Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-18 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdf City of Maple Ridge 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES • June 20, 2017 Council Workshop Meeting • July 4, 2017 Council Workshop Meeting 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4. MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS 5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Sport & Physical Activity Strategy Update Presentation by Christa Balatti, Recreation Manager Health & Wellness COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA July 18, 2017 6:00 p.m. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. REMINDERS July 18, 2017 Audit and Finance Committee Meeting 5:00 p.m. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. July 25, 2017 Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Workshop July 18, 2017 Page 2 of 4 5.2 Backyard Chickens – Discussion Paper Staff report dated July 18, 2017 recommending that a backyard chickens program be developed to permit the keeping of chickens in residential areas. 5.3 Home Based Business Review Follow-up and Proposed Consultation Plans Staff report dated July 18, 2017 recommending that the proposed Home Based Business Consultation Program be endorsed. 5.4 Donation Bins within the City of Maple Ridge Staff report dated July 18, 2017 discussing options and regulatory requirement for a permit structure to allow donation bins from charitable organizations to be placed on City owned property. 5.5 Outdoor Pool - Reconsideration of a motion according to Maple Ridge Council Procedure Bylaw 6472-2007 Part 17 Reconsideration of the following motions from the staff report dated July 4, 2017 providing options to pursue or not pursue an outdoor pool. A. That staff be directed to move forward with the process identified on page 3 of the report dated July 4, 2017, and report back to Council on potential locations for an outdoor pool, including any viable City owned lands and other locations including full cost implications; or B. That staff do not pursue an outdoor pool. 6. CORRESPONDENCE 7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL Links to member associations: • Union of British Columbia Municipalities (“UBCM”) Newsletter The Compass o http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/main/resources/past-issues-compass/2016- archive.html • Lower Mainland Local Government Association (“LMLGA”) o http://www.lmlga.ca/ • Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”) o https://www.fcm.ca/ Council Workshop July 18, 2017 Page 3 of 4 8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 9. ADJOURNMENT Checked by: ___________ Date: _________________ Council Workshop July 18, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting Section 90(1) 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 receipt 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. Section 90(2) A part of a council meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (a) a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , if the council is designated as head of the local public body for the purposes of that Act in relation to the matter; (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party; (c) a matter that is being investigated under the Ombudsperson Act of which the municipality has been notified under section 14 [Ombudsperson to notify authority] of that Act; (d) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public must be excluded from the meeting; (e) a review of a proposed final performance audit report for the purpose of providing comments to the auditor general on the proposed report under section 23 (2) of the Auditor General for Local Government Act . 2.0 Minutes 2.0 City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES June 20, 2017 The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on June 20, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. 0BPRESENT Elected Officials Appointed Staff Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture Councillor K. Duncan P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services Councillor B. Masse F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Councillor G Robson Services Councillor T. Shymkiw L. Darcus, Manager of Legislative Services Councillor C. Speirs A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary 1BOther Staff as Required 2BR. MacNair, Manager of Licences and Bylaws Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted (as circulated) (with the addition of the following R/2017-249 It was moved and seconded That the agenda for the June 20, 2017 Council Workshop Meeting be approved as circulated. CARRIED 2. MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the June 6, 2017 Council Workshop Meeting R/2017-250 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of June 6, 2017 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED Council Workshop Minutes June 20, 2017 Page 2 of 4 3. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 3.1 Business Licence Reconsideration Hearing for Weeds Glass & Gifts Ltd. Mayor Read read the following statement: This hearing is convened under subsections 60(1) and (5) of the Community Charter to consider whether the application for a business license by Don Briere to operate the Weeds Glass and Gifts Ltd. at 11771 – 225th Street, Maple Ridge should be approved or refused. It is up to Council to determine if the license application should be approved or if there is a “reasonable” basis to refuse the license application. I will chair this hearing and will say a few words relating to procedure before we commence. This hearing is open to the public to observe but, unlike other hearings, members of the public are not given the opportunity to address Council. I ask that members of the public in attendance refrain from expressing themselves during the hearing. Council has convened here today as an administrative decision-maker to hear this matter. In this regard, both Council and the License Applicant have been provided written materials well in advance of today. Today will be the opportunity for Council to hear directly from City Staff and the License Applicant, and to ask questions of each of them. Council members should not consider any materials beyond the written material provided and what they hear today. Council members should not be influenced by any other information not before them today. I would ask that Council members keep their questions relevant to the issue under consideration and to ensure that, during the hearing process, they keep an open mind and not prejudge the outcome, one way or the other. The Manager of Licences and Bylaws introduced Michael Moll, Young Anderson, legal counsel for the City of Maple Ridge and Dean Davison, Davison Law Group, legal counsel for the applicant. Mr. Moll outlined the history of the application. He provided a background of the 2017 application and reviewed key points. He outlined and highlighted main points in the legal information provided. Mr. Moll advised on legal stipulations which maintain that such an application is illegal including those from Health Canada which state that store front dispensaries remain illegal. He quoted arguments and rulings from other court cases involving marihuana dispensaries. He stated that current zoning does not allow for the sale of marihuana. Mr. Moll outlined arguments put forward by the applicant and refuted those arguments. He cited factors which discourage, from a staff perspective, the Council Workshop Minutes June 20, 2017 Page 3 of 4 argument that this business will be a lawful business in a year’s time, specifically that this business has opened prior to obtaining a business licence and the applicant has suggested that a licence should be issued in anticipation of changes in the law which are currently not known. Mr. Moll stated that it is the suggestion of City staff to refuse issuing a business licence until such a time that the application does become lawful. Mr. Moll advised that the City cannot issue a business licence under the current circumstances. Dean Davison, Davison Law Group, legal counsel for the applicant Mr. Davison put forward his arguments in favour of the issuance of a business licence to the applicant. He argued that a law must have some connection to a mandate and questioned the connection of not granting a business licence to a mandate. He asked who was being protected and who is being harmed and requested that Council look at the law. He provided a background on the Corporation involved and spoke to their business practices. Mr. Davison stated that the Courts recognize that marihuana is being used as a medicine and that persons have the right to access. He suggested that portions of the Maple Ridge bylaw should be struck. He read from affidavits of several persons involved in, and receiving, medical marihuana from the applicant’s business. He quoted from the appeal document specifically paragraph 10 page 3 and Section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, both of which speak to the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. He felt that the municipality will be acting ultra vires jurisdiction of the Federal Government should it deny the business licence applied for. Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting at 3:44 p.m. Mr. Davison provided examples and quotes from other court rulings and wrapped up his arguments by stating the following: • There has been no evidence of any harm of medical marihuana • There is evidence it will become legal • Other cities such as Vancouver and Victoria are issuing licences • Medical marihuana dispensaries are the jurisdiction of the Federal Government not that of municipalities • Medical marihuana is a viable reasonable product that people enjoy and if those people were doing something or using improperly, this would be reported to law enforcement Council Workshop Minutes June 20, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Questions from Council The following is a summary of some of the questions and concerns put forward by members of Council: • Has any other national organization opened a business without a business licence • Does the applicant sell only medical marihuana • How do people qualify to purchase medical marihuana and what is the legal age limit to be allowed to purchase the product • Concern was expressed with the age limit due to possible harmful effects on those under the age of 25 and with the lack of clarity from the Federal Government particularly on health concerns of persons under the age of 18 using marihuana • The statement of Federal jurisdiction versus municipal jurisdiction was questioned in that the business is not legal under Federal regulation; the intent of a business operating without a business licence was also questioned • Concerns for safety were expressed as it is not known where the medical marihuana bought by the dispensary comes from and how it has been regulated; questions were also raised to whether the dispensary does or will document client usage of the product in how much is being asked for and how much is being used • Does the dispensary accept membership cards from other dispensaries • Concern was expressed that the representative for the applicant could not answer some of the questions posed, and that the applicant was not in attendance to answer the questions the representative was unable to respond to R/2017-251 It was moved and seconded That the business licence for Weeds Glass & Gifts Ltd. be denied. CARRIED 4. ADJOURNMENT - 4:47 p.m. _______________________________ N. Read, Mayor Certified Correct ___________________________________ L. Darcus, Corporate Officer City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES July 4, 2017 The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on July 4, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Elected Officials Appointed Staff Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture Councillor K. Duncan P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services Councillor B. Masse F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Councillor G Robson Services Councillor T. Shymkiw L. Darcus, Manager of Legislative Services Councillor C. Speirs Other Staff as Required T. Thompson, Manager of Financial Planning J. Hyland, Officer in Charge, Ridge-Meadows RCMP A. Paradis, Inspector, Ridge- Meadows RCMP W. McCormick, Director of Recreation & Community Services Y. Chui, Recreation Manager Arts & Community Connections F. Armstrong, Manager Corporate Communications Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca Note: Councillor Shymkiw and Councillor Speirs were not in attendance at the start of the meeting. 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted with the addition of the following: R/2017-283 It was moved and seconded That the agenda for the July 4, 2017 Council Workshop Meeting be amended to include a video on the Cops for Cancer fundraiser at the RCMP detachment with Logan Lay – Chief for the Day and be adopted as amended. CARRIED Council Workshop Minutes July 4, 2017 Page 2 of 6 Note: Councillor Shymkiw joined the meeting at 6:01 p.m. 2. MINUTES – Nil 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil Cops for Cancer Fundraiser at the RCMP Detachment with Logan Lay – Chief for the Day. OIC Hyland introduced new Inspector Paradis who will be starting in early August. He reviewed his past experience. OIC Hyland then described the Cops for Cancer fundraiser and how engaged everyone at the detachment was. The video was then played. (https://youtu.be/vit7w8656rQ) 4 MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS Councillor Masse Councillor Masse provided information about the Community Court initiative. He advised that a meeting with community stakeholders is scheduled for September 27, 2017. (Post meeting note: new date for community dialogue is September 19th) Councillor Bell Councillor Bell attended a Canadian Youth Nation Golf dinner. She also attended Canada Day events and participated as a judge for the Ridge Meadows Got Talent contest. She advised that the Maple Ridge Library is hold a summer reading program for children and adults. Councillor Bell shared that she has been awarded a life time membership for the Lower Mainland Local Government Association and is now serving as past president. Note: Councillor Speirs joined the meeting at 6:21 p.m. Councillor Robson Councillor Robson attended the Chief for a Day – Logan Lay event, a tourism meeting, the graduation ceremony for Garibaldi Secondary, a Foundation Dinner and meetings of the Pitt Meadows Airport Society Board. He visited the Walnut Grove pool to see what an 8 lane pool looks like. He advised that he has been working on the perimeters of the camp at St. Anne Park. Councillor Duncan Councillor Duncan attended a meeting of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters organization. She advised that the organization is very interested in becoming involved in the community. She also attended a Cultural Champions Summit. Council Workshop Minutes July 4, 2017 Page 3 of 6 Councillor Speirs Councillor Speirs met with the Blanket BC Society. He attended the opening of the Chameleon Restaurant patio, a Fraser Health Regional (Northwest Sector) meeting, Canada Day presentations and the farewell celebration for Lindy Sisson from the Maple Ridge ACT. Councillor Speirs also attended meetings of the Pitt Meadows Airport Society Board and participated in a Malcolm Knapp Research Forest field tour of Marion Lake. He advised that he will be attending the Metro Vancouver Utilities Committee meeting. Councillor Shymkiw Councillor Shymkiw advised on the Friends in Need Food Bank and explained the distribution process and reasons for current methods. Mayor Read Mayor Read attended the opening of the Chameleon Restaurant patio, an Aboriginal Housing meeting with MP Dan Ruimy and a number of community stakeholders including FRANAS. Mayor Read met with Chair Mayor Moore of Metro Vancouver to discuss Regional Prosperity Initiative. She advised that meetings have been arranged with the YMCA and the YWCA to discuss possible partnerships. 5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Development Cost Charges (DCC) Imposition Bylaw Update The Manager of Financial Planning gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following information: • Description, context, uses and calculations of Development Cost Charges (DCCs) • DCC Bylaw Process – considerations, stakeholder input, Ministry review • Proposed DCC Bylaw – structure changes, rate changes and comparison A discussion ensued about resubmitting a previous Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) resolution to this year’s UBCM convention related to this topic. R/2017-284 It was moved and seconded That a UBCM resolutions sub-committee be established to include Councillors Bell, Duncan and Speirs. CARRIED Council Workshop Minutes July 4, 2017 Page 4 of 6 5.2 Cultural Plan Update Presentation by Patricia Huntsman, Consultant Ms. Huntsman gave a PowerPoint presentation providing a summary of engagement and survey findings for Maple Ridge’s Ten Year Cultural Plan which included the following information: • Definition of Cultural Resources and Assets • Importance of participation and arts and cultural organizations • Role of the City • Outline of steps followed in Phases 1 and 2 • Next steps as part of Phase 3 • Priorities for the municipality • Events and activities within the City • Requests for future events and activities • Survey findings 5.3 Follow-Up Report to the Ridge Meadows Minor Hockey Presentation Staff report dated July 4, 2017 recommending that funding be increased for subsidized arena access by $100,000 in 2017 and by $200,000 in subsequent years, by identifying a funding source in 2017 and amending the 2018-2022 business plan accordingly. 5.3.1 MAIN MOTION R/2017-285 It was moved and seconded That staff increase funding for subsidized arena access by $100,000 in 2017 and by $200,000 in subsequent years, by identifying a funding source for 2017 and amending the 2018-2022 business plan accordingly. Before the vote was called on the main motion, 5.3.2 R/2017-286 It was moved and seconded That Item 5.3 be deferred for one week until staff can obtain additional information about potential to purchase additional ice time, for instance from Pitt Meadows or non-prime time. DEFEATED Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Shymkiw, Councillor Speirs – OPPOSED Council Workshop Minutes July 4, 2017 Page 5 of 6 The table returned to the main motion, CARRIED Councillor Bell, Councillor Masse, Councillor Robson - OPPOSED 5.4 Ridge Meadows Minor Lacrosse Needs Follow Up Staff report dated July 4, 2017 recommending that a report be provided citing locations for a lacrosse box with lighting. R/2017-287 It was moved and seconded That staff bring back a report citing potential locations for a lacrosse box with lighting. CARRIED 5.5 Outdoor Pool Information Report Staff report dated July 4, 2017 providing options to pursue or not pursue an outdoor pool. The Director of Recreation and Community Services gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following information: • Examples of outdoor pools in Maple Ridge, other communities in the Lower Mainland and pools situated in other cities including Calgary, Lethbridge and a championship pool located in Windsor, Ontario • The potential costs and timeline for installing a pre-fabricated pool. Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. R/2017-288 It was moved and seconded That staff do not pursue an outdoor pool. CARRIED 6. CORRESPONDENCE – Nil 7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil Council Workshop Minutes July 4, 2017 Page 6 of 6 8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil 9. ADJOURNMENT - 9:06 p.m. _______________________________ N. Read, Mayor Certified Correct ___________________________________ L. Darcus, Corporate Officer 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 18, 2017 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Backyard Chickens – Discussion Paper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report presents information to Council from the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) based on a past work program request. The report provides information on approach es to accommodating backyard chickens in residential areas in other municipalities and identifies issues that are associated with this type of endeavor. The AAC considered the issue and recommends that the City develop a program to facilitate the keeping of backyard chickens. Given the AAC and Planning Department’s current work programs, it is recommended that this project form part of the 2018 work program. RECOMMENDATION: That staff in consultation with the Agricultural Advisory Committee develop a backyard chickens program to permit the keeping of chickens in residential areas as identified under the Process section of the report entitled “Backyard Chickens – Discussion Paper” dated July 18, 2017. BACKGROUND: a)Zoning Bylaw The City of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 – 1985 lists the keeping of poultry as an agricultural use, and has siting requirements for the keeping of poultry in zones that permit an agricultural use. Currently the keeping of chickens in Maple Ridge is permitted in all agricultural zon es and in lots zoned RS-1 (One Family Residential), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) if they are in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Agricultural uses are also permitted in all RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zones that are 0.4 hectares or greater. Specifically: There are 5442 hectares (696 parcels) of land that is zoned Agricultural. In addition, there are 1,289 parcels zoned (RS-1, RS-2, RS-3) in the ALR, totaling 2,575 hectares. 5,442 hectares + 2575 hectares = 8,017 hectares, or 54.2% of the total 14,800 hectares of designated land in Maple Ridge. b)Animal Control Bylaw The keeping of poultry is also regulated by the Maple Ridge Animal Control and Licencing Bylaw No. 6908-2012. The bylaw requires that every owner of a poultry pen must ensure that the area is clean, sanitized, free of vermin, and that all excrement is removed at least once a day. The bylaw defines poultry as follows: “Poultry” means a chicken, turkey, duck, goose, pigeon, swan or peafowl, but excludes birds that are kept inside a home as pets. 5.2 2 c) Timeline This matter of Backyard Chickens has been raised over the last several years and the following presents a timeline of events to show the evolution of this matter:  In November, 2013 a letter written by local landowners was sent to Council requesting consideration of amending the RS-3 zone to allow up to six chickens on RS-3 lots that were under 0.4 hectares.  The letter was forwarded to the AAC and was put on the agenda of the regularly scheduled March 27, 2014 meeting. The letter is attached as Appendix B.  A sub-committee was struck by the AAC at the May, 22, 2014 meeting to explore this issue.  At the June 26, 2014 AAC meeting the staff liaison reported that the sub-committee would attend a future Council meeting to ask Council if they wish ed the sub-committee to proceed with research on this topic. It was suggested that a review of other municipalities’ approach to this issue would be beneficial. At that time, a resolution was moved and seconded that a request to Council for direction regarding a backyard chicken bylaw be deferred for six months.  At the September 25, 2014 AAC meeting, more information on backyard chickens was provided and the staff liaison began a more comprehensive review of BC municipalities’ regulation of chickens in urban areas.  One of the initial tasks of the new Council that was elected in November, 2014 was to undertake a review of the Committees of Council and provide next steps. While the review was in progress, the AAC did not meet for January, February and April, 2015 anticipating direction from Council.  A presentation on backyard chickens by the authors of the November, 2013 letter was made to Committee of the Whole April 20, 2015.  On June 16, 2015 Planning provided an overview of the Agricultural Plan to Mayor and Council at a Special Council Workshop meeting. Following the presentation, Council passed resolution R/2015-26 directing staff to prepare a survey for Mayor and Council to enable prioritization of goals and associated actions in the Agricultural Plan. The survey was deployed September 28, 2015 and completed November 23, 2015. Survey results showed no clear pattern or agreement amongst Mayor and Council regarding priorities for the goals and actions in the Agricultural Plan. However, there were some themes that were supported by Council members.  At the June 25, 2015 AAC meeting, information on Backyard Chickens was presented by an AAC member. It was noted that the City of Pitt Meadows had decided not to allow backyard chickens after a one year trial.  Further research on accommodating chickens in residential areas was undertaken by staff and reported back to the October 23, 2015 AAC meeting. Results indicated that a number of municipalities had backyard chicken programs. The AAC passed Resolution R15-018 as follows: That the development of a program and/or bylaw in regards to the keeping of backyard chickens be recommended to Council.  A letter drafted by the chair and staff liaison was discussed at the November 26, 2015 AAC meeting. The letter was forwarded to Council Workshop, but was deferred pending the outcomes of the Council survey and subsequent direction from Council to the AAC.  The results of the Council survey were presented in a report that went to Council Workshop January 11, 2016, which resulted in the resolution requesting a facilitated session. The resolution is as follows: R/2016-002: That staff be directed to bring back a facilitated session on the Agricultural Plan. The facilitated session was held July 5, 2016.  At a regularly scheduled Council meeting on October 25, 2016, the facilitated session was summarized and presented to Council. Of the top 27 out of a possible 94 priorities identified 3 during the facilitated session, Council directed the AAC to prepare Development Permit Area (DPA) guidelines to protect agricultural land and explore the feasibility of an agro-industrial strategy (food hub) for its 2017 work plan from the staff report entitled, “Agricultural Plan Facilitated Session – Next Steps”, dated October 17, 2016. The remaining twenty-five additional potential action items in the report were deferred; to be evaluated as part of the AAC’s 2017 Business Planning process.  At a regularly scheduled Council meeting on April 25, 2017 three members of the 4H Otter Llama Club (Poultry Division) provided information on the benefits of allowing backyard chickens in Maple Ridge. They addressed and refuted concerns and reasons as to why backyard chickens are currently not allowed in residential areas and highlighted the positive benefits of changing the bylaw to allow chickens to be kept as backyard pets. The group was also encouraged to present to the regularly scheduled May 25, 2107 AAC on this matter.  Members of the 4H Otter Llama Club (Poultry Division) presented to the AAC at the regularly scheduled May 25, 2017 meeting. The 4H members reprised the presentation given to Council, emphasizing that keeping backyard chickens was an ideal experience for young people that are interested in farming, and by not allowing chickens in residential areas, that an education opportunity was being missed. The presenters also offered to lead a short workshop on how to keep and care for chickens. AAC members were pleased with the presentation and informed the presenters that this report, entitled, “Bac kyard Chickens – Discussion Paper” would be going to a Council Workshop shortly, and encouraged them to attend the meeting as a measure of support. Given this interest it is timely to bring the issue regarding backyard chickens to Council for discussion. d) Municipal Examples: Sixteen municipalities in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island were reviewed to determine respective approaches to Backyard Chickens. A table summarizing this information is provided as Appendix A. Seven of the 16 municipalities currently permit the keeping of chickens in residential areas. Of those seven municipalities that keep chickens in residential areas, a number of themes emerged:  The number of chickens permitted ranges from a minimum of 4 to a maximum of 12 chickens with an average of 6 to 8 chickens  No roosters are allowed  Minimum lot size average is approximately 557m2/6000ft2  Selling of eggs is not permitted  Slaughtering is not permitted on the premises  Maintenance and care information is also provided to encourage proper care, cleanliness and to minimize conflicts. e) Lessons Learned: The following information provides a more detailed summary of some of the pilot projects, established programs, and issues associated with the keeping of backyard chickens in urban areas in other Lower Mainland municipalities. City of Pitt Meadows On August 26, 2014 the Pitt Meadows Zoning Bylaw and Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw were amended to permit residents to keep urban backyard hens as part of a one-year pilot program. At that time, Council was provided with feedback from a public consultation process including an open house and online survey. A total of 105 responses to the survey were received, and the results indicated that residents were strongly in favour of keeping backyard hens. 4 There was initial uptake by two parties who registered their hens with the City. There were two additional parties also keeping hens but did not register them, for a total of four backyard chicken enterprises. Over the course of the year, there were 13 complaints from residents. The complaints ranged from bad odours, noise, pests, and vermin such as rats being attracted to chicken feed. Following the completion of the one-year pilot program, on June 16, 2015 at a regular Council meeting, Council recommended discontinuation of the pilot program in Pitt Meadows citing a number of complaints regarding noise and odour. Several months later on September 8, 2015 at Council in Committee, Council recommended that the bylaw allowing the keeping of backyard chickens be repealed. City of Surrey The Surrey Zoning Bylaw Regulations contain provisions to own and house chickens on larger acreage lots. Properties zoned RA (One Acre Residential Zone), RH (Half Acre Residential Zone), RF (Single Family Residential Zone) or RF-SS (Single Family Residential Secondary Suites) that are at least 0.4 hectare (1 acre) in size are allowed up to twelve (12) head of poultry, excluding roosters, for every 0.4 hectare (1 acre). In 2013, the City of Surrey began a one year pilot project to keep backyard chickens on lots greater than 929m2 (10,000ft2). Residents were allowed to own and keep chickens within backyards on a single family lot less than one acre but greater than 929m2 (10,000 ft2), if they registered with the City. In 2014, the program was extended for one additional year to provisionally allow chickens on single family residential lots from 929m2 (10,000ft2) up to 4,046m2 (one acre) until October 31, 2015. In addition, on the condition of a positive review by Planning and Development and Bylaw Enforcement staff, single family lots that were 669m2 (7,200ft2) or larger would also be considered to participate in the pilot program. The criteria for the pilot were as follows:  Chickens are not permitted on multifamily or mobile home park lots.  Up to four chickens (no roosters) are conditionally allowed on any single-family (fee simple) residential property with a lot area equal to or greater than approximately 929m2 (10,000ft2) for up to one year. Any lots between 668m2 (7200m2) and 929m2 (10,000ft2) applying to participate in the pilot may be considered but must strictly adhere to pilot project guidelines in terms of standards of care of chickens and siting of coops, and will be subject to a staff review of any outstanding bylaw infractions prior to being accepted into the pilot project.  Sale of eggs is prohibited, as backyard hens are to be kept for personal use only.  Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited.  Hens at the end of their life will need to be taken to a veterinarian, farm, or sold at a poultry auction or abattoir.  Other types of poultry are not permitted. As of July 11, 2016, up to four chickens (hens only) are permitted on a single family lot that is less than one acre but larger than 7,200 square feet, meet City requirements, and the property must be registered with the City of Surrey. Amendments were made to the Zoning Bylaw; a Chicken Keeping Bylaw was created as well. More information can be accessed here on the history of this program, and links to regulation: http://www.surrey.ca/community/13805.aspx City of North Vancouver On September 17th, 2012, Council passed amendments to the Zoning and Small Creatures Bylaw s permitting the keeping of chickens (hens only) in the City of North Vancouver. The following are the conditions under which City of North Vancouver residents are permitted to keep chickens on residential lots:  Only residents living in Single Unit Residential (OCP-R1) zoned dwellings are permitted to keep chickens 5  Minimum lot size of Single Unit Residential is 557.4m2 (6,000ft2)  Residents are permitted to keep up to 8 hens  No roosters are permitted  No sale of eggs or slaughter of chickens permitted  Residents must follow Urban Chicken Guidelines that were developed by the City of North Vancouver for the proper care and housing of chickens  Minimize the risk of predation and foraging by bears, coyotes, skunks, rats and raccoons through proper and secure pen and coop construction  Secure feed to eliminate the risk of pest intrusion and spoilage  Follow applicable bylaws  No permits are required According to City staff, there has been low uptake on this program; it is estimated the number of residents keeping chickens is approximately 20. It is generally self-policing and the number of complaints has been low. Anecdotal observations by staff were that complaints received were often not about the keeping of chickens and more likely due to long standing issues. City of Vancouver The City of Vancouver has allowed chickens in single and multi-family zones (RA-, RS-, RT-, RM-, FM-, and FSD-) since 2010. The following criteria must be satisfied to undertake this activity:  Minimum lot size: 278.8m2 or 3000ft2  A maximum of 4 hens (no roosters), 4 months or older, per lot is allowed  Ducks, turkeys, or other fowl or livestock (such as goats) are not allowed  Eggs, meat, and manure cannot be used for commercial purposes  Backyard slaughtering is not allowed The April 8, 2010 Council report outlines the guidelines for keeping hens including:  Allowable zones (RA- Limited Agriculture, RS- One Family Districts, RT- Two Family Districts, RM- Multiple Dwelling Districts)  Siting restrictions for hen enclosures  Number and type of chickens allowed  Housing requirements  Basic care  Pest control  No slaughtering or selling of eggs  Register with the City  Additional information provided on workshops, best management practices, and bylaw requirements It is noted that the City of Vancouver, Surrey and North Vancouver also offer online links to information on a range of issues related to the keeping of backyard chickens including the keeping of hens, maintenance issues, and enclosure construction. DISCUSSION: The subject of accommodating backyard chickens in residential areas has been an ongoing discussion. Recognizing that this dialogue had been mostly with the previous Council, the AAC is now seeking direction from Council on how to move forward. With the recent Council direction to the AAC on work plan items for 2017, it is a timely opportunity to add this item to the AAC’s 2018 work plan. For Council’s consideration, below are some of the implications and next steps that the City may face should backyard chickens be permitted in our residential neighbourhoods: 6 These items align with several of the goals of the Agricultural Plan, particularly Goal 3, which is to: Improve the Agricultural Knowledge Base of the Consumer Public. The Agricultural Plan was endorsed by the Council of the day in December, 2009, and is a framework for action to develop a vision for agriculture in Maple Ridge to 2030. a) Issues: The issues regarding the keeping of chickens in urban residential areas tend to fall into three categories: noise, odour, and vermin/pests. To mitigate these potential impacts, other Lower Mainland municipalities that allow the keeping of chickens in residential areas have developed guidelines for construction, and compiled resources presenting best practices. These guidelines and resources, combined with defining where the use is permitted in Zoning Bylaws, and/or Animal Control Bylaws are the tools that are available to address these potential land use conflicts. b) Further Research: The keeping of chickens in residential areas has the potential to contribute to the following:  Education regarding the keeping and caring of farm animals, in this case hens;  Increasing local food security and resiliency; and  Reducing household food costs. c) Interdepartmental Considerations: Bylaw and Licencing Services A discussion with Bylaw and Licencing Services Department staff about backyard chickens provided the following information. There were:  5 complaints in 2015  6 complaints in 2016 Bylaw complaints were on residential lots – none of which are designated ALR land. Generally the concerns are vermin and odour. Based on this information, Bylaws staff anticipates that additional resources may be required if this use were permitted in urban residential areas, depending on the level of uptake for this type of program. d) Process: If Council is comfortable with the idea of keeping chickens in residential areas, staff would work with the AAC to develop a backyard chicken program that aligns with themes that emerged from the review of other Lower Mainland and Island municipalities’ respective programs. The backyard chicken program would be presented to the community to assess the level of support for the program and following this, staff would prepare a report summarizing the consultation results and potential next steps for Council’s consideration. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION: That the report entitled: “Backyard Chickens – Discussion Paper”, dated July 18, 2017 be received for information. 7 CONCLUSION: Keeping chickens in designated urban residential areas has the potential to increase food security and provide opportunities for households to learn about food production and lower food costs. This can provide economic benefits to households and can contribute to a greater appreciation for locally produced food and local food systems, which can in turn result in a more resilient community. However, examples throughout the Region illustrate that bylaw amendments and new guidelines can be required and despite these regulations, conflicts between neighbours may still ensue. Given that context and recognizing that the AAC current 2017 is underway, staff recommends that this item be included in business planning for the AAC’s 2018 work plan. “Original signed by Siobhan Murphy” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Siobhan Murphy, MCIP, RPP Planner II “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, MPL, 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Approved by: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A – Table 1: Backyard Chicken programs in Urban Areas 8 APPENDIX A The table below and on the following pages shows a selection of Lower Mainland and South Vancouver Island municipalities and their respective positions on keeping chickens in urban areas. Table 1: Backyard Chicken programs in Urban Areas Municipality Permitte d (Y/N) Additional Information Source(s) Abbotsford No Zoning Bylaw: https://abbotsford.civicweb.net/filepr o/documents/16830 Burnaby No Zoning Bylaw https://burnaby.civicweb.net/filepro/ documents/5436 Chilliwack No Animal Control Bylaw information: http://www.chilliwack.ca/main/page. cfm?id=2044 City of North Vancouver Yes Allowed in Single Unit Residential (OCP-R1) zoned dwellings that have minimum lot sizes of 557 m2 (6000 ft2). Residents are permitted to keep up to 8 hens, no roosters. Link to related documents: http://www.cnv.org/Your- Government/Living-City/Local- Food/Urban-Chicken-Keeping (Zoning Bylaw, Urban Chicken Guidelines, Small Creatures Limitation Bylaw) Coquitlam No Zoning Bylaw page 10-5 http://www.coquitlam.ca/docs/defaul t-source/zoning-bylaw/Part_10_- _One- family_Residential_Zones.pdf?sfvrsn= 4 Delta Yes Allows for the keeping of 12 poultry in two urban zones, the RS-2 zone (Single Family Residential) and RS-3 zone (Single Family Residential), that both have a minimum lot size 4000m2 hectares (1 acre) Zoning Bylaw https://delta.civicweb.net/filepro/doc uments/39447?preview=39452 District of North Vancouver No Zoning Bylaw https://www.dnv.org/bylaws/zoning New Westminster Yes Poultry (up to 8 hens) are allowed on RS-1 (Single Detached Dwelling District) lots 557m2 (6000ft2) or more, not less than 50 ft. from the nearest habitable dwelling. Public Health Bylaw, 1967, p.3. Link: http://www.newwestcity.ca/database /rte/4271phb.pdf 9 Oak Bay Yes A license by the municipality must be granted, along with site plan, and limited to five (5) for a parcel of area greater than 745 square metres and less than or equal to 1,858 square metres; eight up to 4047m2 and 10 over 4047m2. Oak Bay Animal Control Bylaw: https://www.oakbay.ca/sites/default/ files/municipal-hall/4013%20- %20%20Animal%20Control%20Bylaw %20%20Consolidated%20to%20459 1.pdf Pitt Meadows No During Pilot Program minimum lot size was 409m2 (4400 ft2) with the exception that the use was not permitted for duplexes. Port Coquitlam No Zoning Bylaw: http://www.portcoquitlam.ca/Assets/ Bylaws/Zoning+Bylaw$!2c+No.+3630 .pdf Port Moody No Zoning Bylaw: http://www.portmoody.ca/modules/s howdocument.aspx?documentid=115 30 Richmond Yes Permitted on half acre Single Detached Residential zones RS1/G and RS2/G 2000 m2 (0.5 acres) or larger. No limit on number. City of Richmond Animal Control Bylaw No. 7932, p. 7. Link: http://www.richmond.ca/__shared/as sets/Bylaw_7932_0408201328717. pdf Township of Langley No Residential section of Zoning Bylaw: http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/township %20of%20langley/mayor%20and%20 council/bylaws/2500%20- %20zoning/Zoning%20Bylaw%20250 0%20- %20Section%20400%20Residential.p df?timestamp=1465338282414 Vancouver Yes Single and multi-family residential zones (RA-, RS-, RT-, RM-, FM-, FSD-) A maximum of 4 hens (no roosters). Smallest lot size is 279.709m2 or 3000 ft2. Zoning and Development Bylaw http://vancouver.ca/your- government/zoning-development- bylaw.aspx Victoria Yes It is lawful to keep poultry (chickens, ducks, geese, turkey). Roosters are prohibited. There is no maximum number of poultry permitted, but the number must be consistent with use Enforcement is undertaken by Victoria Animal Control Services Ltd. http://www.vacs.ca/bylaw- regulations/backyard- chickens/register-your-chickens 10 for personal egg consumption. Animal Control Bylaw defines farm animal, but specifically excludes chickens. Response from the City of Victoria is there is no minimum lot size for the keeping of backyard chickens. 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 18, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2017-242-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop SUBJECT: Home Based Business Review Follow-up and Proposed Consultation Program EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 2014, Council directed that the home occupation regulations be reviewed as an outcome of the Commercial Industrial Strategy. The intent of the review was to look at ways to update, modernize and improve regulations to better facilitate existing home based businesses and provide greater opportunities for enabling home based businesses in the City while balancing the needs of the neighbourhoods in which these businesses exist. Through the process of Council reviewing sub-committee structures, in 2016, the Economic Development Committee established three task forces to reflect key directions for the Economic Development Department: Tourism, Technology, and Home Based Business. The Home Based Business Task Force began meeting in the summer of 2016. Based on input from the Home Based Business Task Force, a draft set of new zoning directions for home based businesses in Maple Ridge was prepared. In March 2017, Council received a draft set of possible new zoning regulations for home based businesses. In the Council discussion that ensued, Council raised questions, sought clarity on the possible new home based business zoning bylaw requirements and then directed staff to bring the item back for further Council consideration. This report updates Council on the work that has been completed to-date since the last Council discussion regarding home based businesses, outlines a revised set of possible regulatory changes for the Zoning Bylaw for Council and public discussion and seeks endorsement on a consultation program. The proposed home based business program creates a two-pronged set of regulations: one for multifamily and single family lots less than 1,200m2 (0.3 ac) and one for single family lots greater than 1,200m2 (0.3 ac). The review also acknowledged that there may be situations where expanded home based business use is warranted and this report recommends that the City explore the creation of a new zone to allow for a single family residential principal use with small scale wellness or boutique accessory uses. RECOMMENDATION: That the “Proposed Consultation Program” section of the report titled “Home Based Business Review Follow-up and Proposed Consultation Program”, dated July 18, 2017 be endorsed. 5.3 2 BACKGROUND: Home Based Business in Maple Ridge In Maple Ridge, a home based business is an operation where a resident carries on a commercial operation in the home. As of June 2017, there are 1,445 licenced home based businesses which accounts for approximately 33% of all business licences in the City. This represents close to 3,000 people who either own or are employed by a home based business, making home based businesses a successful and important part of the City’s economy. There is the potential that more home based businesses exist within the City as there are likely many which are not currently licenced. While home based business has the potential to grow from small to larger operations, thereby creating more jobs and investment in the community, the number of home based businesses in Maple Ridge has remained consistent over the past 10 years with some minor fluctuation. The general trend, however, is expected to be upwards. The most common type of businesses operating out of the home in Maple Ridge are:  contractors (e.g. landscaping, trades);  home and industry services (e.g. cleaning, appliance repair);  business services (e.g. advertising, administrative);  home day cares, and;  education & instruction. Anticipated future growth areas for local home based businesses include:  Food and Beverage Services (e.g. catering, bakery);  Engineering, Science & Technology and Professional Services (e.g. accountant, architect);  Photography and Film (e.g. photo supplies, finishing, production), and;  Real Estate. Existing Policy and Regulatory Framework Official Community Plan Home based business is recognized within the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) policy framework and is supported by the OCP’s Section 6.5.2 Home Based Business, and Policy 6-57, as outlined below: Policy 6-57 Maple Ridge will support home based businesses as important contributors to the economy, and will facilitate the growth of this sector by reviewing the Zoning Bylaw to incorporate regulations that support and promote home based businesses, and by adopting performance based criteria that minimizes the impacts of home based businesses on its surroundings. Zoning Bylaw Home Occupation is defined as a business accessory to the use of a dwelling unit or to the residential use of a lot occupied by a dwelling. This use is permitted as an accessory use in all residential zones. Section 402 of the Zoning Bylaw’s General Regulations provides the framework that currently regulates home based business in Maple Ridge. See Appendix A for the existing Section 402 in its entirety. 3 Commercial Industrial Strategy Between 2011 and 2014, the City was engaged in the development of a Commercial Industrial Strategy. In total, nineteen resolutions related to the Strategy were passed by Council between November, 2011 and August, 2014. A review of the regulations for hom e based businesses was a part of this Strategy, as outlined in the following January 2014 Council Resolution: That the regulations for home occupation businesses be reviewed. Additionally, immediate action items were outlined in the Commercial Industrial Strategy Implementation Plan that encouraged the City to expand permitted uses for home based businesses and to promote Maple Ridge as home based business friendly, building on past success. Work to Date In 2015, following Council’s resolution that the regulations for home based businesses be reviewed, staff undertook the following as a means of identifying the potential areas where regulatory revisions might occur.  Background Review: o reviewed past Council Reports related to Commercial Industrial Strategy work and items specific to home based business; o reviewed Commercial Industrial Strategy (2014) including implementation plan, and targets.  Policy and Zoning Research: o reviewed current regulations, identified key issues, gaps and opportunities; o reviewed policy regarding home based business in several comparable lower mainland municipalities identifying best regulatory practices.  Internal Meetings with Economic Development and Bylaw & Licencing Services Departments: o met with two key departments that work closely with home based businesses to identify current issues and areas of frequent public requests, complaints, etc.; o obtained departmental feedback and suggestions.  GIS/Mapping and Home Based Business Profile for Maple Ridge: o identified current number and location of home based businesses in Maple Ridge; o summarized review of business types, size, number of employees, etc.  Draft discussion paper: o compiled research into a discussion paper to facilitate dialogue with the pending task force, representing existing home based business interests and perspectives, towards reviewing home based business procedures and opportunities. In 2016, the Economic Development Committee established three task forces to reflect key directions for the Economic Development Department: Tourism, Technology, and Home Based Business. The Home Based Business Task Force (HBB Task Force) began meeting in the summer of 2016. Task Force meetings were attended by staff from Economic Development, Planning and Bylaw & Licensing Services. Since that time, the HBB Task Force has identified three components to address for home based business: regulations, communication, and process. 4 In January 2017, staff reviewed current and possible new zoning regulations with the HBB Task Force for feedback. Following that meeting, staff from Economic Development, Planning, and Bylaw & Licensing Services prepared a draft set of possible new regulations for home based businesses. On March 6, 2017, a number of possible home based business regulatory requirements were presented for Council’s consideration. In the Council discussion that ensued, Council raised the issue of whether the proposed revisions went far enough, given the economic opportunities home based businesses are perceived to present to Maple Ridge residents. In addition, Council raised questions, sought clarity on the possible new home based business zoning bylaw requirements and then directed staff to bring the item back for further Council consideration. From March through June 2017, building on the work undertaken to-date, Staff continued to collaborate with the HBB Task Force to further explore opportunities to improve home based business regulation in the City. To acknowledge the time and effort of the members of the HBB Taskforce, Appendix B includes a list of HBB Taskforce members who contributed to the review of the home based business regulations. These revised directions and the parameters that influenced their further evolution are presented below for discussion. DISCUSSION: Council had directed staff to review and clarify permitted home based business regulations in order to support the City of Maple Ridge as being home based business friendly. During the recent Council discussion in March, Council had many questions and sought clarity on the reasoning behind the then proposed changes to the home based business regulations. Outlined below are the key questions heard by staff and a high-level overview of the inherent influencing parameters. How does the City compare? In response to questions about how Maple Ridge compares to other Metro Vancouver communities, staff observe that the City currently has fairly permissive home based business regulations – the City permits a wide range of uses and only explicitly forbids a small number of activities. As well, with one of the lowest fees in the region, the existing regulations offer comparable, if not above, the regional norm in permitted floor space, signage and number of employees for home based businesses. More locally, and as an illustration of the wide-array of allowed uses in the home based business zoning, staff compared the regulations against the uses allowed in a Neighbourhood Commercial (C- 1) or Community Commercial (C-2) zone. As shown in Table 1, a home based business is permitted to undertake a very similar set of uses as in our two base Commercial zones. Given these factors, those wishing to operate a home based business within the City have a great deal of opportunity. Table 1 - Current Zoning Regulation Comparison Use HBB C-1 C-2 personal services  personal repair services  retail   outdoor display  business services    indoor commercial recreation    professional services    5 A Balancing Act: How home based businesses affect a neighbourhood? Recognizing that, by their very nature, home based businesses take place in a setting where the primary intent is residential, home based business regulations should respect, and balance, the interest of the surrounding neighbourhood in which they are located. Ideally, home based businesses should be located and conducted so it would not adversely impact the quality and liveability of the neighbourhood. Working with staff from Bylaw & Licencing Services, it was identified that the more common home based business-related complaints include: outdoor storage, traffic, parking and noise. Therefore, the intent of the existing and proposed home based business regulations is to ensure, as much as possible, that the operation of a home based business be compatible with the residential character of the neighbourhood while still providing economic opportunities for residents wanting to operate small scale businesses. Other Agency Influence: How are other levels of government involved? Other regulatory or public agencies may become involved at the outset as well as once a home based business operation has been noted to have an impact on the residential environment. For example, Fraser Health may be required to inspect a home depending on the home based business use being proposed (e.g. hair or nail services). The City often defers to the inspection by Fraser Health prior to the issuance of a City business licence. As well, from discussions with Fraser Health, staff learned that it may inspect certain home based business premises to ensure water servicing and domestic waste disposal requirements are being met. Equally, staff note that BC Assessment may reclass a property that is used for commercial purposes if the impacts are ‘highly visible’. POSSIBLE CHANGES TO ZONING BYLAW: Within the above context, and following Council direction to identify areas where the Zoning Bylaw might be revised to better facilitate home based businesses, staff worked to assess how any further change might affect neighbourhood compatibility and the possible impacts to ongoing licencing and enforcement by the City. Based on input from the HBB Task Force, background research, a review of other Municipalities and other regulatory agencies this report provides Council with a revised set of regulations. The discussion also identifies where the proposed regulations have been expanded or altered since last presented to Council in March 2017. With Council’s approval, the intent is to advance these draft regulations through a public consultation process. Location of Home Based Businesses The March 6, 2017 Report proposed permitting home based business operations in both a dwelling unit and an accessory building in all of the zones where home based businesses are allowed. This recommendation remains unchanged and represents a widening of the current regulations where a home based business is only permitted in a dwelling unit. Size of Home Based Businesses The March 6, 2017 Report also proposed increasing the maximum area in a dwelling unit available for home based business operations. While subject to further Council and public discussion, the lot size delineation is proposed at 1,200 m2 (0.12 ha / 0.29 ac) to support residential compatibility. Single family lots over 1,200 m2 would be permitted a wider range of uses, as well as up to 45% of the gross floor area, up to 100 m2 (1,076 ft2). Multi-family dwelling units and single family homes on lots under 1,200 m2 would be permitted up to 30% and up to 50 m2 (538 ft2). Under existing regulations (and intending to be retained), each dwelling unit on a lot is entitled to the same space allocation for a home based business use. These recommendations remain unchanged; however, Bylaw & Licencing Services staff continue to note the potential for increased complaints. 6 Staff also note that operations such as family daycares (8 or less children in care), which are licensed under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, would be exempt from size limitations. Increased Visitation & Group Sessions Current regulations prohibit any use that generates regular visits by clients as a home based business except tutoring and lessons which permit six people per day provided in two groups per day. As proposed in the March 6, 2017 Report, multi-family and smaller single family lots would be permitted 10 client visits, by appointment, per day. However, Staff now propose to expand the permitted number of client visits, by appointment, to 16 for the larger single family lots. Appointments are recognized as opportunities to provide services, commission work, or take possession of previously purchased material. In talking with the HBB Task Force, further flexibility was requested on instances where a home based business needs to accommodate more than one client at one time (e.g. lessons, client visits, etc.). For such home based business uses requiring group visits, it is now proposed to permit up to five clients at any one time for smaller lots, and up to eight clients at any one time for the larger lots, subject still to the respective daily client maximum. It is recognized that this increase in visitation and group sessions represents a considerable change from the existing regulations. Further, in doing so, such operations may also become more visible in the neighbourhood in which they exist. Noting that, Bylaw & Licencing Services staff identify the potential for increased complaints as a result, but equally acknowledge the potential benefits to these operations. Expanded Uses  Office, Business and Professional Services Advances in technology are reshaping the business world. Today, with a personal device and internet access, business can be conducted from anywhere. As a result, office, business, and professional service uses are now proposed to be permitted as home based businesses. From the March 6, 2017 Report, staff are now proposing to provide further clarity on the definition of office use, and that business services be updated to reflect contemporary terminology. Further, staff propose to include and refine professional services to cover professionals where the member is required to be licensed or certified by a self-regulating professional authority, or by Federal, Provincial or Municipal authorities, with the exception of health professionals (see following section). Examples of professional services would include, but not be limited to, accountants, architects, engineers, financial consultants, lawyers, notary publics, and real estate agents. These refinements would result in a category that is comprehensive and more reflective of business activity today and, conceivably, of the future.  Health Services Health Services are proposed to be permitted as a home based business. This represents a revision from both existing zoning regulations as well as those presented in the March 6, 2017 Report. Current City practice prohibits their use as a home based business in order to limit neighbourhood impact due to regular client visitation. With the number of client visits now proposed to be expanded, the inclusion of such uses is raised for consideration. Such Health Services would include: audiologists, chiropractors, dentists, nurses, massage therapists, optometrists, physicians, and traditional chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners, among others. Staff note that OCP Policy 3-3 of the Town Area Plan encourages the provision of necessary services, such as medical care, to develop or remain in the Central Business District of the Town Centre and in the commercial designated areas of Port Haney and that permitting Health Services as home based business is inconsistent with this OCP Policy. 7 Currently, health services would be defined as an operator that is subject to a College or Association that has been delegated the authority, under provincial legislation, to govern the practice of their members in the public interest. Such Health Services would be self-regulated and as such their place of practice would not require an inspection by Fraser Health or the City. As is the case for commercial operations, the Fraser Health Authority does not regulate nor inspect facilities where the practitioners or the services offered are monitored by a professional association or college. The City also does not have the authority to inspect and regulate the above facilities on health related grounds. Instead, a number of regulatory colleges, under the Health Professions Act, are responsible for the inspection of the operation of their health professional members.  Personal Services Personal services, defined generally as individualized services provided by a service provider to a recipient, are proposed to be permitted as a home based business, subject to certain requirements. Permitting personal services broadens the current range of home based businesses within the City, offering a wider range of services including, but not limited to, barbering, beauty s ervices, and tailoring. Expanding on the current regulations, staff propose to permit on-site personal services involving hair, skin, nails and personal wellness. However, staff propose to exclude any activities that involve body modification (altering a person’s body for nonmedical purposes). This would avoid practices that would require piercing or penetrating the skin and/or coming into contact with blood and other bodily fluids as a home based business and is supported by general public service announcements by local public health agencies. Unlike for Health Services, the Fraser Health Authority will inspect and regulate a personal service operation to ensure compliance with relevant regulation and to determine if standard industry practices are being followed with respect to general sanitation, disinfection, and infection control procedures for the specific type of service(s) being offered. Home based businesses wishing to provide on-site personal services will need to receive an inspection by the Fraser Health Authority. However, Fraser Health will only inspect an operation with a fixed address; as a result, mobile-based personal service operations are unable to receive an inspection and therefore without third party assessment and approval, would not be issued a City home based business licence. In addition, certain personal service operations (e.g. hair salon) may require that the building be renovated or constructed to meet Building Code requirements for the proposed use.  Animal Services With the rapid expansion of the animal-related service industry (e.g. dog walking, pet sitting, training, spas and therapy), animal-related services have increased in popularity in recent years. Currently, animal-related uses (e.g. grooming) are permitted in a limited number of zones and considered under the personal service umbrella. Staff suggest providing flexibility on how animal-related services can be integrated within a home based business environment by incorporating a new animal services definition and by permitting animal-related services, based on lot size, in all zones where home based businesses are allowed. Specifically, on smaller lots, those less than 1,200 m2 (0.3 ac), owners would be permitted to operate a mobile-based animal service operation while those on lots larger than 1,200 m2 (0.3 ac) would be permitted mobile-based and on-site operations given the large site area to possibly accommodate small groups of animals. All operations would be subject to general home based business regulation and would need to be in compliance with City bylaws including the Off-Street 8 Parking Bylaw, Noise Control Bylaw and Animal Control and Licencing Bylaw. These suggested changes represent a new potential direction for home based businesses in the City. Regardless of lot size, commercial kennels, breeding, dog boarding, and dog daycare services would continue to not be permitted as a home based business. These uses are currently not permitted in residential neighbourhoods and would not be included in the proposed changes in regulation. Homecraft The small-scale production of ‘homecraft’ goods (e.g. art, photography, jewelry, food, bath and beauty products, clothing and toys) is becoming a popular home based business operation. Staff propose to create a new definition to capture the unique aspects of these homecraft producers in order to align the Zoning Bylaw with the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw as, under the current Zoning Bylaw, these producers of homecraft goods are currently not specifically permitted. Tutoring and Lessons As an already permitted home business use, staff propose that the general interpretation for tutoring and lessons be expanded to cover non-academic uses. Examples of non-academic uses could include the practice of yoga and other general fitness trends. In addition, as proposed in the March 6, 2017 Report, tutoring and lessons, would now have an additional four clients per day, from six to ten and, as detailed earlier in the report, would be permitted larger group sessions, on larger lots. Sales With the advent of online commercial platforms – including peer-to-peer e-commerce sites – the revised regulations propose to permit off-site, online and mobile-based sales, which represent a significant change from the current regulations. Bylaw & Licencing Services staff identify the potential for increased complaints as a result, however, consistent with current home based business regulations, it is not proposed to permit general retail sales. Additional Employees and Signage The March 6, 2017 Report proposed increasing the number of non-resident employees from one to two and increasing the number of permitted signs to two for single family lots less than 1,200 m2 and three for single family lots 1,200 m2 or larger in area. The HBB Task Force was in support of these amendments. Since the discussion in March, staff continue to support the increase in permitted employees, but now recommend larger lots be permitted three additional employees, subject to off-street parking requirements, and that signage related to home based businesses simply reference the Maple Ridge Sign Bylaw (e.g. one sign limited to 0.1 sq.m) noting the pending review of that Bylaw. A new Sign Bylaw is anticipated to be part of a future Business Plan and home based business signage requirements will be addressed as part of that future process. While the HBB Task Force sought to have the number of signs increased, the current level of signage recognizes that a form of outdoor identification is needed by home based business operators while also taking in to consideration the residential landscape. Encouraging pedestrian traffic or ‘walk-ins’ is not the objective. Rather, signage is intended to assist with publicity and wayfinding without disrupting the residential feel. New and Revised Definitions Staff propose to revise the existing definitions for business services and professional services, as discussed above. In addition, staff suggest new definitions for employee, regular visits, accessory building, health services, animal services, consulting services and homecraft. These definitions are intended to create clarity for those wishing to operate a home based business. 9 Additional Opportunity – Expanded Home Based Business Use In discussions with the HBB Taskforce, all aspects relevant to the location and operation of a home based business were considered. It is acknowledged that there is a need for balance in residential settings where residents wish to operate small scale businesses. The possible new home based business zoning requirements, developed in conjunction with the HBB Taskforce, work towards achieving and maintaining that balance. However, staff recognize that there may be opportunities on larger properties to accommodate certain uses that may not be permitted under the proposed home based business regulations or that the potential neighbourhood impacts would make allowing them out-right problematic. Possible examples include wellness centres (e.g. yoga or spa retreats), bed & breakfast operations, local agri- tourism opportunities and intimate wedding or private chapel services. Staff are recommending that a new zone be explored that would allow for a single family residential principal use in combination with small scale wellness or boutique uses. If pursued, staff would develop a bylaw that would inform the possible considerations and criteria. Each application would be considered on its own merits, and would likely be subject to traffic, servicing, on-site parking, screening and/or other requirements. Alternatively, a third category for home based business uses could be created for single family lots greater than one acre. Summary With home based businesses being a significant component of the City’s business landscape, the suggested revisions are intended to clarify and refine the existing home occupation regulations. Council challenged staff to expand the range of permitted home based business uses and to provide clarity on the proposed home based business regulations. It must be acknowledged that sensitivity and balance is required in settings where the primary intent is residential yet have residents wanting to operate small scale businesses. The possible new zoning regulations proposed for home based businesses, identified in this report, are intended to accomplish this. As identified in the Interdepartmental Implications section later in this report, departments have different opinions about the proposed revisions. Notable, would be the level of concern of potential neighbourhood impacts with the expanded uses and the increased number of regular visits by clients – specifically on neighbourhood parking and traffic generation. However, staff jointly feel consideration of all options is warranted at this time, especially in light of the involvement of the HBB Task Force and the opportunity to include wider community input and comments. A summary table outlining the proposed home based business zoning and where expanded regulations have been introduced, is provided on the following page in Table 2. 10 Table 2 - Summary of Proposed Changes Parameter Current Regulations Regulation Options Expanded Regulations Lot Size Under 1,200 m2 Lot Size Over 1,200 m2 Location Per Dwelling Unit Per Dwelling Unit & Accessory Building Per Dwelling Unit & Accessory Building  Size (based on gross floor area) 20% up to 50m2 (538 ft2) 30% up to 50m2 (538 ft2) 45% up to 100m2 (1,076 ft2)  Uses Office Permitted, limited Permitted Permitted  Business Services Permitted Permitted Permitted Same Professional Services Permitted, limited Permitted Permitted  Health Services Not Permitted Permitted Permitted  Personal Services Permitted, limited Permitted Permitted  Animal Services Permitted, limited Permitted, limited Permitted  Homecraft Permitted, limited Permitted Permitted  Tutoring & Lessons Permitted Permitted Permitted  Sales Not Permitted Permitted, restricted Permitted, restricted  Visitation Not Permitted 10 clients per day 16 clients per day  Group Sessions Restricted to Tutoring & Lessons; capped at 2 sessions; maximum of 6 clients per day Capped at 5 at one-time; maximum of 10 clients per day Capped at 8 at one-time; maximum of 16 clients per day  Non-Resident Employees 1 2 subject to parking 3 subject to parking  Signage 1 1 1 Same PROPOSED CONSULTATION PROGRAM: The proposed regulatory changes outlined above draws to a close the initial phases of the home based business regulatory review process. The next phase is intended to discuss the findings with the community to determine if the changes are supported; to identify additional issues; and to fine- tune proposed bylaw amendments. HBB Policy + Best Practice Research Establish HBB Task Force + Identify Issues Prepare Draft HBB Regulations Discuss with Wider Community Amend Zoning Bylaw WE ARE HERE 11 Prior to preparing formal bylaw amendments for the proposed home based business regulations, wider-community feedback is desired. The consultation process brought forward for Council endorsement includes hosting a public open house that will be advertised in the newspaper and via social media. In addition a questionnaire will be utilized to obtain feedback on the proposed Zoning Bylaw changes. Other forms of distribution for the questionnaire will include the City website and social media platforms, as well as hard copies at the public open house. In addition to the wider community outreach, staff also suggest connecting with existing home based business owners to increase awareness of the proposed changes and seek input from interested owners. The City collects email address through the home occupation licensing process, although this information is not mandatory. City records indicate that there are approximately 537 current home based business owners that have volunteered their email addresses. These businesses, along with the HBB Task Force, will be directly invited to attend and provide input either through the Open House or the online questionnaire. The HBB Task Force has indicated that it would also help identify and facilitate input from the community. Networks and connections through HBB Task Force members may be used to contact those who either do not have a home based business licence or have chosen not to operate a home based business due to perceived issues with existing regulation. City staff could assist the HBB Task Force in these efforts with online and print messaging and support. Following the engagement with the community, Council will receive a summary of the consultation feedback as the process enters its final stages, to determine whether staff should be directed to bring forward Zoning Bylaw amendments. It is also reiterated that the above illustrated process outlines the work stream for the regulatory review process only. The communication and process components of the overall review of home based businesses in the City will be forthcoming through the Economic Development Department. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Bylaw & Licensing Services Department The Bylaw & Licensing Services Department has been working in collaboration with both the Planning and Economic Development Departments. Bylaw & Licensing Services staff are interested in using the home based business regulatory review process as an opportunity to align several bylaws. Some reservations have also been raised by staff over a number of the proposed amendments. This includes the need to monitor the potential for neighbourhood impacts from increasing the permitted number of visiting clients to each home based business and the continued challenge of unenclosed storage, including the parking of commercial vehicles, at home based businesses. Should any proposed changes be adopted, changes to the Business Licensing and Regulation Bylaw would be required and would follow in a separate report. Economic Development Department As the organizers of the HBB Task Force, the Economic Development Department has been actively involved with the home based businesses review. The Economic Development Department supports and encourages home based business expansion within the City as they are considered an essential step in creating businesses within the community. Additional reports to Council regarding the work of the HBB Task Force in regards to the communication and process components will be forthcoming through the Economic Development Department. 12 CONCLUSION: The intent of the home based business review is to look at ways to update, modernize and improve regulations to better facilitate existing home based businesses and provide greater opportunities for expanding home based business in the City while balancing the needs of the residential communities in which these operations exist. This report provides an update to Council on the work that has been completed to-date regarding home occupations, sets out areas where more information was sought by Council, outlines possible regulatory changes for information and discussion, and seeks endorsement on a consultation program. With the presented regulatory changes, such measures represent a key step in an overall home based business review process that is aimed at promoting the City as “home based business friendly”. “Original signed by Amanda Grochowich” ______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amanda Grochowich, MCIP, RPP Planner 1 “Original signed by Lino Siracusa” ______________________________________________ Concurrence: Lino Siracusa Manager of Economic Development “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 E.C. Swabey” ______________________________________________ Concurrence: E. C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Section 402 of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 Appendix B – 2016/2017 Home Based Business Task Force Members 402 REGULATIONS FOR PERMITTED USES OF LAND, BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES (4) Home Occupation Use Where permitted, a Home Occupation use: (a) shall be clearly an accessory use to the use of a dwelling unit or to the residential use of a lot occupied by a dwelling; (b) shall be entirely enclosed within: (i) the dwelling unit; or (ii) a building in RS-2, RS-3 or A zones only; (c) shall not occupy more than: (i) 20% of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit up to 50 m 2 in total; or (ii) 20% of the gross floor area of the building or buildings up to 50 m2 in total in all buildings in RS-2, RS-3 or A zones only; (d) shall be conducted by residents of the dwelling unit, except that only one person who is not a resident may be employed on the lot; (e) shall not involve the unenclosed storage or display of raw materials, components, or stock-in- trade; (f) shall not involve internal or external structural alteration to the principal building, and there shall be no exterior indication that the building is used for a purpose other than a residential use except for one sign in accordance with Maple Ridge Sign Bylaw No. 4653-1992; (g) shall not involve more than one vehicle used in connection with the home occupation and no such vehicle shall be in excess of 3630 kg gross vehicle weight; (h) shall not involve: (i) occupations that discharge or emit odorous, noxious or toxic matter or vapours, heat, glare, noise or radiation, or recurrently generated ground vibrations; (ii) occupations that result in traffic congestion, on-street parking, electrical interference, fire hazard or health hazards; (iii) the use of mechanical or electrical equipment except as is ordinarily employed in purely domestic and household use or recreational hobbies or office uses; (iv) the salvage, repair, maintenance or sales of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines or parts; (v) beauty parlour, barber shop, massage parlour and animal grooming service in other than the RS-2, RS-3, A-1, A-2 and A-3 zones; (vi) tutoring or lessons for more than two classes per day to a maximum of six students per day; (vii) orchestra and band training; (viii) office uses that generate regular visits by clients; (ix) public assembly use; (x) telephone or mail order sales of goods where customers enter the premises to inspect, purchase or take possession of goods; (xi) a family daycare use in the RM2, RM3, RM5, C and CS zones; and (xii) sale of goods or products. (i) shall comply with the off-street parking requirements of "Maple Ridge Off Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990" as amended. APPENDIX A 2016 – 2017 Home Based Business Task Force Members Staff wishes to thank all of the community members who participated with the Home Based Business Taskforce. Amy Gagnon Angie McLeod Brenda Garcia Caroline LePage Don Lekei Josef Hans Lara Karl Lundgren Karoline deVries Ken Nowsorthy Mitzie Fraser Nikole Longhi Ronda Payne Tom Meier APPENDIX B City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 18, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5400-01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Donation Bins within the City of Maple Ridge EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living (RMACL), in partnership with Inclusion BC made a presentation at the March 20, 2017 Council Meeting regarding donation bins and their desire for consideration of a partnership with the City. At that meeting Council directed staff to prepare a report on donation bins in Maple Ridge. There are three not-for-profit organizations with clothing donation bins in Maple Ridge, all of which are located on private properties; Developmental Disabilities Association (DDA) has five locations, Inclusion BC has three and while the Canadian Diabetes Association website indicates they have one drop off location it is not believed to be in place. A fourth for-profit organization states on their website that they have a drop-off bin in Maple Ridge but do not specify the location. A map is appended to this report identifying the approximately ten clothing donation bin locations. None of the existing clothing donation bins in Maple Ridge are located within the road right-of-way but rather on private property and this is a consistent practice across the Lower Mainland. Certain municipalities have policies that permit clothing donation bins on municipally-owned lands, but require a licencing agreement and restrict the number of bins at any one location. The City may choose to maintain the current practice of requiring bins to be located on private property, or may elect to allow donation bins on road right-of-ways or on municipally owned properties. Upon review it is not recommended that bins be permitted on road right-of-ways but Council may decide to permit donation bins on City lands under certain constraints. Should the City support the siting of donation bins on municipal properties then a policy will be drafted for Council’s consideration. RECOMMENDATION: THAT staff prepare a policy to define the conditions and requirements to facilitate the placement of not-for-profit clothing donation bins on City-owned properties, OR THAT the City maintain the current practice of requiring organizations providing clothing donation bins to site them on private properties. 5.4 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The placement of clothing donation bins on public property or within a road right-of-way is currently not permitted in Maple Ridge. There are approximately ten bins sited on private properties throughout the City where the organizations enter into an agreement with private property owners. Three not-for-profit organizations have clothing donation bins in Maple Ridge; Developmental Disabilities Association (DDA) has five locations, Inclusion BC has three and while the Canadian Diabetes Association website indicates they have one drop off location it is not believed to be in place. A fourth for-profit organization states on their website that they have a drop-off bin in Maple Ridge but do not specify the location. A map is appended to this report identifying the approximately 10 clothing donation bin locations. Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living (RMACL), in partnership with Inclusion BC made a presentation at the March 20, 2017 Council Meeting regarding donation bins and their desire for consideration of a partnership with the City. At that meeting Council directed staff to prepare a report on donation bins in Maple Ridge. Staff contacted a number of municipalities across Metro Vancouver and it was ascertained that clothing bins are all located on private properties. The Township of Langley does have a policy to permit clothing donation bins on municipally-owned lands but requires a licencing agreement and only allows a single bin at each location unless there is a demonstrated need for more. Insurance and a security deposit is required as well as a licence fee, although this may be waived for non-profit organizations. In their presentation, RMACL and Inclusion BC noted stated that their program is the only one where the net funds are retained in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. As such, they are seeking to explore the possibility of a partnership with the City, although the scope is as yet un-defined. It was noted that central locations are preferred, along with convenient access for vehicles to pull up and drop off donations. There are a number of options for the City to consider regarding donation bins: 1. Private Property Only (Status quo) This is the current situation and does not require any approvals from the City although there may be issues with unsightliness and litter depending on how well the site is managed. The Bylaws Department notes that they respond to sporadic complaints, limited largely to individuals seeking to remove clothing from the bins but littering is not a significant concern. 2. Located on Road Right-of-ways. Sidewalks on collector and arterial roadways, especially those in more central locations have limited space for large items such as donation bins and it is not recommended that donation bins be sited on road right-of-ways. 3. Sited on Municipal Property Certain municipal properties may be able to accommodate the siting of bins – recreational facilities, fire halls, parks and provide easy access for cars to pull up. The drafting of a policy to define conditions and requirements to permit bins on City property would aid in the selection and administering of the program. The City may specify that only not-for-profit organizations would be considered and prioritize access for organizations that support local charities and programs. b) Strategic Alignment: Clothing donation bins allow for the recycling and repurposing of used clothes and reduce the amount of waste going to the landfill which in line with the City’s goal of being a more sustainable community. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Donation bins located in the community allows easy access for residents to drop off gently use clothing that in turn produces revenue for local not-for-profit organizations. Interdepartmental Implications: The Engineering, Bylaws and Parks departments will work together to draft up the policy for Council’s consideration. d) Business Plan/Financial Implications: It is not anticipated that there would be any financial implications to the City in facilitating the placement of donation bins on City lands as the individual organizations will be responsible to maintain the bins at an agreed level of service. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of clothing donation bins in the City that are currently located on private properties. The City may choose to allow certain organizations to site donation bins on City property and if so, then staff would prepare a policy for consideration. “Original signed by David Pollock” Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng Municipal Engineer “Original signed by Frank Quinn” Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. General Manager: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C.Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 4, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Outdoor Pool Information Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the June 06, 2017 meeting, Council discussed a letter received from the Haney Neptunes Swim Club President, whereby the club asked Council to consider building an outdoor competition pool. The discussion lead to the availability of a lightly used prefabricated outdoor pool. Staff have since had discussion with the supplier and this report provides Council with updated information on cost implications to install an outdoor pool, including a prefabricated option. RECOMMENDATION: A. That staff be directed to move forward with the process identified on page 3 of the report dated July 4, 2017, and report back to Council on potential locations for an outdoor pool, including any viable City owned lands and other locations including full cost implications; or B. That staff do not pursue an outdoor pool. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: In a letter dated May 14, 2017, the Haney Neptune’s Swim Club asked Council to consider a new outdoor pool in Maple Ridge. The club suggested that an 8 - 10 lane, 25 meter outdoor competition pool would provide the space to shift their summer swim program from the Leisure Centre to the outdoor pool. With the increased number of lanes, the Neptunes would have the ability to expand their club membership, increase the number of clubs invited to their annually hosted swim meet and allow the club to bid for larger scale competitions such as regional and provincial championships. In conversation with staff and some members of Council the club president also provided information on a prefabricated 10 lane, 25 meter outdoor pool previously used for a world event that is now available for purchase at a discounted rate. Council directed staff at the June 6, 2017 meeting to provide particulars of an outdoor pool opportunity as proposed by the Haney Neptune’s Swim Club. It is important to note that there are three competitive Swim Clubs that call the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre home and each have their own program needs: - The Haney Neptunes is a summer competitive swim club with approximately 120 speed swimmers, 40 water polo players, 20 synchro swimmers and 16 masters swimmers. This club trains and competes from May 1 to mid-August annually. This club competes in “short 5.5 2 course” competition, which means all their races are in 25 meter pools. The club offers a 2 day per week program in the off season. - The Haney Seahorse Summer Swim Club is a competitive winter swim club with approximately 120 swimmers. These swimmers train and compete year round with a short break in July/August. The club has two seasons’ short course and long course which requires a 50 meter facility. - Special Olympics offer a swim program and this group trains one day per week from September to March and they have competitions in both 25 and 50 metre pools. The number of swimmers varies from year to year but generally they have about 15 - 20 members. As indicated, the clubs have different swim seasons, different aquatic facility needs, separate governing bodies and competition levels. The Seahorses swim club past president, Melanie Klapstock, advised staff that the Seahorses do not support the building of an outdoor pool as a typical outdoor pool operating season does not meet their need of year round swimming nor their busy competitive season from November to May. Additionally she stated, “the club does not want to block any additional aquatic facilities in our community; our concern is that the building of an outdoor pool would undermine the opportunity for a much needed indoor pool in the future”. The Seahorses continue to advocate for the development of a second indoor aquatics facility with a 50 metre pool. However an outdoor would serve provide additional opportunities for the Neptunes Swim Club training during their spring/summer operating season, as well as opportunity for increased swim lesson programming, public length and leisure swimming and aquatic fitness programs. Pre-Fabricated Pool Option There are a number of companies who manufacture prefabricated pools. The pools are fabricated offsite to the customer’s specification and delivered when services are installed and the site is prepared. Staff have been contacted by a supplier from Nationwide Commercial Aquatics Inc. who represent Mertha Pools. The prefabricated Mertha pools, feature stainless steel wall panels and gutters, frame and supports. The frame is constructed on a concrete base and then bolted together and lined with a PVC membrane. The pool can be made any depth, including a shallow end sloping to a deeper end, to accommodate a greater number of users. The supplier has provided information on the availability of a lightly used “Mertha” pool; a pre-fabricated 10 lane, 25 metre pool, including the filtration, mechanical and chlorination systems for $2.2M. This does not include the heating system which would be an additional cost. This price has been reduced by 20% and is available to the first buyer. If the pool is sold before the City determines next steps, the supplier has indicated that they will provide a 10% discount on a similar pool designed to the City’s specifications for $2.38M. The advantage to acquiring the used pool versus a custom order pool is a potential time savings of approximately 2 - 3 months. To meet operational standards, Health Act requirements and aquatics best practices, additional pool amenities are necessary to adequately operate an outdoor pool. These include the installation of tempered concrete footings, construction of a pool deck, 3 mechanical and filtration building, staff and administration area, change room and washroom facilities, as well as lighting within the pool and adjacent areas including parking. Along with these new buildings, the Health Act requires pre-construction of civil works, site services for utilities, land geotechnical reports, permits and consultant soft costs. Costs for these other pool components would be in the range of $3M to $4M depending on the site location. At this time a location for an outdoor pool has not been identified, however, staff estimate as much as 5.0 – 6.5 acres is required for a pool of this size to accommodate supporting amenities if we want to host large scale swim competitions. More specifically: land requirements are 1.0 acre for the pool deck and support buildings, 1.0 acre of grass area for swim meets, and 3.0 – 4.5 acres for 200 – 300 parking spaces. If the City were to move forward with a prefabricated pool it would require the following process: Stage Timeframe Site identification, assessment and investigations (geotechnical and environmental) 2 months Site concept design for supportive pool facilities and parking including site servicing needs / Rezoning concurrently (site dependent) / Community and user group consultation 2-3 months Design RFP and detailed design for pool deck and footings, support buildings and parking 3-4 months Permits and tendering 3-4 months Mobilization and construction 4-6 months TOTAL 14 – 19 months b) Desired Outcome: To provide Council with information on the outdoor pool concept as requested by the Haney Neptunes Swim Club president including the Mertha Pool option as discussed at the June 6, 2017 Council Meeting. c) Strategic Alignment: In 2010, The Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan recommended that the existing outdoor pool next to Hammond Community Centre be decommissioned in conjunction with the development of a new indoor aquatic complex next to the Pitt Meadows Family Recreation Centre. Although there is strong community attachment to the current outdoor pool, it is ageing and in past years there was a trend away from investing in outdoor pools due to the high cost to build infrastructure that provides seasonal use. Since then, the City of Pitt Meadows has determined that they will not proceed with a second indoor aquatic facility. In addition, we are beginning to see a shift in the outdoor pool trend, with new outdoor pool developments that have occurred in New Westminster, City of Vancouver and the newly announced year round outdoor pool currently under construction in Aldergrove. 4 d) Citizen/Customer Implications: A desire for additional pools in Maple Ridge is being considered through the Recreation Facilities process. However, an outdoor option was not listed in the program. A second outdoor pool would provide additional opportunities for the Summer Swim Club training during the operating season, as well as opportunity for increased swim lesson programming, public length and leisure swimming and aquatic fitness programs. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The cost estimates include: Pool and supporting infrastructure: $5.2M – $6.2M Operating: $0.4M annually Lifecycle: $0.2M annually Land costs have not been included in the above, depending on location land could be up to $12M. These costs are not included in our Financial Plan. Capital costs of $15 million amortized over 25 years will result in annual debt servicing costs of $900,000. In addition, operating and lifecycle costs are estimated at $600,000 - $700,000 for a total annual financial commitment of $1.6 million. This can be provided for through a tax increase of 2% which could be phased in over a period of time. Prior to entering into the debt, approval of the elector will be required. No funding source is identified. f) Policy Implications: Staff are not recommending that Council proceed with the direct award of the purchase of the Mertha Pool. Should Council wish to proceed with a prefabricated pool, staff would recommend a full RFP process take place to ensure full compliance to the Purchasing Policy No. 5.45 as Provincial and Federal Trade Agreements apply to a procurement of this nature. Under the City’s Purchasing Policy and Trade Agreements, the City is required to publicly bid contracts at varied thresholds, and restricts the use of choosing specific suppliers. Should Council elect to proceed outside of these parameters, the City could be at risk of a supplier challenge through a formal dispute mechanisms. Supplier challenges could lead to administrative or judicial review, rapid interim measures along with the possibility of orders for corrective action or compensation. CONCLUSIONS: The total cost of the slightly used 10 lane, 25 metre prefabricated pool is estimated to be $5.2M - $6.2M excluding land acquisition costs. No location has yet been identified. Council may wish to direct staff to bring back a report identifying potential locations including any viable City owned lands, or other options. “Original signed by Kelly Swift” Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Culture “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer cb: Attachment – Letter from Haney Neptunes Aquatic Club – May 14, 2017 May 14, 2017 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC Canada V2X 6A9 Dear Members of City Council; My name is Jim Baxter and I am the President of the Haney Neptunes Aquatic Club in Maple Ridge. Our club serves the youth and adults of Maple Ridge, with our competitive season during the months of May to August, and off -season training during September to April. I am writing this letter to request that City Council consider building an 8 lane, 25 meter outdoor competition pool in Maple Ridge. With the creation of this facility, our club would have no need to book time and space in the indoor facility during the months of May to September, as all of our training needs would be met with this outdoor facility.Our Club would also have the ability for more families to register their children, thereby providing opportunities for healthy living to those young citizens of Maple Ridge. With the creation of this outdoor facility, the Haney Neptunes Aquatic Club would also be able to invite more clubs to our home competitions, as well as bid for the Provincial Championships that take place over a week long period in August, bringing approximately 2,000 young swimmers and their families to our City. Many surrounding Cities and Municipalities succe ssfully operate outdoor pools that are fully utilized by Swim Clubs, with Langley City currently creating an outdoor facility that will operate 12 months of the year. I would welcome the opportunity to meet with City Councillors and Parks and Recreation Facilities staff to discuss the need for an outdoor competitive pool facility in Maple Ridge. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future, Jim Baxter jkb958@shaw.ca