site. Several market representatives
identified their specific areas of interest, but the broader appeal of the identified areas was unclear.
There would be little justification to invest District resources to build a tower that would not be in full
demand.
To further define the future opportunities and constraints, staff will be following up with industry
representatives to determine the location and need for a shared tower site particularly focusing on
the sites of strong interest. As well, staff are investigating other business models that would require
no, or minimal, District investment in funding a tower build, but ones that would yield a revenue
stream and have manageable land use impacts.
3
Staff will need to focus on the areas of current industry interest and will be liaising with industry
representatives to determine if there is a role for the District at these locations.
d) Infill and Small Scale Installations:
The consideration of smaller scale wireless antenna installations in the road right-of-ways, as has
been experimented with in Vancouver and Surrey, is not applicable to Maple Ridge at this time.
Vancouver and Surrey have been experimenting with such installations with the wireless industry as
they concentrate their upgrades to new technology in areas of high demand. Presently, Maple Ridge
is not considered a high priority area. These wireless service upgrades involve moving to the latest
generation of wireless technology, dubbed 4G for fourth generation, which will see the development
of many smaller tower and antenna installations closer to areas of demand in order to service the
high data needs of “smart phone” users.
In discussions with industry representatives, there is some interest in securing access to right-of-way
infrastructure in certain neighbourhoods in support of this new technology standard. Staff will be
reviewing the target areas, and defining terms and conditions under which the installations could
proceed. District staff have had meetings with staff from other regional Municipalities to review
policies and practices in support of the new technology standards, and will be reviewing the outcome
of experiments in Surrey and Vancouver for application to Maple Ridge.
Where there is demand for small scale installations in our community is in areas of poor cellular
reception. Some sites have been noted in our discussions with industry representatives, and we
have several follow-up meetings planned in the next couple of months to more clearly flesh out the
industry needs. Appendix 1 identifies wireless interests in ‘existing’ District infrastructure from
specific service providers.
It is worthy of note as well, that District staff have also been negotiating with Shaw Communications,
a cable service provider, to implement a Wi-Fi radio network in selected parts of the community. This
project also meets Council’s interest in innovative efforts to locate smaller antenna structures in
support of modern telecommunications technology.
This Wi-Fi project is in support of Shaw’s plans for data services in public spaces, but it also has a
public benefit component. The discussions are close to concluding an implementation plan that
meets the needs of the provider while yielding significant District and public benefits for no cost.
Staff will be returning with a report to Council seeking support for this plan when the terms are better
defined.
e) Policy Implications:
The results of the research into co-location indicate that the most likely publicly acceptable location
for a large tower would be on Municipal property in an isolated area. Unfortunately, some of these
locations are not high on the priority list of wireless service providers, unless they are offering a
direct point-to-point radio connection. The point-to-point radio service providers are not particularly
interested in Maple Ridge at this time.
For cellular service providers, smaller installations in areas of demand (eg – commercial and
residential areas) seems to be where the immediate interests lie, with some interest in larger towers,
but again closer to areas of demand.
4
Given such industry and market driven influences, it will be difficult to find collective solutions where
a District investment in tower infrastructure will off-set the undesirable land use impacts on
neighbourhoods.
Nonetheless, it can be expected, as demand warrants, service providers will be very interested in
District infrastructure to support an antenna installation and will not object to sharing the “right”
locations to ensure the augmentation of their services and the success of their investments.
In support of the new 4G technology standards, staff will have to develop, and implement with
Council support, locational, review and approval policies and practices.
f) Alternatives:
The District could take a more passive role in influencing the locational and design considerations
for telecommunications towers. This approach would leave the industry to find and build their own
towers where they can negotiate a desirable outcome, typically on private property.
Given earlier Council direction, this is not the preferred choice. There are advantages to promoting
co-location of service providers equipment, and in potentially gaining a secondary revenue source for
the District. Efforts in this area will continue.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff investigated, with the help of a consultant, wireless industry demand for co-location space and
the need for a second Municipal tower. The research canvassed the needs of 10 wireless service
providers or users. The results are noted in Appendix 1.
The results of the research showed strong interest in selected sites, and limited interest in others.
On-going discussion with respect to the areas of interest will continue, particularly as industry needs
crystalize over the future.
One area of current interest for a colocation opportunity is in the Operations Centre. There is
presently a telecommunications tower installation at the Centre and there is interest, from at least
one service provider, to replace that tower and relocate there.
There was also definite interest in utilizing existing District infrastructure from the cellular service
providers. However, it seemed to be more to infill areas of poor reception. Staff have more meetings
planned with industry representatives to get more detail on specific sites.
As well, there is work on the future needs of the wireless industry going on in other communities,
particularly Vancouver and Surrey. The efforts in those communities involves developing siting and
servicing protocols to accommodate small wireless antennas in rights-of-way. Staff have on-going
discussions with staff members at those cities and will be further investigating these efforts to see
how applicable they are to the District context at the appropriate time.
Staff will be returning with updates for Council consideration on these initiatives at the appropriate
time.
5
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: John Bastaja
Director Corporate Support
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill
General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn
General Manager, Public Works and Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
6
"Original signed by John Bastaja"
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule
Appendix 1 Wireless Co-Location Demand Response
ICT Consult, January 2013
Rock Ridge
High Tower
256 Reservoir
High Tower
Kanaka
Industrial
Park High
Tower
Bosonworth
High Tower
Other High
Tower
Existing
District
Infrastructure
Company #1 Not required Not required Not required Not required Possible
requirement
(Blue
Mountain)
Not required
Company #2 Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required
Company #3 Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required
Company #4 Not required Not required Not required Not required Possible
requirement
Not required
Company #5 Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required
Company #6 Not required Not required Not required Not required Grant Hill
higher site
possible in
future
Not required
Company #7 Might have
requirement
(could
respond later
in year)
Might have
requirement
(could
respond later
in year)
Might have
requirement
(could
respond later
in year)
Might have
requirement
(could
respond later
in year)
Might have
requirement
(could
respond later
in year)
Interested -
would like
more info.
Company #8 Interested
but more
analysis
required
Interested
but more
analysis
required
(lower
priority)
Some interest
but lower
priority
Not much
interest
Approx. 248
St. and 105
Ave. &
possibly 232
St. south of
Dewdney
Trunk
Interested
Company #9 Strong
requirement
No
requirement
Requirement No
requirement
Requirement
in Ops Centre
area and
possibly
Cottonwood
landfill
Interested -
strong
interest in
street
infrastructure
Company #10 Not required
(At this time)
Not required
(At this time)
Not required
(At this time)
Not required
(At this time)
Not required
(At this time)
Not required
(At this time)
Company #11 Not required Not required Not required Not required Not required Possibly
interested.
Requested
additional
info.
Wireless
Operator
Co-Location Demand
7
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 4, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Commercial & Industrial Strategy – Consultation Process Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The approved 2012 Business Plan included the preparation of a Commercial and Industrial Strategy.
Through 2012 GP Rollo and Associates completed the draft Strategy, and presented their key
findings and recommendations to Council at the November 26, 2012, Council Workshop. At that
meeting, the following Resolution was passed:
That the Commercial & Industrial Strategy, prepared for the District of Maple Ridge by GP
Rollo and Associates, be received for information and input.
On November 28, 2012, the consultants also discussed the draft Strategy with the Economic
Advisory Commission.
The proposed next step in the study’s consultation process is to engage key business and
community stakeholders in two focus group workshops to discuss the commercial and industrial
recommendations outlined in the Strategy.
Following the focus group workshops, Council will be presented with the final Commercial and
Industrial Strategy for endorsement along with a summary of recommendations for their
consideration, prior to discussions with the community at an open house event.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the March 4, 2013 report entitled “Maple Ridge Commercial & Industrial Strategy –
Consultation Process Update, be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Progress
The following timeline outlines the steps completed to date, in the preparation of the Strategy.
•February 20, 2012. Council endorsed the process as outlined in the staff report titled
“Maple Ridge Commercial and Industrial Strategy Process Report”.
•April 23, 2012. GP Rollo & Associates was the successful proponent of the Request for a
Proposal.
•June 11 & 12, 2012. Focus group workshops were held with key stakeholders.
•July 9, 2012. Council Workshop. Council was presented with initial findings and stakeholder
input from the June Focus Group Sessions.4.3
• July 25, 2012. Presentation to Economic Advisory Commission outlining initial findings and
stakeholder input from the June Focus Group Sessions.
• November 26, 2012 Presentation of Strategy and Recommendations to Council. Council
passed the following resolution.
That the Commercial & Industrial Strategy, prepared for the District of Maple Ridge
by GP Rollo and Associates, be received for input and discussion.
• November 28, 2012 Presentation of Strategy and Recommendation to the Maple Ridge
Economic Advisory Commission.
Key Employment Messages
One of the District’s long-term employment and economic development goals is to improve the ratio
of jobs to housing. To address this challenge, the District must focus on retaining and supporting
existing businesses, as well as attracting new businesses to locate in the District.
The key messages that have been drawn from the Commercial and Industrial Strategy have been
organized into the four categories of:
• Commercial strategies;
• Industrial strategies;
• Office Space; and
• Home Occupation.
Sections 7 and 8 of the draft Strategy also outline short, medium and long-term time horizons for
commercial and industrial uses. An overview of these time horizons is provided in a later section of
this report, and will be the subject of more detailed discussion with Council following the conclusion
of the consultation program.
Employment Strategies:
Terminology
The terms ‘commercial’ and ‘industrial’ is the common terminology used in North America, to
describe most employment-based land uses. However, both terms can mean different things based
on the context within which they are used, particularly when it comes to discussing different forms of
employment. Chapter 6 of the Official Community Plan outlines the ‘employment’ principles,
objectives and policies for a wide range of employment generating land uses, and uses both terms
as Land Use Designations on Schedule “B”, and the Regional Growth Strategy also uses the term
‘industrial’ as one of the Regional land use designations.
‘Commercial’ is often interpreted to only mean shopping or retail activities, but it also includes
activities such as professional services and offices, financial services and restaurants. ‘Industrial’
can be more problematic as is conveys images of factories with heavy machinery and noxious uses.
In Maple Ridge, the term industrial is also used to describe our local business parks and other
2
employment activities that can be designed to be more sensitive to surrounding land uses such as
residential neighbourhoods.
Commercial Employment
One of the key messages of the commercial component of the draft Strategy is the recognition that
the District has an adequate supply of commercially-designated lands, especially with the
commercial employment contemplated as part of the Albion Flats development, but that the supply
must be managed, promoted and retained for future development. These considerations may be
summarized as follows:
• Commercial land plays an important role within the community to meet local consumer
wants and needs.
• Commercial land uses can also play an important role in the urban environment, by framing
the public realm and creating inviting and vibrant streetscapes. As such, it is important to
ensure that development permit guidelines for commercial and mixed-use developments
are well-defined and followed, specifically within the Town Centre.
• Community and Neighbourhood commercial nodes also contribute to creating complete
communities by providing services and amenities that are often incorporated into or within
walking distance of one or more neighbourhoods.
• Commercial areas in the District often have distinct functions associated with them. The
linear commercial development along Lougheed and Dewdney Trunk Road in west Maple
Ridge, clearly serves the motoring public. Neighbourhood and Community commercial
nodes offer convenience shopping to those residing in the vicinity. The Town Centre is the
commercial and cultural centre of the District and by far the greatest draw.
• Due to its importance, special attention is given to the Town Centre. Recommendations
include continuing with civic investment to create a rich cultural experience, and an
emphasis on the role and successes of the incentive program.
• Emerging areas such as Silver Valley have designated commercial spaces that need to be
preserved for the long term, to ensure the intent of the Area Plan and the River Village and
local commercial land uses in the hamlets can be achieved.
Industrial Employment
The District of Maple Ridge is faced with challenges in meeting long term demand for suitably
located industrial Land. These challenges and suggested options for addressing them are outlined
as follows:
• Currently, the 256th Street Industrial area is not suitable for many industrial use tenants who
need direct access to key transportation linkages such as the Golden Ears Bridge. It may be
attractive to those looking for value priced industrial land or those attracted to lifestyle
opportunities in Maple Ridge. Once and east-west connection is complete, this area may see
an increase in demand for larger industrial uses.
• Industrial land is necessary for promoting economic growth beyond population serving
businesses.
• The existing industrial land base should be preserved and not eroded by non-industrial uses.
To support this need large format commercial uses should be removed as a permitted use
from the Business Park Zone.
• There is a long-term need to identify more industrial land within the District. Strategies to
address this need include emphasizing employment generating options for new area plans,
such as Albion Flats, Hammond, and potentially, the Thornhill Urban Reserve.
3
• Potential sites within and adjacent to the Urban Area Boundary should be assessed for
conversion to employment activities, while recognizing the challenges that accompany infill
and redevelopment. These challenges include slopes, streams, geotechnical concerns, and
the need for compatibility at the interface with residential uses.
• The draft Strategy further notes that pursuing ALR exclusions for future land supply is a risky
strategy that should only be pursued in the long term future if other initiatives prove
insufficient for meeting future demands for industrial employment lands.
• One option Council may wish to consider is the creation of a new ‘General Employment’ land
use that could accommodate employment activities such as office uses, business services
and professional services in a form that is compatible with adjacent or surrounding
residential neighbourhoods. Infill development criteria could be established to provide visual
buffers, landscaping requirements and setbacks to help preserve the character of the
surrounding neighbourhood(s).
Industrial Employment Incentives
Council expressed their interest in discussing potential incentives for industrial activities at a future
Workshop. Potential sites were identified as part of the November 26, 2012 Council Workshop
presentation for this purpose, which also included the Albion Industrial Park. A range of challenges
are associated with each of these sites. It is important to recognize that a “one size fits all”
approach to developing an incentive program will likely not be appropriate or successful. Prior to
developing such a program, further investigation is necessary to outline the challenges and
potentials of each site.
Office Space
GP Rollo and Associates have identified the following regional trends:
• Mixed use formats, and high amenity, transit accessible environments are the most
desirable locations for meeting forecasted office space demand. This demand is based on
forecasts prepared by GP Rollo and Associates.
• As it meets these needs, the Town Centre is well poised to accommodate this demand.
• Forecasts suggest that about three quarters of this demand will be met in the Town Centre.
• One quarter of this demand will be located in business park formats.
Home Occupation Sector
This sector may have significant growth potential. Currently, the District has little differentiation in its
regulations for urban home occupation compared to rural home occupation.1 However, the District
has an option to expand these uses, particularly in a rural context. The District has a large number
of rural properties, and likely has untapped potential in this resource. Its current regulations for
home occupation use are significantly more restrictive than those of the Agricultural Land
Commission (which has jurisdiction over many properties within the District of Maple Ridge). In
addition, other rural based municipalities have greater differentiation in their home occupations, and
include larger scale production or cottage industries that may offer an affordable option for new
business starts. While recognizing the promise of expanded opportunities, a key consideration in
reviewing bylaws for home-based businesses is to be responsive to business needs while remaining
compatible in a residential, agricultural, or rural context. Recognising this potential, the Maple Ridge
Strategic Economic Initiatives Department is reviewing Home Based businesses further as part of
their 2013 Business Plan. The Planning Department will provide support as needed for this review.
1, Home occupation can include a wider range of uses in agricultural or rural zones than within the Urban Area
Boundary. In addition, rural home occupation uses can occur in an accessory residential structure, but in
urban settings, they must be contained within the principal dwelling unit.
4
Other Employment Considerations
Continue to support the Strategic Economic Initiatives Department
The Strategic Economic Development Department administers the Town Centre initiatives
program, which provides financial incentives to those whose business investment complies with
the desired direction of the community.
Sectors with growth potential
A recommended approach for the District is to focus on sectors with significant growth potential.
For instance, business services, (including Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) are under-
represented in the District of Maple Ridge. This sector, which provides almost 20 % of regional
employment but only 11% of Maple Ridge employment, may be well poised for expansion in the
local market.
Sectors that serve a wider market
Sectors that serve a market base beyond the local community, such as manufacturing, and
information technologies, are important for offering greater employment opportunities for
residents, generating additional investment, enhancing local businesses and creating a larger
tax base to pay for municipal services and amenities.
Cultural industries and tourism can be important for attracting spending to the community. New
educational facilities that attract a broader regional or global student enrolment will provide
local employment opportunities that are not dependent on local population growth.
Time Horizons
As identified earlier in this report, Sections 7 and 8 of the draft Strategy identify short, medium and
long-term time horizons for various aspects of the commercial and industrial employment base. As
part of the implementation of the Strategy, these time horizons will be further reviewed through the
proposed next steps in the consultation program and included in a future report for Council’s
consideration and discussion.
It is anticipated that the short and medium-term time periods will help inform the annual Business
Planning discussions for the foreseeable future.
Consultation Program
The following table outlines the general steps in the consultation process that is being followed for
the completion of the Strategy. It is recommended that two additional focus group workshops be
held prior to the public open house, to discuss the content of the draft Strategy with the participants
from the focus group workshop held in June 2012.
5
WORK ITEM COMMENT COMPLETION
DATE (revised)
Step 1 Establishing Baselines, Evaluating Information, and Notifying the Community
Process Report to
Council
Council endorsement of project
February 2012
Preparation of
Communications
Materials
Using District resources, prepare
communications materials to engage
stakeholders during the public consultation
process.
February–June
2012
Public Engagement Notification that the strategy process has
commenced. Contact information to be
provided.
June 2012
Presentation of initial
findings
Once background studies have been
completed, this information will be
presented to Council prior to proceeding to
Step 2.
July 2012
Step 2 Preparation of the Commercial & Industrial Study
Development of
Strategy options
Presentation of G.P. Rollo Report
Nov. 26, 2012
Council Workshop Consultation process update March 4 2013
Focus Group Sessions Host 2 focus group sessions, one will be
aimed at getting targeted feedback on
Commercial recommendations; the other,
on Industrial recommendations.
Early May
2013
Public Open House
Strategy options presented in an open
house format with opportunities for input.
June 2013
Council Workshop Council endorsement of the Strategy and
approval to move to Implementation Plan.
July 2013
Step 3 Finalization of Commercial/Industrial Strategy
Implementation Plan Council approval of the Implementation
Plan.
Fall 2013
6
Focus Group Sessions
The purpose of a second set of focus group workshops is to present the stakeholders the draft
Strategy and to obtain their feedback on the recommendations and time horizons outlined in the
Strategy. In order to undertake this next round of consultation in the most effective way possible, it
is recommended that the discussion of commercial and industrial employment be separated into two
focus group workshops as discussed in the following section of the report.
Workshop Format
Two focus group meetings and one public open house. One of the focus groups will review the
Commercial component of the Strategy and the other group will review the Industrial component. It is
anticipated that the participants for both focus group workshops will be comprised of those who
participated in the initial focus group workshops in the summer of 2012. The main goal of the focus
groups will be to identify and help prioritize the key elements of the Strategy that require attention in
the short and medium-term time horizons.
It is anticipated that both focus group workshops will be completed by early May 2013.
Public Open House
Following the focus group workshops, an open house will be held to provide an opportunity for the
public to understand the process that was followed to prepare the draft Strategy and to provide
comments on the proposed strategies, priorities and anticipated time horizons for each.
The public open house is expected to be held by mid-June 2013.
Notification
Letters of invitation will be sent for the two focus group workshops, to participants from the June
2012 session. In addition, advertisements of the open house will be placed in successive editions of
the local newspaper, posted on the Districts website and invitations will be sent to earlier
participants.
PLANNING ANALYSIS:
Policy Implications
The Maple Ridge Commercial and Industrial Strategy provides a timely review of the status of
economic activity in the District. It is an important component that will contribute to and inform
other work, such as area planning, that will be undertaken by the District in the coming few years. It
will also assist the District to meet the policy goals outlined in the Official Community Plan, and may
also provide information about the potential pacing of development, which will have
interdepartmental implications for municipal works and for the Strategic Economic Initiatives
Department.
Official Community Plan
Policy 6-4 of the Official Community Plan states:
6-4 Maple Ridge will conduct a commercial and industrial lands strategy as part of a
comprehensive review of the Urban Area Boundary. The identification of new employment
generating lands such as commercial or industrial areas outside of the Urban Area
Boundary, prior to a comprehensive review of the Urban Area Boundary will be considered
premature. The strategy will be developed in cooperation with Provincial and Regional
agencies, including the Greater Vancouver Regional District [Metro Vancouver] and the
Agricultural Land Commission.
7
As outlined, a key component of the Commercial and Industrial Strategy is the identification of
employment generating lands to meet future needs. To meet this goal, the draft Strategy identifies
potential policy and land-use amendments. Should Council indicate their desire to amend portions
of the Employment chapter of the Official Community Plan or land use designations on Schedule “B”,
discussions with Metro Vancouver and the Agricultural Land Commission will be required. The draft
Strategy has also investigated the feasibility of changing residential designations within the Urban
Area Boundary to establish more employment generating lands.
CONCLUSION:
Creating a District-wide Commercial and Industrial Strategy is the culmination of several years of
policy work in the District of Maple Ridge and a key goal of the Official Community Plan. Further work
is needed to implement the recommendations of the Strategy.
A process has been outlined for proceeding with the Strategy. Additional input about the Strategy
recommendations will be obtained in a focus group format from key stakeholders. This information
will then be forwarded to a public open house, giving the broader community an opportunity to
comment on the Strategy. Council will be presented with a summary of the consultation and a series
of recommendations to implement the Strategy. It is anticipated that the consultation program and
discussion with Council may identify Official Community Plan policy amendments as well as changes
to current District bylaws, such as the Zoning Bylaw. The implementation plan will also provide
Council with the anticipated time horizon associated with each strategy.
The anticipated completion date for the Strategy Implementation Plan is fall 2013.
“Original signed by Diana Hall”____________________
Co-Prepared by: Diana Hall, MCIP, RPP
Planner
“Original signed by Jim Charlebois”________________
Co-Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Community Planning
“Original signed by Christine Carter”_______________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”___________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule____________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
8
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 4, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Secondary Suites Review –Consultation Feedback Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2012, Council had a number of discussions regarding secondary suites and temporary residential
uses. In July 2012, the process for completing the Secondary Suite Review was endorsed by
Council, directing staff to undertake a review of the District’s current policies and regulations, and to
identify a comprehensive list of issues and their potential solutions. A significant component of the
process is consultation through focus groups, online questionnaires and a public open house.
This report provides an update on the feedback received from the consultation program and
highlights the next steps in the Review process.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report dated March 4, 2013 and titled ‘Secondary Suites Review – Consultation
Feedback Update’ be received for information.
Background
Secondary suites have been permitted in Maple Ridge since 1999. In 1999 Council amended the
Zoning Bylaw to allow secondary suites in a limited number of single family residential zones with
minimum lot areas of 557m2 or greater. The intent was to provide affordable and rental housing
options, as a ‘mortgage helper’ and in recognition of the increasing number of illegal suites in the
District.
The Temporary Residential Use Bylaw was created to provide an option for homeowners wanting to
house a family member and as a result did not require the same degree of Building Code upgrades
to the unit.
Despite attempts to regulate secondary suites and temporary residential uses, illegal suites continue
to be an issue in the District, creating neighbourhood concerns related to parking, maintenance,
emergency response and Building Code compliance. Secondary suites are currently not permitted in
smaller residential zones including CD-1-93 (Amenity Residential District), R-3 (Special Amenity
Residential District), R-1 (Residential District) or R-2 (Urban Residential District). Recently, the
District has come under increasing pressure from developers and builders to allow secondary suites
on smaller residential lots, such as the R-1 Residential District zone.
Public feedback suggests there is general acceptance that secondary suites are an important type of
housing form.
4.4
2
The purpose of this report is to provide for Council’s consideration:
a summary of the input received during the consultation activities of this review
a broad summary of the issues associated with secondary suites and temporary residential
units, to investigate options and ideas to assist in resolving issues.
Process
As endorsed by Council on July 16, 2012, the Secondary Suites Review process included the
following tasks:
1. Establishment of a Staff Working Group Representatives from Planning,
Licences, Permits & Bylaws,
Fire and others as required;
Completed
2. Preparation of an online questionnaire General issues related to
secondary suites and
temporary residential uses;
Completed
3. Research Policies, regulations and
practices of other Lower
Mainland municipalities and
2011 Census information;
Completed
4. Focus Group Workshops local community groups and
organizations, developers and
builders;
Completed
5. Community-wide open house event Completed
6. Issues Summary Report Key messages and options for
Council consideration;
Current stage
7. Council Update Policy options and
recommendations for Council
consideration
Spring/Summer
2013
The Issues Summary (Task 6) and Consultation Program (Tasks 2, 4 & 5) are iterative, building on
the research, consultation and analysis of the project as these tasks occur.
Council Resolutions
Council has passed three Resolutions related to secondary suites, the first on April 16, 2012:
“That staff be directed to prepare a report identifying a comprehensive list of issues and
options pertaining to Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses.”
On this same date, Council received a delegation from the development community expressing
concerns with the District’s current practice of prohibiting direct access to basements.
A second Council Resolution on May 22, 2012 related to suites in the compact single family
residential zones:
“That staff be directed to explore the possibility of a restrictive covenant to deal with
illegal suites in the R-1, CD-1-93, R-2 and R-3 zones.”
3
A third Council Resolution on July 16, 2012 related to reporting the process of the Secondary Suites
Review. In addition to outlining a process with staff complements, it recommended specific
consultation activities, including an online questionnaire, focus group workshops, and a public open
house. Receiving this information, Council passed the following resolution:
“That the Secondary Suites Review process outlined in the staff report titled “Secondary
Suites and Temporary Residential uses – Process Report, dated July 16, 2012, be
endorsed.
Council also directed that the practice of reviewing building permits to prohibit direct access to
basements and the use of tumbler lock and key systems discontinue pending review of this issue as
a component of the Review.1
The Review is intended to provide a broad summary of the issues associated with secondary suites
and temporary residential units, to investigate options and ideas to solve the issues and to
recommend a set of policy and/or bylaw amendments for Council’s review and consideration.
Housing Action Plan
The Regional Growth Strategy encourages municipalities to prepare and implement Housing Action
Plans. The Maple Ridge Housing Action Plan is an ongoing initiative that is scheduled for completion
in the summer of 2013. The Housing Action Plan will also align with regional housing goals and
objectives in the District’s Regional Context Statement, which is included in the Official Community
Plan.
This review has important implications for the supply of rental and affordable housing in Maple
Ridge. The Secondary Suites Review forms part of the background information that will contribute to
the completion of the Housing Action Plan.
Preliminary Issues List
As part of the Review, Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive list of issues relating to
secondary suites and temporary residential uses. As part of the discussions with Council, the
following issues have been identified:
Existing Zoning Bylaw provisions - zones that permit secondary suites and temporary
residential uses;
Building design;
Owner occupancy requirements;
Challenges with enforcement of illegal suites;
The use of restrictive covenants;
BC Building Code requirements and potential equivalencies;
Lot sizes, subdivision design and parking impacts & implications; and
Regional approaches that may be applicable in Maple Ridge.
1 A tumbler lock has a cylinder which rotates to move a bolt; tumblers are pins; inserting the key lifts and aligns the pins to
free the cylinder to rotate. The issue with a tumbler lock and key system is when it is put on an external door to a
basement it provides direct access; facilitating the potential for a secondary suite. Previously, Council directed staff to
prohibit this practice at the building permit stage; sliding doors were accepted. The practice is currently being upheld
pending the outcome of the Secondary Suites Review.
4
Policy Implications
Chapter 3.2 of the Official Community Plan - Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing, outlines
the Principles, Objectives and policy framework for encouraging the provision of a variety of housing
forms, including secondary suites. The key themes and options contained in this report will provide
Council with ways to maximize the benefits of Secondary Suites and Temporary Residential Uses in
and for the community, while mitigating or avoiding potential neighbourhood problems.
Inter-departmental Working Group
The Inter-departmental Working Group was established in early fall 2012. Its membership includes
staff from the Planning, Engineering, Parks & Leisure Services (Social Planning), Licences, Permits &
Bylaws and Fire Departments. This working group has contributed ideas and resources to the
development of the Consultation activities, including a series of Questionnaires, Focus Group
sessions, and a public open house.
CONSULTATION PROGRAM
To ensure that there was meaningful participation for the three consultation activities, participants
were invited through newspaper advertisements, and targeted emails sent to stakeholders known to
have an interest in this issue. Stakeholders included developers, affordable housing groups, and
other community organizations. The online questionnaire and the focus groups were held in
November. The open house event was held on February 13, 2013 and featured a questionnaire that
was also posted online, closing on February 25, 2013.
Summary of Comments received
The following key messages were identified, based on the Consultation received through the Online
Questionnaire, the Focus Groups, and the Public Open House:
Owner Occupancy was strongly supported on the basis that it was perceived to contribute to
better upkeep of property and less transitory nature of neighbourhoods.
There is strong support for secondary suites as an important component of the housing
market:
Strong support was expressed for existing parking requirements being adequate where
secondary suites were present (current regulations are 2 off-street parking stalls for the
principle dwelling, and 1 for the suite).
On-street parking is contributing to congestion, creating difficulty for fire access, and is
changing the feel of established neighbourhoods especially with smaller lots.
Support was expressed for continuing to allow tandem parking.
There was support for basing the allowance for a secondary suite on lot size instead of on the
zoning of the property.
There was support for allowing a separate entrance at the rear of smaller lots. One comment:
Elimination of exterior doors limits purchasers flexibility which is a bad idea. You
should not have to carry everything through your living room to get to the basement.
There was strong support for requiring “suite ready” for new construction of a single-family
dwelling unit.
5
Creating Options for Consideration:
Public feedback so far indicates widespread acceptance of secondary suites as an appropriate
housing form. In addition, there is support for continuing to require owner occupation in the principal
dwelling where a secondary suite is allowed. Based on the comments noted above, the following
components provide the framework for creating options. The framework components are:
Pursuing Compliance: identification of the appropriate opportunities/process/capacity for
enforcement. The issue of Bylaw Enforcement was a significant issue in 1999 during the
establishment of the existing secondary suites program, and was extensively discussed by
Council deliberation. Under the adoption of Council Policy 5.43 Bylaw Enforcement of Legal
Suites, staff were directed to commence enforcement action on:
homes that were not owner occupied;
homes with a restrictive covenant;
homes with more than one suite; and
detached suites.
This policy remains in effect today. In practice, upon receipt of a complaint, Bylaw
Enforcement would undertake an investigation. If the suite is located in a zone that allows
this use, where possible, the property owner is given an opportunity and a time frame to
bring the unit into compliance with Building Department requirements. If the suite is not
located in a zone that allows this use, the property owner is given a timeframe to have the
illegal suite removed.
During the recent consultation events, discussions around the enforcement of secondary
suites arose. Some residents felt strongly that zones that did not allow for suites should be
aggressively enforced, while others thought that the District enforcement staff should turn a
blind eye and only enforce problem properties.
Building Code Equivalencies: The District is interested in outlining Building Code
requirements for Secondary Suites that can be linked with existing practices to assist
homeowners with retrofitting existing suites and constructing new suites. The Building
Department confirms that this is a work in progress, but a completion date has not yet been
defined.
Zoning: The identification of additional zoning criteria for Secondary Suites, such as lot size,
lot coverage and minimum requirements have been identified for review. On balance, there
was support in the community for prohibiting this use on smaller lots. However, it is
understood that within the District there are some properties with a greater parcel size than
the minimum required by zone. The question was raised about whether the criteria for
permitting secondary suites should be a condition of lot size. In particular, there is a
Comprehensive Development Zone (CD-1-99 Comprehensive Development) that permits a
single family use based on the parcel size of the RS-1b One Family Urban Residential Zone.
However, secondary suites are not allowed in this zone, even though they are allowed in the
RS-1b One Family Urban Residential Zone.
Parking Requirements: The recent consultation activities indicate that most respondents felt
that the existing off-street parking requirements of 2 stalls for the principle dwelling unit and
1 stall for the secondary suite were adequate. Paradoxically, however, concerns around
parking were by far the most frequently expressed during all of the consultation activities,
6
particularly in areas that have smaller lot sizes, in areas where illegal secondary suites are
an ongoing issue or neighbourhoods with reduced road standards.
Owner Occupation. At the outset, the relevance of this requirement was questioned.
However, this requirement is strongly supported within the community. It is felt to be a key
component of respecting neighbourhood character.
Restrictive Covenants. In May 2012, Council directed that staff explore the placement of a
restrictive covenant on the title of newly created lots, and this is an item that will be explored
as a component of the secondary suites review.
Between 1994 and 2001 the Approving Officer under direction from Council, required that a
Single Family Residential Use Restrictive Covenant be registered on the title of all new lots
created. The Covenants stated that the property can only be used for single family purposes,
and a secondary suite is not permitted on these properties. During this time frame, concerns
were raised regarding this practice, which included the lack of a level playing field (i.e older
homes could have a suite, but newer homes could not). There were also concerns with the
effectiveness of the covenants, noting that it was not unusual for a property owner to be
unaware of the restriction (the actual wording of a covenant is not present on a title search, and
generally requires additional research in order to be accessed).
In February 2001 Council passed a Resolution directing that “the Approving Officer be directed
to discontinue the practice of placing the single family residential use restrictive covenant on the
title of new lots created” (resolution R/01-72).
Council also directed that property owners wishing to clear their title of the covenant to “prepare
and present the Municipal Clerk, for execution, a discharge document for their property”
(Resolution R/01-73). Many of those historic covenants remain.
Design Review: The issue of a separate rear access to a basement on small lots requires
further discussion. The supporting reasons relate to convenience for the homeowner, and
the rationale for relaxing this standard seems supportable. However, the experience of
Bylaw enforcement staff suggests that this design feature is highly correlated with illegal
suites. Further review is required, but this issue will not be easy to resolve.
A recent suggestion that was widely supported was to require all newly constructed single family
structures (in compliant zones) to be made “suite ready”, meaning that fire separation
requirements, as well as rough-ins for the basement plumbing and electrical systems, would be a
requirement of final occupancy. This requirement would lend itself to code compliant retrofits,
and could assist in increasing the supply of safe affordable rental housing.
Temporary Residential Uses (TRUs): Concerns have been raised by the Working Group about
these uses, as they can readily lead to their use as illegal suites, once the initial
circumstances (i.e to provide housing for a relative) are no longer valid. This was raised as a
concern in the consultation activities, although it was not widely reported.
7
Next Steps:
A number of issues raised by Council, the Staff Working Group, and through consultation activities
require further consideration. The next steps of this review process include a report to Council with
the following:
Detailed options and recommendations for each issue.
Recommended Bylaw revisions and amendments to the Zoning Bylaw, the Off -Street Parking
Bylaw
CONCLUSION:
Since secondary suites were first allowed in the District more than a decade ago, there have been
changes to single family housing forms, the Building Code, and the housing market. The analysis in
this report has identified the current issues associated with secondary suites and temporary
residential uses, and summarized the extensive consultation activities to develop a range of
potential options for Council’s review.
The findings of this work suggest that there is strong support for secondary suites as affordable
housing in the District.
In coming months, the issues identified in this report will be examined in detail and a set of options
and recommendations for each issue will be prepared for Council’s consideration.
“Original signed by Siobhan Murphy”
____________________________________________________
Co-Prepared by: Siobhan Murphy, MA, MCIP, RPP
Planning Technician
"Original signed by Diana Hall"
____________________________________________________
Co-Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA, MCIP, RPP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM, Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer