HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-25 Council Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfCorporation of the District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL MEETING A GENDA
January 25, 2000
7:00p.m.
Council Chamber
MEETING DECORUM
Council would like to remind all people present tonight that serious issues are decided at
Council meetings which affect many people's lives. Therefore, we ask that you act with the
appropriate decorum that a Council Meeting deserves. Commentary and conversations by the
public are distracting. Should anyone disrupt the Council Meeting in any way, the meeting
will be stopped and that person's behavior will be reprimanded.
Note: This Agenda is also posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.org
01 CALL TO ORDER
02 OPENING PRA YERS
Pastor Tony Sobocinski
03 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
03.01 Maple Ridge Town Centre Project Presentation
04 ADOPTION OF MINUTES
04.01 Regular Council Meeting of January 11, 2000
04.02 Public Hearing of Januaiy 18, 2000
04.03 Development Agrements January 12 (2) and 7, 2000; December 21, 1999
05 DELEGATIONS
05.01 Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge Home Show Society - Update on Activities
Presenter: Mr. Michael J. Potter
11-1
Page 1
Council Meeting Agenda
January 25, 2000
Council Chamber
06 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
06.01 D VP171199 - 12791 and 12793 - 228A Street
(an application to relax the front and rear lot setbacks and common wall
requirements)
07 CORRESPONDENCE Nil
08 BY-LAWS
Items 08.01 and 08.02 from the January 18, 2000 Public Hearing
08.01 RZ165199 - 11579 - 240 Street - RS-3 to CD-i -93
Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 58661999
second and third reading
(to create approximately nine lots not less than 371m' each).
08.02 RZ162199 - Amendments to Secondary Suite Regulations
Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5 847-1999
second and third reading
(to establish a definition of cooking facility; delete the minimum lot size
requirements; delete the requirement for a business licence; and establish a regulation
that states that secondary suites are not permitted on property situated within a
floodplain).
08.03 Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5879-1999
final reading
(regulations governing inactive development applications).
08.04 Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control Amending By-law No. 5873-1999
final reading
(to reflect year 2000 deadline dates for the purchase of dog licences).
Page 2
ALI,• Council Meeting Agenda
January 25, 2000
Council Chamber
09 COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
09.01 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
09.01.01 Minutes
Minutes of January 17, 2000
The following issues were considered at the January 17, 2000 Committee of the
Whole meeting with the recommendations being brought to this meeting for
- Municipal Council consideration and final approval. The Committee of the
Whole meeting is open to the public and is held in the Council Chamber at 12:30
p.m. on the Monday the week prior to this meeting.
09.02 Public Works and Development Services
09.02.0 1 RZ164199 - Northeast Corner of 236 Street and 133 Avenue
Staff report dated January 5, 200 recommending that the subject application to
permit 33 R-3 units and 40 RM-1 units be forwarded to Public Hearing subject to
the conditions specified in the report.
09.02.02 RZ123196 - 13819 - 232 Street - Request for One Year Extension
Staff report dated December 21, 1999 recommending that a one year extension be
granted to the subject application to permit 500 units under the CD-3-98 Zone,
using a combination of single family residential and multi-family residential form
of development. -
09.02.03 DP/66199 - Maple Ridge Town Centre Project - Leisure Centre and Youth
Centre
Staff report dated January 11, 2000 recommending that the subject application be
executed.
Page 3
Council Meeting Agenda
January 25, 2000
Council Chamber
09.02.04 DVP/81/99 - 20318 Dewdney Trunk Road
Staff report dated January 7, 2000 recommending that the subject application to
permit a variance in the rear yard setback be considered at the Council Meeting of
February 15, 2000 following appropriate notification to adjacent property owners.
09.02.05 DVP/80/99 —23281 Kanaka Way
Staff report dated January 11, 2000 recommending that the subject application to
waive the requirement to convert existing overhead wires on the north side of
Kanaka Way be considered at the Council Meeting of February 15, 2000
following appropriate notification to adjacent property owners.
09.02.06 Soil Deposit Regulation Amending By-law No. 5881-2000
Staff report dated January 5, 2000 recommending that the subject by-law be
granted three readings.
09.02.07 RZ135199 - 23853 Dewdney Trunk Road - By-laws 5843 and 5842-1999
Staff report dated December 10, 1999 recommending that the subject by-laws to
permit a gasoline bar, convenience store with resident and a commercial building
be read a first time.
Deferred from Council Meeting of January 11, 2000 for consideration of
additional staff information.
09.03 Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Policei
09.03.01 B. C. Hydro Recycling Levies
Staff report dated December 14, 1999, 1999 recommending that a request from
B.C. Hydro for a refund in the amount of $235.90 with respect to waiving the
annual 1999 recyling levy on 14 properties not be approved.
Page 4
Council Meeting Agenda
January 25, 2000
Council Chamber
09.03.02 Adjustments to the 1999 Collector's Roll - Reports for Information Purposes:
Staff reports dated January 4, 2000, December 14, 1999 and eight reports dated
December 8, 1999 advising of tax adjustments as detailed in the reports
recommendation to receive for information.
09.03.03 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee
Report from Municipal Clerk.
09.03.04 Question Period
Report from Municipal Clerk
09.04 Community Development and Recreation Service Nil
09.04.0 1 Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues - By-law Amendment
Staff report dated December 20, 1999 recommending that By-law No. 5845-1999
be granted three readings.
09.05 Other Committee Issues
10 MAYOR'S REFOR TS
Page 5
Council Meeting Agenda
January 25, 2000
Council Chamber
11 COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
12 OTHER MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
13 NOTICES OF MOTION
14 ADJOURNMENT
15 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
The purpose of the Question Period is to provide the public with an opportunity to seek'
clarification about an item on the agenda or other Municipal matter. Council will not tolerate
derogatory remarks directed at Council and/or staff during the Question Period.
If a member of the public has a concern related to a Municipal staff member, it should be
brought to the attention of the Mayor and/or Chief Administrative Officer in a private meeting.
Each person will be permitted 2 minutes only to ask their question (a second opportunity is
permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). The total Question
Period is limited to 15 minutes and questions must be related to items on the agenda.
Other opportunities to address Council may be available through the office of the Municipal
Clerk who can be contacted at 463-5221.
I t
s.karasz
Page6
I
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
APPOINTMENTS VIA CATEGORIES
1999-2000
GO VERNMENT AGENCIES
E-Comm (Effective January 01,2000.) Hams
Fraser Basin Council Speirs
Fraser Valley Regional Library Board Gordon
1St alternate Speirs
2nd alternate Morse
Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Hogarth
1St alternate Morse
GVRD Labour Relations Bureau Isaac
1St alternate Gordon
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee Gordon
Harris
OTHER APPOINTMENTS
Auditors KPMG
AD VISOR YAND/OR LEGISLATED (*) COMMITTEES
Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues King
1st alternate Speirs
*Advisoi.y Design Panel Morse
1st alternate King
Bicycle Advisory Committee Speirs
1st alternate King
Communities In Bloom Morse
* Court of Revisiori (Frontage Tax) Hogarth
Harris
Speirs
Page 1
Council Appointments
1999-2000
*Development Agreements Committee
1St alternate
Douglas College Advisory Committee
Economic Advisory Committee
* Emergency Planning Committee
*Heritage Advisory Committee
1st alternate
*MJPM Parks and Leisure Services Commission;
1St alternate
2nd alternate
3rd alternate
Ridge Meadows Youth & Justice Advocacy Assoc.
Social Planning Advisory Committee
1st alternative
Youth Advisory Committee
SELECT COMMITTEES
Arts and Cultural Policy Implementation
Committee
Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Airport Society
first alternate
Year 2000 Millennium Committee
Mayor
A/Mayor
Gordon
King
Hogarth
Morse
Isaac
King
Morse
Hogarth
King
Isaac
Gordon
Harris
Hogarth
Gordon
King
Morse
Speirs
Harris
Morse
King
Speirs
Page 2
Council Appointments
1999-2000
STAFF COMMITTEES
Labour Management Isaac
Gordon
Employee Awards Committee Isaac
COMMUNITY GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS (LIAISONS)
Alouette River Management Society (ARMS) King
Elderly Citizens Recreation Association Hogarth
Isaac
Morse
Maple Ridge Chamber of Commerce Hams
1St alternate Morse
Maple Ridge Foundation Hogarth
Ridge Meadows Arts Council Speirs
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Isaac
ACTING MA YOR
1999-2000
December/January Gordon
February/March King
April/May Harris
June/July Isaac
AugustlSeptember Morse
October/November Speirs
Page 3
Council Appointments
1999-2000
STANDING COMMITTEES
Members
Committee of the Whole All members
Chaired by:
Acting Mayor
Budget All Members
Audit Committee
Development Agreements
Labour Management
Hogarth
Isaac
Gordon
Morse
Mayor
Acting Mayor
Isaac
Gordon
December 6, 1999
Page 4
Other Community Groups and Organizations
Albion Community Association
Hammond Community Association
Ruskin Community Association
Silver Valley Neighourhood Association
Thoinhill Community Association
Websters Corner's Ratepayers Association
Whonnock Community Association
Yennadon Community Association
Maple Ridge Downtown Parking Society
Maple Ridge Equestrian Trails Council
Maple Ridge Historical Society
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Agricultural Society
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Community Services Council
The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge - CouncIl Schedule 2000
January
I Sat. New Years Day
2 Sun.
3 Mon. Stat. New Years
4 Tues. CofW(12:3Opm)
5 Wed.
6 Thur.
7 FrI.
8 Sat.
9 Sun.
10 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
11 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
12 Wed.
13 Thur.
14 FrI.
15 Sat.
16 Sun.
17 Mon. CofW(12:3Opm)
18 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm)
19 Wed.
20 Thur.
21 Fri.
22 Sat.
23 Sun.
24 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
25 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
26 Wed.
27 Thur.
28 FrI.
29 Sat.
30 Sun.
31 Mon.
April
I Sat.
2 Sun.
3 Mon. C of W (12:30 pm)
4 Tues.
5 Wed.
6 Thur.
7 FrI.
8 Sat
9 Sun.
10 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
11 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
12 Wed.
13 Thur.
14 Fri.
15 Sat.
16 Sun.
17 Mon. CofW(12:3Opm)
18 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm)
19 Wed.
20 Thur.
21 FrI. Stat. Good Friday
22 Sat
23 Sun. Easter Day
24 Mon. Stat. Easter Mon.
25 Tues. Closed Council I Council
26 Wed.
27 Thur.
28 Fri.
29 Sat.
30 Sun.
February
I Tues.
2 Wed.
3 Thur.
4 Fri.
5 Sat..
6 Sun.
7 Mon. C 01W (12:30 pm)
8 Tues.
9 Wed.
10 Thur.
11 Fri.
12 Sat.
13 Sun.
14 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
15 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
16 Wed.
17 Thur.
18 Fri.
19 Sat.
20 Sun.
21 Mon. CofW(12:3Opm)
22 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm)
23 Wed.
24 Thur.
25 FrI.
26 Sat.
27 Sun.
28 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
29 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
LEZ
I Mon. CofW(12:3Opm)
2 Tues.
3 Wed.
4 Thur.
5 Fri.
6 Sat.
7 Sun.
8 Mon. Closed Council (12:30pm)
9 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
10 Wed.
11 Thur.
12 Fri.
13 Sat.
14 Sun.
15 Men. CofW(12:3Opm)
16 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm)
17 Wed.
18 Thur.
18 Fri.
20 Sat.
21 Sun.
22 Mon. Stit. Vie. Day
23 Tues. Closed Council! Council
24 Wed.
25 Thur.
26 Fri.
27 Sat.
28 Sun.
29 Mon. CofW(12:3Opm)
30 Tues.
31 Wed.
March
IWed.
2 Thur.
3 FrI.
4 Sat.
5 Sun.
6 Mon. CofW(12:3Opm)
7 Tues.
8 Wed.
9 Thur.
10 Fri.
11 Sat.
12 Sun.
13 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
14 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
15 Wed.
16 Thur.
17 Fri.
18 Sat.
19 Sun.
20 Mon. CofW(12:3Opm)
21 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm)
22 Wed.
23 Thur.
24 Fri.
25 Sat
26 Sun.
27 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
28 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
29 Wed.
30 Thur.
31 Fri.
June
I Thur.
2 FrI. (FCM)
3 Sat. (FCM)
4 Sun. (FCM)
5 Mon. (FCM)
6 Tues.
7 Wed.
8 Thur.
9 Fri.
10 Sat.
11 Sun.
12 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
13 Tune. Council (7:00 pm)
14 Wed.
15 Thur.
16 Fri.
17 Sat.
1$ Sun.
19 Mon. CoIW(12:3Opm)
20 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm)
21 Wed.
22 Thur.
23 Fri.
24 Sat
25 Sun.
26 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
21 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
28 Wed.
29 Thur.
30 Fri.
Municipal Clerks Office Page 1 Printed on December 8, 1999
The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge - Council Schedule 2000
July August September
1 Sat. Canada Day I Tues. I Fri.
2 Sun. 2 Wed. 2 Sat.
3 Mon. Stat. Canada Day 3 Thur. 3 Sun.
4 Tues. C of W 4 Fri. 4 Mon. Stat. Labour Day
5 Wed. 5 Sat. 5 Tues.
6 Thur. 6 Sun. 6 Wed.
7 Fri. 7 Mon. Stat. BC Day 7 Thur.
8 Sat. 8 Tues. 8 Fri.
9Sun. 9Wed. 9Sat.
10 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm) 10 Thur. 10 Sun.
11 Tues. Council (7:00 pm) ii Fri. ii Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
12 Wed. 12 Sat. 12 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
13 Thur. 13 Sun. 13 Wed.
14 Fri. 14 Mon. 14 Thur.
15 Sat. 15 Tues. 15 Fri.
16 Sun. 16 Wed. 16 Sat.
17 Mon. C of W (12:30 pm) 17 Thur. 17 Sun.
18 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm) 18 Fri. 18 Mon. C of W (12:30 pm)
19 Wed. 19 Sat. 19 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm)
20 Thur. 20 Sun. . 20 Wed.
21 FrI. 21 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm) 21 Thur.
22 Sat. 22 Tues. Council (7:00 pm) 22 Fri.
23 Sun. 23 Wed. 23 Sat.
24 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm) 24 Thur. 24 Sun.
25 Tues. Council (7:00 pm) 25 Fri. 25 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
26 Wed. 26 Sat. 26 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
27 Thur. 27 Sun. 27 Wed.
28 FrI. 28 Mon. CofW(12:3Opm) 28 Thur.
29 Sat. 29 Tues. 29 Fri.
30 Sun. 30 Wed. 30 Sat.
31 Mon. C of W (12:30 pm) 31 Thur.
October Novmbr December
I Sun. I Wed. I Fri.
2 Mon. CofW(12:3Opm) 2 Thur. 2 Sat
3 Tues. 3 Fri. 3 Sun.
4 Wed. 4 Sat. 4 Mon. C of W (12:30 pm)
5 Thur. 5 Sun. 5 Tues.
6 FrI. S Mon. CofW(12:3Opm) 6 Wed.
7Sat. 71us$. lThur.
8 Sun. 8 Wed. 8 FrI.
9 Mon. Stat. ThanksgivIng Day 9 Thur. 9 Sat
10 Tues. Closed Cound/Counc6 10 Fri. 10 Sun.
11 Wed. 11 Sat. Remembrance Day 11 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm)
12 Thur. 12 Sun. 12 Tues. Council (7:00 pm)
13 Fri. 13 Mon., Stat. Rsn*mbranc. Day 13 Wed.
14 Sat 14 Tuss. Closed Council! Cound 14 Thur.
15 Sun. 15 Wed. 15 Fri.
16 Mon. CcfW(th30pm) IS Thur. 16 Sat
17 Tues. Public HearIng (7:00 pm) 17 FrI. 17 Sun.
18 Wed. IS Sat 18 Mon. C of W (12:30pm)
19 Thur. 19 Sun. 19 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm)
20 Fri. 20 Mon. C of W (12:30pm) 20 Wed.
21 Sat. 21 Tues. Public Hearing (7:00 pm) 21 Thur.
22 Sun. 22 Wed. 22 Fri.
23 Mon. 23 Thur. 23 Sat
24 Tues. (UBCM) 24 FrI. 24 Sun.
25 Wed. (UBCM) 25 Sat 25 Mon. Stat. Christmas
26 Thur. (UBCM) 26 Sun. 25 Tues. Stat. Boxing Day
27 Fri. (LJBCM) 27 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm) 27 Wed.
28 Sat. 28 Tu. Council (7:00 pm) 28 Thur.
29 Sun. 29 Wed. 29 Fri.
30 Mon. Closed Council (12:30 pm) 30 Thur. 30 Sat.
31 Tues. Council (7:00 pm) 31 Sun.
Municipal Clerk's Office Page 2 PrInted on December 8, 1999
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE
MINUTES
4
January 12, 2000
Mayor's Office
PRESENT:
Mayor Al Hogarth,
Chairman
Robert Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer
Member
1. SD/30199
LEGAL:
LOCATION:
OWNER:
K. Kirk, Recording Secretary
Lot B, Plan 7774 & Lots 281 & 282, Plan 44045;
Section 20, Township 12, New Westminster District
12500 & 12520 227 Street
455417 B.C. Ltd.
REQUIRED AGREEMENTS: Restrictive Covenants - Exterior Design, Single Family
Dwelling, Geotechnical, Cross Access Easement (2)
Watercourse Preservation Agreement
THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE
PRECEDING DOCUMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO SD-30-99.
CARRIED
A Robert Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer
Member
04
25
1263032
12 13 14 15 16 17
18
12636 31 11 _________ ...J 12643
12631 26
12620 P6 621 P6262359 366 357 -/ ...i C' C) / 367
11u SN N N N
EL BALABANIAN CIR 368 o-
385
j386 (jjP68q21j 69264 ifl I22Z__
I1N
N N 39 N1N
2750 1260
06 bZ 22760 I
P
12636
A
RP'
12610
12588 1
P 77079
12578 2
3 4
co
I 9A AVF
I I I 12409
1-4 192 191 190 189 I 188 '187 I 186 152
0137 I I I P36353
P9343] I
1548 1552 1565157
N N N N N N I N N
N N N N N N1 N 1 N N 1 N
N N N N N I N N Ni N N
2
NW3256 12444/46
P 81605
12440 1
0 112433
N- 12421
U-3
12409
a
1 1
38
P1161
37
12593/97
74411
C
12521
P7278
'
12 C."
2
12517
P857i 16
7TrIIiij 25A AVE
2511
.9
19 12507
12501/03 CI)
F,- c%4 CN
38
22523 \
39 23 22521 P 67860
.22 40 21 22519 2471
27 26 - P64860 18
14 15 617
Oj cc ccl ccl ccl cc ccl'4' cc
20
4 N N J
KENDRICK LOOP W
o I i I I I Icc IcC (0
1~8 1
N
L N ('1 EE N (.4 N
11 10 9 8 7 6 I 5 4 I 3 P
o P18883 Rem.! ?cn
'4 7 c'i
L 10 9 8 , Ac.'a Go
Go
C) 0(
co co
124 AVE
h4, 1 1101 2 1Z391
N
C4 c4
125A AVE
It--
9
12516 I _ 21
U) 12510
co 22
("4 12504
23
12468 1
c'1I
12460 2i
N ol5Trncyo9
VAU.IY
CORPORATION OF A 'c THE DISTRICT OF
ALM MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
Incorporated 12. September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SCALE: 1:2,500 KEY _____ DATE: Jun 10 1999 FILE: SD-30-99 BY: OS
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE
MINUTES
January 7, 2000
Mayor's Office
PRESENT:
Mayor Al Hogarth,
Chairman
R. Robertson, Administrator
Member K. Kirk, Recording Secretary
Lot A, District Lot 242, Group 1, Plan LMP39093, New
Westminster District
12 108 208 Street
466971 BC Ltd.
Release of Restrictive Covenant (BM19495)-Rezoning Dev.
Agreement
1. RZ/63/94
LEGAL:
LOCATION:
OWNER:
REQUIRED AGREEMENTS:
THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE
PRECEDING AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO RZ/63/94.
CARRIE
F.Robertson, Administrator
Member Chairman
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE
MINUTES
December 21, 1999
Mayor's Office
PRESENT:
Mayor Al Hogarth,
Chairman
R. Robertson, Administrator
Member K. Kirk, Recording Secretary
iI
Lot 9, District Lot 277, Group 1, Plan LMP28091, New
Westminster District
20913 115 Avenue
John Nikula
Discharge of Restrictive Covenants - BK124797,
BK124799, BK124802
Lot 10, Plan 30256 & Lot 11, Plan 30498; all of Section 16,
Township 12, New Westminster District
11535 & 11555 240 Street
Twin Brook Developments Ltd. & Ronald Antalek
Restrictive Covenants - Single Family, Exterior Design
Control & Geotechnical
Subdivision Servicing & Watercourse Preservation
Agreements
NIKULA, JOHN
LEGAL:
LOCATION:
OWNER:
REQUIRED AGREEMENTS:
2. SD/12/99
LEGAL:
LOCATION:
OWNER:
REQUIRED AGREEMENTS:
THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE
PRECEDING AGREEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO JOHN NTKULA & SD/12/99.
CARR1E7 cnL
Pv$yor ogart R. Robertson, Administrator
chairman Member
290 291
325
297 (1
11684
286 87
288 01 11685 ) F--
296
324 11674
11673 C\J
289 323
11659 322
1oiyv
293
295 11664
294 11654
321
309 11644
11634
/340 331192
194
317
318 319
0 C'4 3 LM 849
P447 D2
100 f352 P4412 353
cli
P 54678
11677 11880
- - 117
165
94 P3310 --- 11676
116 ') 11669 11672
95
3.
11668
164
115 11661 (l) 11664 11663 163
ki I-
I- 96 Cl' ii -
114 125 11653 LI_I 11656 11655 (I)
- 62
97 LI_I 113 126 11652
11645 LI_I 11648 11641 161 1-• 98 112 127 11644
11637 11640 11639 160
99 111 128
11636
11629 11632 11631 159
100 110 129
11628
11621 11622 11623 158 0
11620 (0
101 109 130 ' 11613 11616 P33 60 11615 157
11612 102 108 g 131 11605 P 33160 0 0
156
11604 103 I16AVE 11596 11599
84 PJ33160
Rem 105 j Rem Rem P 36594
106 107 P 3654 85 I 8
0 3
1 1549 9
4 CIO LMP
- f9l co
8
't 17i_
i rr I 6 l0
8 8 11525_J , P34701 P76f'50
I (0
115AVE 2 r2l
— I 27 2 a.
11490 JN I 12 8 n1 0
c1
16
Rem8
11480
1514 13 I I I
1(1) 17
P19225 I 11470
I çsJ 18
I 11460
I 19
P 40699
1 1 185
P 85960
20 I 21 22 24
fir- LO.1i I
23
I
U, I I I I 8 18 18 C H H H
clo
GOLF LANE
NW 3299
2
P 8''
PARK
LMP 36718
!r 1t 27'
i-i ,,6.'lI
WP 28 Ir PARK
26,
00 Go
.1
L1!)2 h
p 35041
X\3 661\
Part: 1.33 ha CL __'
u64k;i LM
I , I ;r61 ci 2.81 he
) )
1! 0.800 he
28 11 '3 II
27 i i
66 1 23.2 26 I EP 66258
i P 66257 65
fF6/S li-I p 66257 II
\_•__
__•1F6J9
Il 25 I 1I62J$
it
I II
116 AVE
"579
12
0.9001w 20.1
RP 4518
a- 1.614 he
11
1.106 he
1/55
11376
J /7340
10
RP 1340A 1.280 he
A
21 o.40e
/ISJO
17 :k 18 lrLi 1&0 _ ____
2.023 ha
15 _______
22 37 23.1
'p16 ____ ___
1/5/0 1/3/S
23 36 a-
1/502 N N 1/SO) 1I5At. S 24 35
14 11492 11499 8
25 34
PARK
N44tt7 ji5 l 1 ____ _____0.
#464 1/491 11502
' 26 33
____________
11476 kii: 3,;;;;-L
/1465 P 137861 27
II2ha O
a- a- 32 4i4 I *1 1 I _______ ____
415
a-'
0
u' 3 1 % 28 11467 3
P 4 ,,, \ 1 29 30It
1331MS 2991 1174-3.5 .
Pa
13LM 4 12 ul9.0 14
PARK 9\1O1
1r
10,11 I
7
Go
18
/f918
18.0 1/42 17I'16 /l415a-
0 11425.- 114 A - I I P 30283 3&
" 11422 I i P22031 3
_ 21 2 17 1 16 1 1 51 14 19 r LMFj _313__
,, - _
134 4 P34984„J
11416
1141.
20 a. 15 'PP045 3 • A 41 403 1140 11410 3 0.463 he - RP 8357 /1-391
1 200 46 14544
2
,.i /1J i ”CL
r3 I138A. 0.405 ha
_________ __________________________________________________ 4
4 /179
PcI.2 RP6761 P 21243
21 _PARK LMP/(33122"
5
[
a. /ijij
5
6
1
PcI. I
0.797 h RP 6260
/557 Li a.
30
- 7 F1.L,,Xn
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 CANADA N'L.A.PLE RIDGE Telephone: (604) 463-5221 Fax: 604) 467-7331
Incorporated 12 September, 1874 e-mail: enquiries@distrjctmaple.rjdgehc.ca
2000 January 17
File No: 0230-01
Mr. Michael J. Potter, Chairman
Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge Home Show Society
15 - 22751 Haney By-Pass
Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 2N2
Dear Mr. Potter:
Thank you for your correspondence dated January 13, 2000 requesting an opportunity for the
Home Show Society to appear before Council as a delegation.
Accordingly, the following arrangements have been made:
Council Meeting
January 25, 2000
Council Chamber
@7:00 pm
Unfortunately, due to time constraints, it is necessary to limit delegation appearances to ten
minutes. It would therefore be very much appreciated if you could ensure that your presentation
is completed within the allotted time.
Please feel free to contact me at 463-5221 if we can be of any further assistance.
YstrulY
/7 8
: -Trevor Win
Municipal (
/dd
cc Confidential Secretary
"Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizens" .0I lJh#
________ 'Sr MAPLE
NaSecdav alenned
15.22751 Haney By.ae
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 2N2
T&eprofl 604 467-3950
Facmfle; 604 466.6889
Erieil:
PATN15
Maple Ridge
Comrnuniiy Savings
-
McOonold'
Resc U rants
CKNW/98
Johnston Ms.r
Insurance Group
P&L Speed Print
TV- -
The News
Th e flmes
Andrew, Rrwn Moruney,
Charferd Acrounfuith
Scotia bank
January 13, 2000
Mr. Trevor Wingove
Municipal Clerk
The Corportation of the District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C.
V2X 6A9
Be:Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge Rome Show Society
Dear Mr. Wingrove:
Further to our telephone conversation recently. This letter is to request
as appoarance before council as a delegation representing the above
Soc.
As the Home show is an annual event it is our intention to keep both
Municipal Councils up to date with our intentions and aspiration's.
You mentioned that the next date for a possible appearance would be
the evening of Monday January 25 2000. Thank you for your
consideration.
Yours truly
Micbael I Potter
Chairman
STAR FM
XY,
-
-
Maple Hldge Community 5aVlflgs
a divion of *1.. Viibnn.,ter S.r.4nçs Ci*e IJci
PROUD HOME SHOW PARTNER SINCE 1995
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
)) Hane'. ace. ape Ric ge. BC \ _X 6A9 CANADA vtA.I'LE RDGE Telephone: 6()4 463-322 1 Fax: t6041 467-7331 Incorporated 12 September. 1874 e-mail: eiquries distric)nple.rjdehcca
January 12, 2000
File No: 3090-20/DVP/71/99
Dear S jr/Madam:
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the Municipal Council will be considering a Development Variance Permit
at the regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber,
Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge.
The particulars of the Development Variance Permit are as follows:
APPLICATION NO.: DVP/71/99
LEGAL: Lot A, Section 20, Township 12, Plan LMP29025, New Westminster
District
LOCATION: 12791/93 228A Street
PRESENT ZONING: RT-1 (Two Family Urban Residential)
PURPOSE: The applicant is requesting the following variances in order to front the
proposed residences towards 228A Street and to create the appearance of
two separate homes:
relaxation of the front lot line setback from 7.5 metres to 3.5 metres
and the rear lot line setback from 7.5 metres to 1.5 metres;
waive the requirement for both dwelling units to be contained within
one structure sharing a common roof by allowing the separatiion of
the buildings with an architectural feature on the second storey.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the Development Variance Permit and the Planning
Department report dated December 14, 1999 relative to this application will be available for inspection at
the Municipal Hall, Planning Department counter during office hours, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. from
January 12 to January 25, 2000.
"Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizen(,4
0 / —
, S O° ecceø Piper •
'10 Sec10ariy teacfled nr e-•e
ALL PERSONS who deem themselves affected hereby shall be afforded an opportunity to make their
comments known to Municipal Council by making a written submission to the attention of the Municipal
Clerk by 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 25, 2000.
Yours truly,
7M4~u
vor W).irgrove
nicipal Clerk
TW:kk
cc: Confidential Secretary
2
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: December 14, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP171/99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev
SUBJECT: DVP/71/99
1279 1/93 228A Street
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Development Variance Permit application has been received under Section 922 of the
Municipal Act. It is this section of the Municipal Act that permits the local government to
consider issues and variances to certain local bylaws under a Development Variance Permit
application. This application is requesting a variance to the Zoning Bylaw for the following:
Setback requirements for front and year yard;
Common wall requirements for a Two Family Residential Use.
Staff support the applicants request.
II RECOMMENDATION:
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval
of DVP/71/99 respecting property located at 12791/12793 228A Street will be considered by
Council at the January 25 th, 2000 meeting.
III BACKGROUND:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
Variances Requested to
the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw
Zone:
IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION
George Lesiczka
Yaletown Enterprises Ltd.
Lot A, Sec. 20, Tp. 12, Plan LMP29025, NWD
Sec. 402(5);
601(c); and
Part 2 Interpretations (Front Lot Line)
RT-1 (Two Family Urban Residential)
The subject property isa zoned duplex lot situated on the south west corner of 128 Avenue and
228A Street. The applicant wishes to front the proposed residences towards 228A Street and
J
separate them to create an appearance of two separate homes attached by an architectural feature
on the second level.
V PLANNING ANALYSIS
1. Council Policy
The Policy dealing with duplexes was introduced in 1993. The purpose was to
ensure that:
main living areas were located on the ground level;
the design would provide for private yard space;
the front face of the duplex would not be dominated with a garage;
the access would not be dependent upon a secondary highway.
This Policy has generally provided guidelines for the design of duplexes since 1993,
and required the registration of a Restrictive Covenant to ensure that the duplex was
constructed according to the above noted guidelines. However, the policy does not
address neighbourhood context and this proposal seeks to be more compatible with
other residences in the neighbourhood
2. Design Control
The lot area was created and zoned prior to the Duplex Guildelines in 1993 and was
not subject to the current duplex policy. It is, however, the subject of an exterior
design control Covenant which was registered at the Land Title Office at the time of
subdivision. This Covenant requires that all building design in the subdivision be
approved by a designer to ensure that it compliments the neighbourhood.
3. Variance Requested
i) Front, Rear and Exterior Yard Setbacks
Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, Section 601 C concerns itself with regulations
for the size shape and siting of buildings. The duplex zone (RT-1) requires
that the building be set back: from the
7.5 m from the front and rear lot line;
4.5 m from the exterior side lot line; and
1.5 m from the interior side lot line.
In the case of this corner lot, the front lot line as defined in the Zoning
Bylaw (definition attached) is 128 Avenue (the narrowest lot dimension) and
228A Street is the exterior side yard. The applicant is requesting several
siting relaxations that would allow the duplex to face 228A Street and
reduce the exterior side yard along 128 Avenue by one metre. Figure 1
provides a schematic drawing of the required and requested siting and the
contextof neighbouring lots.
-2-
Figure 1
1.5
MA
REQUESTED VARIANCE
Staff support this variance as it is consistent with the siting criteria for
neighbouring lots.
ii) Section 402 (5) states that both dwelling units shall be contained within one
structure sharing a common roof and shall either:
share a common wall or walls for a minimum length of 15% of the
total perimeter dimension;
be sited one above the other.
The applicant is asking to separate the buildings to provide two separate
homes connected only by an architectural feature on the second storey. Staff
support the requested variance as it will allow the resulting building mass to
be consistent with other homes on this block. It is recommended that the
design be subject to the approval of the Advisory Design Panel with specific
reference to the use of the architectural feature as a common building
element.
VI DISCUSSION:
This proposal attempts to address the neighbourhood context by;
Siting the residences in manner that is consistent with other residences in the
neighbourhood
Designing each residence to appear as separate units, thereby ensuring the building
mass of each is consistent with other residences on the block.
In order to achieve these supportable objectives a number of variances to the Maple Ridge
Zoning Bylaw are required.
-3-
This proposal points to some deficiencies in the current policy for duplex design. Specifically,
the policy presently does not require design compatibility with the balance of the neighbourhood.
Further, as design review for multifamily and commercial projects is currently referred to the
Advisory Design Panel, the Panel's review of design proposals for duplex residences would also
be useful, in particular with reference to compatibility with existing neighbourhood design. In
response to this concern, a proposed amendment to the Duplex Policy is attached for Council's
consideration.
VII CONCLUSION:
Staff recommend that Council support several variances to the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw,
Section 601 C and Section 402 5 with the requirement that the application be reviewed by the
Advisory Design Panel prior to a Building Permit being issued.
Staff also recommend that the attached amended Duplex Policy be approved.
Prepared by: Gay Por
Planning Technician
Approved by: Ty F,py'efP. Eng.
Jbire6tciof Current
Lke J. RudolVAICP, MCII'
GM: Publi6 Works & Development Services
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
-4-
01 P64698 P2711
261%
2844
C-31 128511 17 14
38 _________
27
12841 1W > 24 128311M 12832
Z 2832 18 13
2 128 R-2 28 (/I 23 ______
1 _ 12835 I________ I 12821 I
19 I 12822 12 00
\Rs_
2 P2280 I P19b54 I I P119054 I a.
P14143 g, 1 2 r 30 29O') 2221 lCD
I Cl
N N N N NN j N j N N N N NI IN NJ I
I N N N
I 20
N\ N
Nil I a. N -
_
LMP 4909
I2L
12796 SUBJECT PROPERTY LMP 14909
20 21 51 52 1 1279lf93 to
12792 12797 12798 12799 A N N N N N N _____
22 i::. 90 127
49
12789 12786 RT-1 N
19 12793 50 2 RS-3 12782 w
232787 12778
48
12779
47
12776 51 52 R -2 55 18 ___ 3
12772 12779
24 C
--p
12770 12769 12766
17 I 12771 i s- 12771
12762 I 25 12760 12759 _ im D 12763 44 43 P40 79
1 6 26 12757
12752 _
____________
12749
______
36
15
12753
\ 27 \
\12750
41 42 46
12742
12732 12747 \ \ 12740 12733
1 i.MP 114909 28 40 39 12742
LMP 35902 12737 ___________________________________________
5 29 12730 12729 TAVE
12(10
0)30
12724 A 12727
i-1
N N N H
N 2 C)
LMP 37579 12720 12717 N N N N N N I
\12712 a. 12711 12710 12709
12710 jLM14 09
1 12719 36 35 N 56 N57N58 N59 N60 N P 22339
31
\ 2 32 LMP 14909 (N
12718
LIMP 12701 I
\LMP3628 LMP13 73 2' ;2 3 H-5 \ 6 1 2 I
N N N N N N 12703 N N N N N Rem 4
127AVE 127PL
12678 N p. p. N N
N N ,fl / f
I
22 10 9 N8 N7 6
23 --
19 2 12669
12655
1 26B AVE 24 B Rem 3
18 P 23424
25
12/ 13 14 15 16\lrc\\ - 12643 12636
12631
/ LIMP \ 13973 \ - 26 - - -
I P6&621 I P69262 366 - Ait,
RP22408 (0 (0
NI NI NI N N N 12610
k I I DCCTOP 1 fJL,
-"-I
A —
I
••
I 12791-228AST
I.
___ THE DISTRICT OF
CORPORATION OF
MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
_____ FATE: Dec 11999 FILE:DVP/71/99 BY: JB
I i
W TmILüilIiIr -
iIIt- -
Culmi - U-
Jiii1JJ.11iIiiiiiiiiH1i
Front Elevation
CONS7RUC11ON ADDRESS: WOpIe Riøgc. B.0 PROPOSED FAMILY DELLIN DA Scp ernDe' 1999
G SHEET: I OF 3 LEGAL DrSCRIPI1ON LO I A.
II
PA1O
BRLAgFAST AA
DEN -
- FAMILY ROOM
157204%
-K17CHEN
11-4.11.8
-
I I .1 I fl UTILIrY I 5IO*62
0
H
H ..I
-
UP
DININCROOM .
11,400,13
FOYER
•1
LIWIC ROOM fi.
GARAGE
-G
a a
PA11O
1 II OREARFAST AREA U
DEN
981I'6 FAMILY ROOM
152146
UTIUrY
5IO62 IL
_________________
H
gITOIEN
I4.II8
T1 i
-
DININC ROOM
II41OO
FOYER
fl 11 I UINGROOM
14I24
GARAGE Il I74.198 I
POR04 H
POROI
'-
37-6 8-0 r- 37-6
TOTAL UVNG AQEA 2.723 50. FT TOTAL UVNG AEA 2.716 SQ FT
Main Floor
CONSTRUCTION ADDRESS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
UaIe Riage. B.C.
LOT A. PROPOSED FAMILY DWELLING DATE: Seotember 8. 1999
Scale: 1/8 =
aAa1•bIQ
(U04) aR-4a2
SHEET: 2 OF 3
_ot2 L Ol 359• 3 0t_
11.430 2.438 11.430
7.5-'_S-ACI(
BUILDING FOOTPRINT BUILDING FOOTPRINT
AREA: 180.8 sc.m AREA: 180.3 sq.m , • U < . Ui
I.. _ot -
..,c? z Ui - - = - r •I F • > 4
DBL GARAGE DOL GARAGE
L H ___ • __
LotA
0
Site Plan
27.393 -
0 30' 32
228 A STREET .
(604) a26-e22
CONSTRUCTION ADDRESS: iaple Ridge. B.C. DATE: September 8. 1999 PROPOSED FAMILY DWELLING SHEET: 3 OF 3 [GAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A. j Scale: 1:150
0. aspft~k~ MAPLE RIDGE Icorportd 2 S ,pt,mbcr, 1874
TITLE: DUPLEX
AIJrHORJTY:
POLICY NO.
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
EFFECTIVE DATE:
SUPERSEDES:
APPROVAL:
POLICY STATEMENT:
- '--
Any rezoning application to permit construction of duplexes will be considered, provided the
following conditions are met:
The subject property meets the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw with respect to parcel size
and geometry.
The parcel is not dependent on a secondary highway for access.
The proposal meets the design criteria established for duplex development.
Two storey duplex units should be constructed so that the main living area is ground oriented.
The garage should not be the most prominent feature on the fronting street and the total
frontage for the garages should not exceed 50% of the total building front.
That a Neighbourhood Context Plan be provided.
That the Advisory Design Panel review the building proposal prior to a Building Permit
being issued.
3691 FINISHED FLOOR AREA means the sum of the internal floor area of each storey (excluding basements) in
a dwelling unit measured between the internal finished surface of the exterior walls excluding
balconies, sundecks, carports, and any accessory residential structures and where the internal surfaces
are of those interior finishes as defined in Section 3.1.11.1(1) of Maple Ridge Building By-law No.
2062 - 1973 as amended.
4790 FLOOR SPACE RATIO means the figure obtained when the Gross Floor Area of all the buildings on a lot
is divided by the area of the lot except any portion of a storey used for parking purposes, unless such
parking is a principal use.
FRONT LOT LINE means the lot line or lines common to the lot and fronting street, or where there
is more than one fronting street, the lot line or lines common to the lot and the fronting street
towards which the narrowest dimension of the lot is flanking.
GROSS FLOOR AREA means the total area of all the floors, measured to the extreme outer limits of the
building, including all dwelling units and all areas giving access thereto such as corridors, hallways,
landings, foyers, staircases and stairwells. Enclosed balconies and mezzanines, enclosed porches or
verandas, elevator shafts and accessory buildings (except those used for parking) shall also be
included.
GROUP HOUSING means a block of three or more individually attached family dwelling units located on a
single lot in the form of clusters, rows or groups, where each dwelling unit, which may be separated
from its neighbour by a floor, has its own individual external access, shares one or more party wells,
and with each dwelling unit having its own separate patio gardens and/or sharing a common
courtyard.
4453 HEIGHT means the greatest vertical distance measured from a plane parallel to the finished ground
elevation adjoining each exterior wall to the highest point of the building or structure.
5794 HIGHWAY means any street, road, lane, trail, bridge, viaduct and any other way open to the use of the
public.
4700 HOME OCCUPATION means a business accessory to the use of a dwelling unit or to the residential use of
a lot occupied by a dwelling.
5680 HOUSING AGREEMENT means an agreement under Section 905 of the Municipal Act.
5794 INDOOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION - means a use wholly enclosed within a building providing for
members of the public to engage in recreational activities as participants rather than spectators.
4838 INDUSTRIAL, EXTRACTION means a use providing for the extraction and storage of sand, gravel,
minerals and peat.
4838 INDUSTRIAL use means a use providing for the processing, fabricating, assembling, storage, transporting,
disthbuting, wholesaling, testing, servicing, repairing, wrecking, or salvaging of goods, materials or
things and the selling of heavy industrial equipment; includes the operation of truck terminals, docks,
railways, bulk loading and storage facilities.
4838 INDUSTRY, LIGHT means an industrial use which is wholly enclosed within a building or buildings.
INTERIOR SIDE LOT LINE means the lot line or lines, not being the front or rear lot line, common to
more than one lot or to the lot and a lane.
-4-
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5866-1999
A By-law to amend zoning on Map "A" forming part
of Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5866 - 1999."
That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 12, Section 16, Township 12, Plan 30498, New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1225 a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this by-law, is hereby rezoned to CD-1-93 (Amenity Residential District).
ing By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto Maple Ridge Zon
are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , A.D. 199.
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 199.
READ a second time the day of A.D. 199.
READ a third time the day of ,A.D. 199.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of ,A.D.
199.
MAYOR CLERK
0g.0
I
2-a3 ho
LMP A 36718
LMP 36718 0.80 ho
EP 35041 -
Pn PARK
Co 31
0. Pert L33 hO
I I0.800ho II
)) I!
II
66
EP 65 2.3.2
/ 66258 I P 66257
P 66257
((
1762
AVE.
36 I
RP 4518
1.374 ho 0.
11
1.106 hO
Co It,
C • 10
RP 1340A 0. h2EO he
2.023 hO
rb 17 1 19
21 11518
16 17,5,010
15 115 AVE. P2 714S2 14
41 25
13 ARK - 26
17476 __
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 5866-1999
Map No. 1225
From: RS-3(One Family Rural Residential)
To: CD-1-93(Amenity Residential District)
I-
f-fl
1/576
t7540
A
_LX
0 0.405 ho 38
2.3.1 37
LW 0. 36
354 9
1 0.309pic 33
6 Z) I LWOM kk - -aw
MAPLE RIDGE 12 Septbor. 1874 1:2500
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: December 6. 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/65/99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council
SUBJECT: RZ165/99
(11579-240 Street)
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the above noted property to permit subsequent subdivision
into approximately 9 residential lots. The subdivision will be accessed and serviced by extensions of
239A Street and a lane north to 116 Avenue and 116 Avenue east to 240 Street.
II RECOMMENDATION:
That application RZ/65/99 (for property located at 11579 - 240 Street) to rezone property
described in the memorandum dated November 15. 1999 from RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to CD-1-93 (Amenity Residential District) be forwarded to Public Hearing and that
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5866-1999 be given first reading noting that the conditions
to be met prior to final consideration of the Zone Amending Bylaw are detailed in that
memorandum.
Conditions to be met prior to final approval: -
Final Reading to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5818-1999 (RZ/12!99):
Preliminary approval from the Ministry of Environment. Water Management Branch:
Preliminary approval from the Ministry of Environment. Fish and Wildlife Branch;
A geotechnical report which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development;
Road dedication as required.
Park dedication as required.
Registrationof a rezoning development agreement and the deposit of security to construct a
walkway adjacent to the subject property
III BACKGROUND:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Damax
Mary Blackstock
Lot 12. Sec. 16. Tp. 12, NWD, Plan 30498
Single Family Residential 15, 18. 30 upnh; Compact Housing 40
upnh & Conservation
-1-.
1)
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: CD-1-93 (Amenity Residential District)
Surrounding Uses:
N:
S.
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Access:
Servicing:
IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Rural Residential
Development applications for Single Family Residential
Agricultural
Horseshoe Creek (Conservation)
Rural Residential
approximately 9 single family lots
Access will be provided by the extension of 239A Street and a
lane which are currently under construction to the south lot line.
All urban services will be provided in the municipal streets.
The applicant has applied to rezone the subject property to CD-l-9 3 (Amenity Residential District) to
permit subsequent subdivision into approximately 9 lots. This project will extend 239A Street and the
paralleling lane north to 116 Avenue and construct 116 Avenue east to 240 Street. The lots on 240 Street
and the east side of 239A Street will be accessed by motor vehicle from the lane. This subdivision will
complete the development pattern established south to I 14A Avenue.
Horseshoe Creek tapers northeasterly towards 240 Street. However, there appears to be enough land
available outside the riparian protection zone to provide for one lot on the west side of 239A Street.
V PLANNING ANALYSIS
(i) Official Community Plan
The east half of the development site is designated Single Family Residential (15, 18 & 30
upnh). The west half of the site is designated Compact Housing (40 upnh) and Conservation.
Although the Compact Housing designation recognized physical limitations in developing
adjacent to Horseshoe Creek. the developer has demonstrated that a single family subdivision
under the CD- 1-93 zone can be accomplished while providing adequate riparian protection.
The subject Site IS located within Development Permit Area No. XX identified on Schedule "H"
of the Official Community Plan. This Development Permit Area provides guidelines for the
protection of the natural environment, and in this instance, specifically to protect Horseshoe
Creek, which is designated for Special Treatment on Schedule "E" of the Official Community
Plan.
It is recommended that a geotechnical report be submitted which addresses environmental
concerns related to development adjacent to a watercourse. This report must also address the
suitability of service, road and house construction. Areas designated for protection are to be
dedicated as Park prior to final approval of the Zone Amending Bylaw.
Servicing
Subdvisior of land soutn of tne sune:: propertY appiic:tion R1'19 and S). ' \V1I
provide all urban services to the subject property. Accordingly. those applications must be
complete prior to final zoning approval.
Road Exchange
At a meeting held August 24. 1999 Council reviewed a report titled "116 Avenue, Maple Ridge:
240 Street to Creekside Street - Assessment of Need for a Road Link" and passed a resolution
that 116 Avenue from 238A Street to 239A Street not be built as a full road but that a
cycle/footpath be constructed in the right of way. A portion of this right-of-way is presently
adjacent to the site. but as a consequence of park dedication at rezoning, will not be adjacent
during subsequent subdivision approval. Recognizing the importance of this walkway. staff
recommend that a rezoning development agreement be required to secure construction of that
portion of the walkway adjacent to the subject property.
Since 116 Avenue will not connect Creekside Drive with 240 Street. staff recommend a
reduction in the existing 116 Avenue right of way adjacent to the subject property from 20 m to
18 m to reflect anticipated reduced traffic volumes for this local street. The geometry submitted
reflects the reduced right of way. A road exchange bylaw will be presented for Council approval
to facilitate this right of way reduction
VI CONCLUSION:
This development conforms to the Official Community Plan designations and completes the land use
pattern established for this neighbourhood. Noting that the subdivision plan has been received, it is
recommended that this application be supported and forwarded to Public Hearing and that Maple Ridge
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5866 - 1999 be given first reading.
, r~~ Prepared
Planning Technician
'erry Fryer.
Director 9(nt Planning
Approve $ Jake IRudol4AICP. C1P
GM: blicWorl & Development Services
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
DS/sg/bjc
-3-
11530
35
36
0 10 Ir
RP134OA
A 535L_
/ARx
17 _. 18L 19 20 11515 SZ 11530 2
16\ j
I 22 37 I
11510 115151 ol
_
23 - 9 11502 Z 11507
( 35
36
115AVE 24
L' i4.J 25 B
114 34
• 11502
__ 4
___
1 I P 13786 I 11471 11455 11474
LMP 40276 2 11458 4/) L_i Il 12 1
11ZoI
9\\ 11451 28 31
11467 ...4 -
-
11445 "I 026 11451\ 29 30
11436
11459J
133$ I LMP 31 31
7_I .. 10L1Jt'J- 1 13 - 14
I
'S '-I fr 1144
1f
2
142S p.
11579240
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICTOF
MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
12. 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CALE 1:2.500 KEY MAP _____ DATE: Oct 1999 FILE:RZ..65-99 BY: JB
N 116 AVE. -n amloam
SiLvot Source: COTrONWOOD GUIDE PLAN
Ey CORPORATION OF THE
ISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
SCALE:MAPLE RIDGE PlANNING DEPARTMENT
1:3000 ________ corpcietad 12 kpIbc. 174
rum grout DRAWN BY: T.M. IDA1t: Dec. 7. 1999 I Fft: RZ-55-99
(1 damax consuttants ltd. 1 0
38M w. 141h a''enue, vBrjv' v6r 2w9 // t. 6827 1az.2-924O N.T.S.
* C 116 AVE -
,,-. • - I • _0
N ..
I •I __ • - ,. Ct) • —. - - _
I - - • '' r..t
• .
- a
/ :/ _r •
-
• • ••.••I
•- / • / (. • : - I (' " I 1 ____________
j
0 1 rIffilla-W
EW
PROPOSED SUBDIVfSION
1 CORPORATION OF THE
DI STRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
I MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMEN.
( rporital 12 3sptb-. 1174
DRAWN BY: IDATE: Dec. 2. 1999 1 FILE: RZ-65-99
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor C. Durksen DATE: August 5, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW &Dev
SUBJECT: N D Lea Report
116th Avenue, Maple Ridge: 240th Street to Creekside Street - Assessment
of Need for a Road Link
SUMMARY:
Council asked staff to hire a consultant to determine the necessity of constructing 116 Avenue
from 238A Street to 240 Sreet. N.D. Lea & Associates was retained to evaluate two
alternatives; full road construction or pedestrian/bicycle path construction. The consultant has
submitted the report and staff recommend that Council adopt the recommendations of this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the recommendations contained in the report titled 116th Avenue, Maple Ridge:
240th Street to Creekside Street - Assessment of Need for a Road Link" be adopted and
that the draft Cottonwood Guidepian be amended accordingly.
BACKGROUND:
At the May 10, 1999 Council/Staff meeting, the issue of the extension of 116 Avenue from 238A
Street to 240 Street was discussed. As a result of this discussion, Council asked staff to hire a
consultant to determine the necessity of constructing 116 Avenue. N.D. Lea & Associates was
retained to evaluate two alternatives; full road construction or pedestrian/bicycle path
construction. The report has been submitted and is presented to Council for consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The consultants identified two alternatives for comparative evaluation purposes. These are:
1. Full construction of 116 Avenue, including sidewalks
2: Gons-t-ruetion-ofacycleIfootpatfronly
These alternatives were evaluated in terms of four main criteria:
the natural environment
the general public interest
existing local resident's concerns
development issues
According to the consultant " Within each of these categories, factors were weighted and each
alternative ranked according to how poorly or well it peiforined in relation to the particular
aspect concerned. Weightings and rankings were based on an informed evaluation, drawing on
a site visit and a wide range of relevant documentation." As a result of this evaluation process
Alternative 1 (full road cbnscruction) had a ranking of 4.83 and Alternative 2 (cycle/foot path
only) had a ranking of 6.42. The consultant therefore concluded that Alternative 2 is the
preferred option.
As noted in the report, the natural environment was given a weighing factor of 40% reflecting
cOmmunity concerns regarding environmental issues as noted in the Official Community Plan.
Road network efficiency and neighbourhood connectivity was weighted at 25%, development
issues at 20% and local resident issues at 15%. Given these weighting factors, the conclusion is
understandable. Staff have reviewed the report and based on the evaluation process used, Concur
with the conclusion.
The consultant has also offered a number of suggestions to lessen the impact on the natura]
environment for this crossing. These include:
stream crossings will best be achieved using bridges instead of culverts
sewage and water pipes should be incorporated into the bridge structure to avoid the need
for excavation across the stream channel
road cuts should be minimized
effort should be made to follow contours to prevent the need for extensive cut and fill.
It is recommended that these suggestions be incorporated in the design of the trail through this
area.
CONCLUSION:
N D Lea & Associates have recommended that 116 Avenue from Creekside to 240 Street not be
built as a full road, but that a cycle/foot path be constructed in the ROW. Staff concur with this
recommendation and recommend that the draft Cottonwood Guideplan be amended to reflect this
conclusion.
R. W. Robertson, MCIP, AICP JGtIph. MCIP A P
Ch&et Administrative Officer erl Manager: Public Works and
Development Servicrs
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5847 - 1999
A by-law to amend Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 35 10-1985 as amended
WHEREAS the Council can regulate the use of land in a Zoning By-law;
AND WHEREAS Council can establish different density regulations for a zone for the
provision of affordable housing;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in
open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
Title
This by-law may be cited for all purposes as the "Maple Ridge Zoning Amending By-law
No. 5847-1999".
Scope
This By-law amends the regulations for a secondary suite residential use by deleting the
minimum lot size requirement; deleting the requirement to obtain a valid District of Maple
Ridge Business License; establishing a definition of cooking facility; and establishing a
regulation to prohibit a secondary suite use in a floodplain.
The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 35 10-1985 is amended as
follows: -
(a) PART 2 —INTERPRETATION is amended by the addition of the following definition:
"COOKING FACILiTY means any electronic, electrical, mechanical or
manual equipment by which food of any sort can be cooked, heated,
steamed or baked, including without limitation, conventional ovens,
microwaves, convection ovens, toaster ovens, cooktops, hottops, camping
stoves, barbecues, crock pots and electric frying pans, rice cookers, woks,
grills and griddles, but does not include an electric kettle that can only be
used for heating water."
(b) PART 4- GENERAL REGULATIONS, Section 402, REGULATIONS FOR PERMuTED
USES OF LAND, BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES, sub-section (8) Dwelling units for a
Secondary Suite Residential Use is amended as follows:
by the deletion of clause "(b) shall be limited to lots with a minimum parcel size of
557
by the deletion of clause "(i) shall require a valid District of Maple Ridge Business
License"; and
by the addition of the following clause "shall not be permitted on property situated
within afloodplain."; and
by the renumbering of the section accordingly.
4. Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 35 10-1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time this
PUBLIC HEARING held on
READ a second time this
READ a third time this
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this
MAYOR
CLERK
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor C. Durksen DATE: October 25, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ-62-99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C/S, CW
SUBJECT: Secondary Suite Review - Amendment Package
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Since the adoption of the secondary suites bylaw and policies in March of 1999,
staff have been monitoring registration activity and issues related to suites. On
October 12, 1999 Council directed staff to prepare amending bylaws that would
remedy some of the issues that have arisen and fine-tune the secondary suites
policies. Specifically, Council directed staff to prepare a Zone Amending Bylaw
that would: a) delete the minimum lot size requirement of 557 m2; b) delete the
requirement to obtain an annual District of Maple Ridge Trade License; C) -
establish that a secondary suite is not a permitted use in a floodplain; and d)
define "cooking facility".
The current Secondary Suites Policy has been amended to be consistent with the
proposed Secondary Suite zoning regulations. In addition, a Council Policy
regarding the placement of the Single Family Residential Use Restrictive
Covenant has also been created which identifies the conditions where the
placement of the restrictive covenant can be waived.
Lastly, to continue to provide a financial incentive to property owners to register
secondary suites, a Building Bylaw amendment has been prepared to extend the
reduced secondary suite registration fee of $125 from September 23, 1999 until
March 31, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
That:
1, Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.5847-1999 be read a first time
and that it proceed to Public Hearing;
Maple Ridge Building Amending Bylaw No. 5848-1999 be read a first and
second time, and the rules of order be waived, and that Maple Ridge
Building Amending Bylaw No. 5848-1999 be read a third time;
Council Policy 6.14 "Secondary Suites" be deleted, and that the
proposed "Secondary Suites" Policy be adopted when final reading is
given to the Amending Bylaw relating to Secondary Suite Use; and
The proposed "Single Family Residential Use Restrictive Covenant"
Policy be adopted when finaireading is given to Amending Bylaws
relating to Secondary Suite Use.
I
III. BACKGROUND
At the October 12, 1999 Council meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a zone
amending bylaw to the existing secondary suite provisions in Zoning Bylaw
35 10-1985. Such amendments should include:
Deleting the Zoning Bylaw requirement that states that secondary suites "shall
be limited lots with a minimum parcel size of 557m 2 ";
deleting the Zoning Bylaw requirement that states "shall require a valid
District of Maple Ridge Business License";
establishing a regulation to prohibit a secondary suite use on property within a
floodplain; and
establishing a definition of "cooking facility".
Staff were further authorized to prepare an amendment to the Building Bylaw to
extend the reduced secondary suite registration fee until March 31, 2000.
Lastly, staff had requested that Council provide direction regarding the treatment
of properties that currently have restrictive covenants pertaining to secondary
suites, and future practices pertaining to the placement of the restrictive covenant
on new lots within the District. At the October 12, 1999 Council Meeting staff
were directed that:
"Restrictive Covenants on title to Single Family Residential
properties prohibiting a secondary suite use remain in place and
that restrictive covenants continue to be placed on title to all
Single Family Residential properties except infill developments on
parcels established prior to October, 1994. ";
IV. DISCUSSION
Further to Council's resolution, staff has prepared the attached secondary suites
bylaw and policy amendment package, and the following section of this report
briefly discusses each revision.
I. Zoning Bylaw Amendments:
(a) Minimum parcel size of 557 m1
The current secondary suites bylaw states that a suite is only permitted on lots
with a minimum lot area of 557 m2 (5996 ft). In reviewing this regulation,
staff is of the opinion that the size of the lot is less of an issue than the ability
to provide on-site parking. The attached zone amending bylaw removes this
provision from the Zoning Bylaw.
District of Maple Ridge Business License
The existing Bylaw requires that suite owners obtain an annual business
license. Bill 88, which amends the Municipal Act, clarifies that the
requirement for obtaining a business license for a secondary suite is not
permitted. The attached zone amending bylaw deletes this provision from the
Zoning Bylaw.
Floodplain
At present the existing secondary suites regulations do not prohibit the
registration of a secondary suite that is in the floodplain. While there are
many homes in the District that have restrictive covenants that prohibit
habitable space within the floodplain, there are a number of properties that do
not have such a covenant. The attached Zone Amending Bylaw will prohibit
the establishment of a secondary suite use in the floodplain.
Definition of Cooking Facility
The Zoning Bylaw definition of Dwelling Unit refers to the term
"cooking facility", however a definition of cooking facility is not
included in the Zoning Bylaw. A definition of Cooking Facility
has been included in the attached Zone Amending Bylaw in order
to provide clarification around this issue. The definition reads as
follows:
Cooking facility "is defined as any electronic, electrical,
mechanical or manual equipment by which food of any sort
can be cooked, heated, steamed or baked, including without
limitation, conventional ovens, microwaves, convection
ovens, toaster ovens, cooktops, hottops, camping stoves,
barbecues, crock pots and electric frying pans, rice cookers,
woks, grills and griddles, but does not include an electric
kettle that can only be used for heating water."
ii. Building Bylaw Amendment
At present the Building Bylaw states that the fee to register a secondary suite is
$125.00 six months from the adoption of the amending bylaw (September 23,
1999), and $250.00 thereafter. Given the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Bylaw, Council have supported the extension of the registration fee in order to
provide residents with an incentive to register their suites. The attached
amendment to the Building Bylaw extends the reduced registration fee of $125.00
until March 31, 2000.
3
Secondary Suite Council Policy
Existing Council Policy 6.14 "Secondary Suite" contains the provisions pertaining
to the minimum lots size requirement and requirement to obtain an annual district
of Maple Ridge Trade License. This policy has been amended to delete the
reference to these provisions, and the draft policy is attached to this report.
Single Family Residential Use Restrictive Covenant Council Policy
Since October of 1994, the Approving Officer ubder direction from Council, has
required that a Single Family Residential Use Restrictive Covenant be registered
on the title of all new lots created. The covenant states that the property can only
be used for single family purposes, and as a result secondary suites are not
permitted on these properties. On October 12, 1999 Council directed the
Approving Officer to continue the practice of placing the covenants on new lots,
with the exception of infill subdivisions on lots established prior to October 31,.
1994. Pursuant to the Council direction, staff has prepared a "Single Family
Residential Use Restrictive Covenant Policy" that provides clear direction to the
Approving Officer, and states the criteria by which the placement of the covenant
can be waived. Specifically, the policy states that the Covenant will not be placed
on infill subdivided lots if:
the parent parcel does not have the covenant; and
the neighbouring properties on either side or across the street from the
lot/parcel do not have the restrictive covenant; and
no further subdivision of the parent lot/parcel or newly created lot(s)/parcel(s)
is possible.
While not explicitly directed to do so, staff have drafted the policy statement to
provide for the discharge of existing covenants on infihl lots where:
the parent parcel was created prior to October 1994
neighbouring properties on either side and across from the subject
property do not have a restrictive covenant registered on the title.
The draft Policy further states that when a discharge is requested on an infill
property, the District will notify neighbouring property owners, who may appear
as a delegation before Council to voice their opinion with the requested discharge.
11
To provide further clarification to the Approving Officer, the Policy defines
"infill" as an application to create 4 or fewer lots, in a neighbourhood with lots or
parcels that do not have a Single Family Residential Use Restrictive Covenant
registered on the title.
V. CONCLUSION
Pursuant with Council's direction of October 12, 1999 staff have prepared
amendments to the secondary suite provisions in the Zoning Bylaw which delete
the minimum lot size requirement; delete the requirement to obtain an annual
business license for a secondary suite. The Zone amending bylaw also prohibits a
secondary suite use on properties within the floodplain, and establishes a
definition of cooking facility.
Also attached to this report is Building Amending Bylaw to extend the reduced
registration fee for a secondary suite from September 23, 1999 to March 31, 2000.
In addition, Council Policy 6.14 "Secondary Suites" has been amended to be
consistent with the revised Zoning provisions.
Lastly, the Approvin g Officer has requested direction regarding the conditions
that must be satisfied in order to waive the placement of a Single Family
Residential Use Restrictive Covenant on the Title to new lots created. A new
Council Policy entitled "Single Family Residential Use Restrictive Covenant" has
been created to provide such direction.
Prepared by:Chf1tine carter, MCIP, Planner
L_//
Approved by: (ohn Bastaja
iP',
ng Rang anning
Approve keJ IC Rudoip A ,MCIP
M: Public rks & Devel pment Services
)
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
5
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TITLE: SECONDARY SUITES
AUTHORITY: EFFECTIVE DATE:
POLICY NO. . SUPERSEDES:
APPROVAL:
POLICY STATEMENT:
A secondary suite will be permitted in a house subject to the following conditions:
the registered owner of the property must reside in either the main part of the house or the
secondary suite as his/her principal place of residence and must sign and register a Housing
Agreement;
one secondary suite per lot is permitted;
the floor area of the suite must be a minimum of 37 m 2 to a maximum of 90 m 2;
the suite must be located within the house;
one off-street parking space must be provided for the suite;
a secondary suite will not be permitted where there is a Temporary Residential Use or Boarding
Lse in the house;
the suite must comply with the B.C. Building Code requirements for secondary suites;
S. the house cannot be strata titled:
properties not on municipal sewer must have Health Unit approval;
properties not on municipal water must prove adequate water potability;
fees must be paid for water, sewer, and recycling, where relevant;
a suite will not be permitted if the property is identified on Schedule 'E" to the Zoning Bylaw.
Enforcement will be in accordance with existing Bylaw enforcement regulations and procedures.
People who decide to remove a suite from their house will have three months to disconnect the stove
in the suite.
PURPOSE:
The Secondary Suites Policy provides a framework for the regulation of secondary suites to ensure
that neighbourhood, safety and financial concerns are addressed in the best interests of the
community.
DEFINITIONS:
Secondary suites are defined in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw. They are generally defined as a
second dwelling unit with a kitchen and bathroom located in a house.
Printed on October 22, 1999 Page 1 of 1. Policy ?
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5879. 1999
A by-law to establish procedures to amend an Official
Community Plan or a Zoning By-law or to issues a Permit
WHEREAS the Council has adopted an Official Community Plan and a Zoning By-law;
AND WHEREAS Council has designated areas within which Temporary Commercial
and Industrial permits or Development Permits are required;
AND WHEREAS Council shall, under the Municipal Act, by by-law establish
procedures to amend a plan, by-law or issue a permit;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in
open meeting assembled, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
Title
a) This by-law may be cited for all purposes as the "Maple Ridge Development Procedures
By-law No. 5879 -1999".
b) Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5632-1997 and all amendments
thereto are hereby repealed in their entirety.
Scope
This By-law shall apply to the following:
(1) Amendments to:
an Official Community Plan
a Zoning By-law.
-(-)issuance-o-- - -
Development variance permits;
Temporary commercial and industrial permits
Development permits
Heritage alteration permits.
BY-LAW NO. 5879-1999
PAGE 2
Application
3. (1) Applications for an amendment or a permit shall be made by the owner of the land
involved or by a person authorized by the owner.
(2) Applications for amendments or permits shall be made to the Director of Current
Planning of the Municipality or his designate on the applicable for attached hereto as
Schedule "A".
Fees
4. At the time of application for an amendment or a permit, the applicant shall pay to the
municipality an application fee in the amount as set out in Bylaw No. 5542-1997 or
amendments thereto.
Process
5. Every application shall be processed by the Director of Current Planning of the
Municipality, or his designate, who shall present a report to Council for its consideration.
Amendments - Approval or Refusal
6. The Council may, upon receipt of the report under Section 5 of this by-law proceed with
an amendment by-law, or reject the application.
Permits - Issuance or Refusal
7. (1) The Council may, upon receipt of the report under Section 5 of this by-law:
authorize the issuance of the permit;
authorize the issuance of the proposed permit as amended by the Council in its
resolution;
refuse to authorize the issuance of the permit;
2) Notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance
Permit shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to all owners or tenants in
occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is
subject to the permit.
Refusal - Amendments and Permits
8. Where an application, amendment by-law or a permit has been refused by the Council,
the Municipal Clerk shall notify the applicant in writing within 15 (fifteen) days
immediately following the date of refusal.
BY-LAW NO. 5879-1999
PAGE3
Re-Applicatifl
9. Re-application for an amendment or permit that has been refused by the Council shall not be
considered within a 12 (twelve) month period immediately following the date of the refusal.
Inactive Rezoning Applications:
10. Rezoning applications will be closed one year following the date of third reading of the Zone
Amending Bylaw with the following exceptions:
(i) where the applicant has applied for a bylaw extension, and has received an extension
from Council.
11. Written notification of the impending file closure will be sent to the applicant 60 days prior
to the expiry of the one year period following third reading.
12. An inactive rezoning application extension fee in the amount as set out in By-law No. 5 542-
1997 must be paid at the time of written application for an extension.
13. The Council may upon receipt of an application for extension under Section 10 of this
Bylaw:
grant the request for extension
deny the request for extension
repeal third reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing.
14. Each extension provided by Council may be granted for a maximum of one year.
15. A maximum of two (2) extensions under Section 10 may be granted by Council.
READ a first time this day of , A.D. 2000
READ a second time this day of ' , A.D. 2000
READ a third time this day of , A.D. 2000
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this day of w.I ,wzI,i
MAYOR
CLERK
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5873 - 1999
A By-law to further amend Maple Ridge
Dog Pound and Dog Control By-law No. 4524— 1991
and amendments thereto.
WhEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control By-law
No. 4524— 1991.
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
This By-law shall be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control
Amending By-law No. 5873 - 1999".
That the words "Paid before March 1, 1999" and "Paid on or after March 1, 1999" in
Schedule "D" of Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control By-law No. No. 4524 - 1991
and amendments thereto be replaced with the words "Paid before March 1, 2000" and
"Paid on or after March 1, 2000"
READ a first time this day of 2000.
READ a second time this day of 2000.
READ a third time this day of 2000.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the
day of 2000.
MAYOR
CLERK
,)8 .0q
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 5, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/64/99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev
SUBJECT: RZ/64/99
(North East Corner 236 St.! 133 Ave.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The development proposal is for a portion of a larger parcel known as Rock Ridge Estates located in
Silver Valley. The applicant has requested to rezone to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) for
33 units and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) for 40 units. The proposal complies with the Official
Community Plan and the overall objectives and guideplans for the area of Silver Valley.
II RECOMMENDATION:
That application RZ/64/99 (for property located on the North East Corner of 236 Street and
133 Avenue) to rezone property described in the memorandum dated January 5, 2000 from
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) and RM-1
(Townhouse Residential) be forwarded to Public Hearing noting that the conditions to be met
prior to Public Hearing and prior to final consideration of the Zone Amending Bylaw are
detailed in that memorandum and that the accompanying Official Community Plan
Amending Bylaw be forwarded to the same Public Hearing.
Condition to be met prior to first reading:
1) A Public Information Meeting must be held.
2) Fully dimensioned development plan including:
Neighbourhood context plan;
Site plan;
Building elevations;
Landscape concept;
3) Fully dimensioned subdivision plan showing the following:
location of existing buildings:
road dedication;
And that prior to final approval the following must be complete:
1) Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement including the deposit of security as
outlined in the Agreement (in support of the RM-1 zone);
o7oo(
Road dedication as required through the townhouse site (a condition of the RM- 1 zone);
A Comprehensive Plan of Development must be registered at the Land Title Office (a
condition of the R-3 zone amending bylaw);
Bylaw 5455-1996 currently at 3fh reading for. the RM-1 zone must be rescinded
III BACKGROUND:
Applicant: Gary Lycan
Owner: Atlantic Pacific Land Corp.
Legal Description: Lot 2, E ½, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan LMP35466, NWD. This
application is for a portion of this site.
OCP:
Existing: Compact Housing 30 upnh & Open Space
Proposed: Compact Housing 30 upnh
Zoning: Existing: The portion of the site under application is RS-3 (One Family
Rural Residential)
Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) & RM- 1 (Townhouse
Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
N: Vacant
5: Rural Residential
E: Residential
W: Rural
Existing Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Residential
Access: 133 Ave. and 237 St.
Servicing: Required at Subdivision stage for R-3 zone and as a condition of
zoning for the RM-1 zone.
Previous Applications: RZ/10/95 - there are currently two zone amending bylaws at 3
reading:
• Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5455-1996 for
RM-1 (The subject of this application); and
• Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5456-1996 for
C-5 (the corner of 133 Ave. & 236 St.)
IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The development proposal is for a portion of a large development site known as Rock Ridge
Estates. The development plan proposed is for a bank of 33 R-3 lots off of 237 Street accessed
from a lane. A townhouse site is proposed to the west and has frontage on 236 Street and 133
Avenue. A new road will bisect the townhouse site creating two separate sites. Access would be
-2-
available from the lane as well. There is a small commercial lot (o.6 ha) on the south east corner of
236 Street and 133 Avenue which forms the edge of the village centre site for Silver Valley. The
changes proposed under this application accommodate the Silver Valley Guideplan. These changes
have resulted in slightly reduced unit yield to achieve a necessary road connection. As the
development is within an emerging area the townhouse proposal will not require Advisory Design
Panel review until the Development Permit stage.
V PLANNING ANALYSIS
Official Community Plan
"Schedule "B"
Schedule B will require amendment to redesignate a small area of Open Space to
Compact Housing (30 upnh). The Open Space designation was applied to a rock
outcrop which was to be included into the development site under the previous
development plan for townhouses. This rock outcrop is not a significant feature and
was not identified as such in the Gartner Lee Report, prepared for Silver Valley. Staff
supports this amendment.
Hillside Policies
The Hillside Policies provide general guidance on a broad range of design issues in
order to address the visual impact of hillside development. The use of a lane for rear
access to parking and the design proposal for the townhouse development are solutions
that address these issues. Detaching garages from the single family homes and
terracing the townhouses limits the amount of grading necessary to construct the
development.
Development Permit Area
It will be necessary to redefine the Development Permit Area XXI boundary to match
the new zoning boundary for the RM-1 site. This Development Permit Area
establishes the objectives and guidelines for multi-family development and it will be
necessary for the applicant to apply for a Development Permit prior to issuance of a
Building Permit. It will be at this stage when the Advisory Design Panel will review
the development proposal for the townhouse site.
Zoning Proposal
The R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone requires that a Comprehensive Plan
ofdèvelopment be registered at the Land Title Office. The requirement recognizes the
need for greater care in design with higher density residential projects and will provide
some ability to ensure that site grades are properly addressed. Zoning Bylaw
amendments that are currently at 3 reading to rezone a portion of this property to RM-
1 will need to be rescinded prior to final approval.
-3-
VI SERVICES
All the services required for the townhouse site do not exist to the site. It will be necessary for the
owner to enter into a Rezoning Development Agreement and post the required security to provide
the works prior to final reading of the zoning bylaw. A requirement of final reading for the RM-1
site will be the dedication of the proposed road which will bisect the site and connect to 133
Avenue. The servicing requirement for the R-3 zone will be provided through the subdivision
process.
VII CONCLUSION:
Staff support the development proposal. It will allow for a road connection through the townhouse
site and adjaccnt to the proposed commercial site. As well the addition of the lane will provide for
better design solution to address the hillside policies. It is recommended that this application be
forwarded to Public Hearing.
Prepared by Gay McMillan
Planning Technician
Approved by.' Tfry F~y(P. Eng.
/ / DizeetIof Current
Approltedf: rak J. RudolAJCP, MCW
GM: Tpblic Works & Development Services
bert W. Robertson, A!CP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
GPfbjc
-4-
a
fl
[]jITT
I I 4rI
1I I I 'I ILJ I I ?iIà I
I ji1 In _
I MAI iiisin :1
.I :•vj2 • f]Ir Ill -4 -- i i
I A 1w
UI_li
CORPORATION OF
c.oesqto teo.n.d
Tb. ptn end .a.dgn at. n.e assist.
P.Ot,et H.s UTI.. AICM.ch..
OIMAT and cannot P. toad a. reatodaced copout c.p.a ceno.nt at OMA. The Otto
0.04 be F$a.n.ed Ci any eadenea. torn V.. mIoa1,a 5.000 *0 Otoetrg Danal Kat. d.o.hlg.
HMA.o .01*004. 04: 00. coTta.' 0.o_ tic. and data. Hot.. *,chS.ct
HONAIT MYU$
AOCWTICT000
LIII A
Road
IlL ,
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: December 21, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/23/96
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev
SUBJECT: RZ/23196
(13819-232 Street)
SUMMARY:
The applicant for the above noted file has applied for an extension to this rezoning application
under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5632-1997 as amended. This application
involves approximately 500 units using a variety of zones and densities under the CD-3-98 zone.
Staff support this application for an extension. The original land use report and Public Hearing
minutes are attached to this report for information.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a one year extensiOn be granted for rezoning application RZ/23196
BACKGROUND:
This application is for approximately 500 residential units using a combination of single family and
multi family form of development. The Comprehensive Development zone will allow the
flexibility to create a variety of lot sizes respecting the topography of the site and density allowed in
Official Community Plan.
As one of the requirements, the site will be included in a Development Permit Area to ensure the
form and character of the development at the Building Permit stage.
The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and bylaws:
- The land use report (see attached) was considered on February 11, 1997;
- First Reading was granted September 29, 1998;
- Public Hearing was held November 17, 1998;
- Second and Third reading was granted on January 26, 1999.
The following are the outstanding Council conditions to be addressed prior to consideration of final
reading:
Preliminary approval from the Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch;
Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement including the deposit of security as
outlined in the Agreement;
Amendment to Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan;
-1-
Amendment to Schedule "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan;
A geotechnical report which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed
development;
Road dedication for 232 Street and 136 Avenue to achieve arterial standard;
Inclusion of the site into Sewer Area "A";
A realignment of the ALR boundary at the north west corner of the property;
Discussion:
The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and it is
anticipated that within the next few months final consideration will be requested.
CONCLUSION:
Staff support the extension and recommend that Council grant a one year extension.
t
Prepared by: 6McMi1lan
Planning Technician
Approved by:Tiy.er P.
/ Dfb(ctorofC
Appro\ 'y: ake J. Rudch, AICP, MOP
GM: Publico ks & Devel ment Services
Concurrence: Robert W. Ro ertson, AIC , MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
-2-
• A-S
0 _
' -
A-2
I RS--3 -\
c. iJ AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE (A.LR.)
SUBJECT PROPERTY
13819 232 STREET
CORPORATION OF THE I I DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
I MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING I
IncorporaLed 12 September. 1874 DEPARTNT I
LE/8'.A RZ-23-99 J DATE: APR. 7. 1998
Al
SCAIL
1:10.000
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor C. Durksen DATE: 1997 January 22
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZJ23196
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: D & OS - Planning
SUBJECT: RZ/23/96
(13819-232 St.)
SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the above noted property to permit development of a
variety of different residential densities and a Neighbourhood Commercial site. Approximately
700 residential units are proposed for the 42 hectare property.
L! II3k' I
That application RZ/23/96 (for property located at 13819 232 Street) to rezone property it
described in the memorandum dated January 22, 1997 from A-2 (Upland Agricultural) to RS-
lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), CD-1-93 (Residential Amenity), RM-1
(Townhouse Residential) and C-2 (Neighbourhood Commercial) be forwarded to Public
Hearing noting that the conditions to be met prior to Public Hearing and prior to final
consideration of the Zone Amending Bylaw are detailed in that memorandum and that the
accompanying Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw be forwarded to the same Public
Hearing.
An Open House to provide information to the public must be held.
Preparation of a conceptual plan and site analysis which demonstrates the general extent and
layout of the development proposal for the multi-family and commercial component.
Preparation of a preliminary subdivision plan for the single family residential zone. This
plan must show the general lot plan and road pattern for the neighbourhood and indicate the
zoning requested.
Preparation of a comprehensive report outlining how the proposal will address Part ifi -
Neighbourhood Plans - Albion and Silver Valley Policies, of the Official Community Plan.
1) Preliminary approval from the Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch;
-1-
Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement;
Deposit of security as outlined in the Rezoning Development Agreement;
Amendment to Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan;
Amendment to Schedule "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan;
A geotechnical report which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed
development;
Inclusion of the property into Sewer Area "A";
A realignment of the ALR boundary at the north-west corner of the property;
Road dedication for 232nd Street and 13e Menue to achieve arterial standard.
BACKGROUND:
The site is located in Silver Valley on the west side of 232 Street in the 13800 Block. The pli of
development is for a mix of residential and commercial uses and is in general compliance with the
land use designations in the Official Community Plan. It is apparent however, that as a
consequence of environmental constraints, a number of adjustments to the land-use boundaries of
the OCP will be necessary to accommodate development. These boundary adjustments are
generally supported by staff. The exact location of these boundaries is subject to further review
upon completion of a neighbourhood plan prepared by the applicant. The neighbourhood plan will
confirm the appropriateness of the development proposal within a neighbourhood context.
The site is designated Single Family Residential (18 units per net hectare), Compact Housing
(30 units per net hectare), Neighbourhood Commercial, School and Park, Open Space and
Conservation on Schedule "B" of the Official Community. Plan. The plan of development will
respond to the physical features of this and adjoining properties and, as a consequence, the
designation boundaries may vary from those identified in the OCP. It may therefore be
necessary to amend the Official Community Plan to reflect the more detailed information
provided by further study.
The Single Family Residential (18 units per net hectare) designation corresponds to the RSI-b
Zone of the Zoning Bylaw. The proponent has identified smaller lots under the CD 1-93 zone
-2-
for portions of the site. He proposes to achieve this within the existing Single Family
designation employing the density transfer provisions of the OCP. A site reconciliation is
required in order to confirm that the proposal maintains densities within the designation limits.
Schedules "A" and "H"
The plan of development has identified two areas where Development Permit Guidelines are
required through an amendment to the Official Community Plan. This is for the Commercial
area and the Multi-family area. The Development Permit Guidelines will address issues of form
and character of development and will augment existing OCP policies for Silver Valley,
consistent with Guidelines for multi-family and commercial development in the District
generally.
Silver Valley Policies:
Development in Silver Valley is governed by a number of policies in the OCP. The purpose of
the policies is to ensure that development recognizes the significant physical attributes of the
area. Specific policies that apply to Silver Valley and are important to this development
proposal include;
Hillside Policies,
Visual Character Policies,
Density Policies,
Housing Policies,
Environmental Protection Policies,
Implementation Policies.
The proposal does not make reference to these policies at this time.
A variety of options exist for the proponent to address the requirements of the policies. Multi-
family and Commercial areas can be governed by Development Permit guidelines. As this is
not possible for Single Family development, a commitment is required at the rezoning stage
(restrictive covenant, building schemes, etc.) to ensure adherence to the policies. Staff are
recommending therefore that any measures anticipated to achieve this goal be identified in
advance of Public Hearing and that implementation of these measures be a requirement of final
approval.
Schedule "F' identifies a boulevard trail along the 136 Ave. alignment. Policy 74 of the
Official Community Plan states "Maple Ridge supports the maintenance and enhancement of
the equestrian trail network." The details of this boulevard trail will be addressed at the
subdivision stage through the design for 136 Avenue.
As previously identified, the development proposal submitted includes multi-family and
commercial development areas. Consistent with Council policy regarding this type of development
-3-
in emerging areas, it is recommended that the applicant provide a site analysis and conceptual plans
for this portion of the site.
The subject site has a portion within the Agricultural Land Reserve, which in the opinion of the
Agricultural Land Commission is suitable for exclusion.
Urban development within 200 m of the Agricultural
consultation with ALC policy and address:
- landscape buffering;
- residential density gradients and building setbacks;
- storm drainage; and
- farm trespass issues.
Land Reserve boundary must develop in
The applicant must apply to the ALC for an exclusion of that portion of the subject site which is
included in the development proposal. It is through this process that the ALC will review the
development proposal and require remedial measures it deems appropriate to consider the
exclusion.
The Engineering Department have identified servicing deficiencies in this development proposal.
Of particular concern is the road network plan and the ability of the development to provide proper
access/egress for the anticipated 700 residential units. It will therefore be necessary for the owner
to enter into' a Rezoning Development Agreement and post the required security to provide
improved access to the site prior to final reading.
It will be necessary to have the property included into Sewer Area "A". It should be noted that the
property will be subject to the GVSDD levy for connection to the sewer at the subdivision stage.
h'Ei4 ILSi(i1fl
The plan of development submitted with the application identifies a land use. pattern which is
generally consistent with the objectives of the Official Community Plan. The OCP also contains a
number of policies intended 'to regulate the character of development in Silver Valley. Specific
reference to development guidelines which will address these policies are recommended in advance
of the proposal being presented at Public Hearing. Subject to the provision of this information, staff
support the application.
Chief Administrative Omcer pment Services Planning
GP/bjs
-4-
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor C. Durksen DATE: September 21, 1998
and Members of Council FILE NO: R7f23/96
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dcv
SUBJECT: First Reading
Bylaw No. 5689-1998 & 5690-1998
(13819 232 Street)
SUMMARY:
This development proposal is to create approximately 500 units using a variety of zones and
density.
Council gave favourable consideration to the above noted application February 11, 1997 with the
stipulation that prior to being presented at a Public Hearing, the following would be complied
with: P
An Open House to provide information to the public must be held. (Staff observations of
that meeting are attached.)
Preparation of a conceptual plan and site analysis which demonstrates the general extent
and layout of the development proposal for the multi-family and commercial component.
Preparation of a preliminary subdivision plan for the single family residential zone. This
plan must show the general lot plan and road pattern for the neighbourhood and indicate
the zoning requested.
Preparation of a comprehensive report outlining how the proposal will address Part III-
Neighbourhood Plans - Albion and Silver Valley Policies, of the Official Community
Plan.
Further:
On May 26, 1998, Council deferred consideration of V reading of the bylaws until a
comprehensive report relative to development in the Silver Valley area and servicing
issues had been prepared. This report has now been received by Council.
The above has been received and it is recommended that 1st reading be given to the subject
bylaw.
RECOMMENDATION
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5689-1998 and Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 5690-1998 be given First Reading.
BACKGROUND
A Comprehensive Development Zone has been prepared to accommodate a variety of different
lot sizes on the site. The zone will
limit the maximum number of units to 500;
allow flexibility of different zone boundaries.
require that a Comprehensive Development Plan be registered at the Land Title Office.
This will establish the development pattern.
Chief Administrative Officer n LI rerhIiciorks and
Development Services
GP/sgibjc
p
-2-
A-2
Ll
-3
N-~
/
I AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE (A.LR.)
SUBJECT PROPERTY
13819 232 STREET
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
CORPORATION OF THE
MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING
(xcorporated 12 September. 1874 DEPARTNT
FTLE/8fl.AW RZ-23-96 DATE APR. 7. 1998
Al
SCALE
1: 10.000
.1
) 4 Lj',/'
ti , •'1\ ... rr))...<( '
/ ._( __a ' I I S S I I I SI • I
- 8 M ---
t.JL -J LJ'..
...+• .n 1 -i1 ----
_L_j -
- '. .•- • t I • rl1 1 --
L—t.__t • .nww,wwr 'In ' - (
--i-.i •--- -.
bili
,
IIU ISIUI -
rTTY%
IMIUIGLP
DEVELOPMENt
CONCEPT
I'LAN
Tl-
J1LLL
• , .'••
---IF--.
-r:::-' :.
Qlizoowk~::a
CORPORATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING MAPLE RIDGE DEPARTMENT Incorporited 12 September. 1874
FILE W: RZ-23--96 DATE: SEPT. 22. 1998
SUBJECT PROPERTY
13819 232 STREET
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A
SCALE:
N.T.S.
Staff Observations
Public Information Meeting RZ 23/96 April 2, 1998-05-06
The Public Information Meeting was an Open House format. The agent for the
development presented the plan on an informal basis to individuals and small groups
attending the session. There were area residents both opposed and supportive of the
proposal. The main concerns heard included; (comments appearing in italics are
provided by staff in response to public comments)
the density proposed was suggested to be too high. (the total number of residential
units proposed will maximize the yield permitted by the OCP employing a variety of
residential densities)
storm water management and the potential impact on low lying lands to west was
seen as an important issue. (An overall storm water management plan for Silver
Valley is being completed by the District and development must be in compliance
with that plan)
construction access to the site and the potential impact on neighbouring properties
was identified as a concern. (it is anticipated that the project will be phased starting p
from the west edge working up the grade towards 23e Street since servicing will be
provided from this direction. It is anticipated therefore that a substantial amount of
the construction traffic will be from 136" Avenue to the west of the site.)
- concern was expressed about the impact on neighbouring agricultural lands. (policies
currently being considered by Councilfor agricultural/urban inteiface will regulate
the impact of development on the ALR.)
- the location of the equestrian trail system was not identified. (the location and
dedication of equestrian trails identified in the OCP is a condition of subdivision and
development of the property. The existing OCP location for the trail results in
significant conflicts with future urban roads and alternative locations are necessary,
that avoid these conflicts.)
CORPOITION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5689-1998
A By-law to amend zoning on Map "A" forming part
of Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5689-1998."
2. Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510— 1985 as amended is hereby further amended b
adding the following thereto:
Section 1033 CD-3-98 (Comprehensive Development)
A. Intent
This zone is intended to accommodate and regulate the development of a mixture
of uses as an integrated unit based on a comprehensive plan in conformity to the
use and density stated in the Official Community Plan and elsewhere in this
bylaw.
B. Principal Uses
Subject to all provisions of this CD-3-98 (Comprehensive Development) Zone,
the following uses and no others shall be permitted in the CD-3-98 zone:
Apartment use
Two Family Residential
One Family Residential use
Pà±kaniIShoót
C. Accessory Uses
Accessory boarding use (subject to Sec. 401 & 601 of this bylaw)
Accessory residential use
Accessory home occupation use (subject to Sec. 401 of this bylaw)
Accessory off street parking use
Temporary residential use (subject to Sec. 601 of this bylaw).
Bylaw No. 5689-1998
Page 2
D. Conditions of Use
An Apartment use
shall conform to the regulations under section 602, RM-1
(Townhouse Residential) zone.
shall conform to the provisions of the Development Permit Area.
2. Two Family Residential Use
a) shall be limited to one per lot;
b) shall not exceed a height of 9.75 metres;
c) shall be sited not less than:
6 metres from the front and rear lot lines;
a minimum of 1.5 metres from an interior side lot line;
4.5 metres from the lot Line adjoining a flanking Street lfl.
the case of a corner lot;
d) all buildings and structures shall not exceed a lot coverage of 40,.
3. A One Family Residential use under the R-1, R-3, RS-1, RS-lb zone
a) shall be limited to one per lot;
b) shall not exceed a height of 9.75 metres;
c) shall be sited in accordance with the regulations described in
Maple Ridge Zoning By-law for:
RS-1 zone for all lots greater than or equal to 668 m 2;
RS-lb zone for all lots greater than or equal to 557 m 2;
R-1 zone for lots greater than or equal to 371 m2 but less
than 557m2;
R-3 zone for lots greater than or equal to 213 m2 but less
than 371 m2.
d) all buildings and structures for
lots governed by Section 3 (c) (i)(ii)(iii) of this section shall
not exceed a lot coverage of 40%;
lots governed by Section 3 (c)(iv) of this section shall not
exceed a lot coverage of 50%.
e) vehicular access for lots backing on a Municipal lane will be
restricted to the lane.
4. Park and School Use
a) shall be governed by the regulations described under Section 901
& 903;
Bylaw No. 5689-1998
Page 3
5. Accessory Off-Street Parking Use or Accessory Residential Use
a) for lots less than 557 m2
0.45 metres from the rear lot line;
0.45 metres from the interior side lot me;
2.0 metres from an exterior side yard;
11.0 metres from afront yard;
4.5 metres from a principal use measured from the face of
any chimney, bay window, hutch or nook permitted
elsewhere in this bylaw.
b) for lots greater than or equal to 557 m2
1.5 metres from a rear and interior side lot line;
7.5 metres from a front lot line;
3 metres from an exterior side lot line;
1.5 metres from a building used for residential use.
c) shall not exceed a height of 6 metres.
p
d) shall not exceed a lot coverage of 15% or 279 m2 whichever is the
lesser.
E. Residential Densities
The maximum number of residential dwelling units in the zone is restricted to 500
of which not more than:
up to 160 may be apartments;
up to 50 may be two-family dwellings provided each is situate on a lot
complying with the minimum width, depth and area set out on Schedule
"D" for the RT- I zone;
up to 160 may be one-family dwellings provided each is situate on a lot
complying with the minimum width, depth and area set out on Schedule
"D" for the R-3 zone;
up to 170 may be one-family dwellings provided each is situate on a lot
complying with the minimum width, depth and area set out on Schedule
"D" for the R- I zone; and
up to 170 may be one family dwellings provided each is situate on a lot
complying with the minimum width, depth and area set out on Schedule
"D" for the RS-lb zone.
F. Subdivision Requirements
a) Section 406 applies.
G. A comprehensive plan of development in the form of a covenant must be
registered at the Land Title Office
Bylaw No. 5689-1998
Page 4
Off Street Parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with "Maple Ridge Off
street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990" as amended.
A residential use shall be permitted only if the site is serviced to the standard set
out in "Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800 -
1993" as amended.
That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
South East Quarter, Section 32, Township 12, Except: Firstly: Part Subdivided by Plan
3871; Secondly: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan 6047); Thirdly: Parcel "B" (Reference Plan
6048); Fourthly: Parcel "C" and "D" (Reference Plan 7680) and Road, New Westminster
District
is hereby rezoned as shown on Map No. 1179, a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this bylaw, is hereby rezoned to CD-3-98 (Comprehensive Development).
Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510- 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached theret,
are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , A.D. 199.
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of
READ a second time the day of
READ a third time the day of
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the
199.
A.D. 199.
A.D. 199.
,A.D. 199.
day of A.D.
MAYOR ,61431111
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 5689-1998
Map No. 1179
From: A-2(Upland Agricultural)
To: CD-3--98(Comprehensive Development)
MAPLE RIDGE A
tnCOTpOTIt.4 12 $spt.b.r. 1874 1:6000
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5690-1998
A By-law to amend the Official Community Plan
WHEREAS Section 997 of the Municipal Act provides that the Council may revise the Official
Community Plan;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "A", "B" & "H" to the Official
Community Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge,
in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
This By-law may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Amendment By-law No. 5690-1998."
Schedule "B" is hereby amended for those parcels or tracts of land outlined in heavy
black line which are hereby redesignated as shown on Map No. 554, a copy of which is
attached hereto and forms part of this by-law.
Schedule "A" is hereby amended by adding the following in correct numerical order to
Subsection (B) of Development Permit Area XXI in the Appendix:
SE 14, Sec. 32, Tp. 12, Except: Firstly: Part Subdivided by Plan 3871; Secondly:
ParceL "A" (RP 6047); Thirdly: Parcel "B" (RP 6048); Fourthly: Parcel "C" and
"D" (RP 7680) and Road, NWD
Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as:
South East Quarter, Section 32, Township 12, Except: Firstly: Part Subdivided by
Plan 3871; Secondly: Parcel "A" (Reference PLan 6047); Thirdly: Parcel "B"
(Reference Plan 6048); Fourthly: Parcel "C" and "D" (Reference Plan 7680) and
Road, New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 555, a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this bylaw, are hereby designated as Development Permit Area XXI (25) on
Schedule "H".
5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Designation By-law No. 5690-1998 as amended
is hereby amended accordingly.
Bylaw No. 5690-1998
Page 2
READ A FIRST TIME the day of
PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of
READ A SECOND TIME the day of
READ A THIRD TIME the day of
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the
,A.D. 199
A.D. 199
A.D. 199
A.D. 199
day of ,A.D. 199.
MAYOR CLERK
IF
L N
0
I---
- 3 a.
117 A&V
P 38405
10
P 2632
14
2ece4
A
'I.
i• 10
a.
EP 2340 Rem 1
/7 \50
am
I
Rem 1 2
YJF)'S fJ7.s • 1132
8
/J702 *PP1
,J660
DO t&%7A
Rem SW 1/4
P 857
1 3
14126 7757 I Rem 10
14042 I
.M:J-
P 9387
9
L I
l72V P K S PARTI A Rum 6
138 AVE. —wiiij] r .. I
SI'S I
Rm. W 7.80 71,4z
I P 1475 P 5048 j
2 1 Lt'T 2
Chains
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
Bylaw No. 5690-1998
Map No. 554
From: Sngle Family Residentiol(18 units per net hectare), School and Park
and Neighbourhood Commercial
To I Park liii lilt Neighbourhood Commercial sJ Agricultural
I H Conservation K//j Single Family Residentiol(18 units per net hectare)
AlMAPLE RIDGE !ncorpont.d 12 5.ptab. 1874 1:6000
14126
55/
P 7757
14 I
LMP I Remi( 3 ,4042
RP7680 A
11960
P 70093 C
,
_ P 26 b2
I I 28084
14
J,20
A
Rem SE 1/4
13
PP163 —
,j
a. -
EP 2340 Rem I
I_.ø,JJøø/r
N 4 LLT Y Me
-----, a, /J7SF iReml 2
Rem SW 1/4 — 3 p a-
I.'7 AVF S
iT702 .767J/9 4 *P 16 P 3i4CS
r660 P 8575 I0 Wff -
P 18410 - 10274
A R 8 S PART
1 -
1* £T am its __ ____ —
P 1475€ '
P 9387
Rim. W 75 2
N 12i2 R sJ 1a ' i
1111)
Chalne
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING
Bylaw No. 5690-1998
Map No. 555
PURPOSE: TO DESIGNATE AS DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AREA XXI(25)
_A MAPLE RIDGE
Incarper*tM 12 S.ptamb. 1e74 1:6000
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor C. Durksen DATE: January 6, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/23/96
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev
SUBJECT: RZi23/96
SUMMARY:
This report is provided in response to the questions, concerns and recommendations raised at the
Public Hearing of November 17, 1998 regarding RZ/23/96.
RECOMMENDATION:
Submitted for information.
DISCUSSION: IF
The following questions, concerns and recommendations were raised at the Public Hearing on
November 17, 1998 for R7123/96. They have been grouped into four different categories and are
attached to this report as Appendix 1. The categories are:
Environmental Issues
Servicing Issues
Land Use Issues
Process Issues
1. Environmental Issues:
Many of the concerns raised about this specific development apply to all development in Silver
Valley. The environmental issues raised can been summarized as follows:
• Watercourse preservation issues,
• Stormwater management issues,
• Vegetationpreservation issues, and
• Soil management issues.
Watercourse Preservation Issues
As highlighted in the Gartner Lee report (1992) and the Alouette River tributary study (A.R.M.S.,
1996) Blaney Bog and its associated tributaries (Anderson Creek) are designated as highly sensitive
habitat. As such, they require particular attention in the context of abutting development.
-1-
The municipality has a responsibility to restrict and/or control future development to limit negative
impacts on receiving watercourses. The District's commitment to watercourse preservation is
highlighted in Policy 6 of the OCP, where creeks and wetlands are designated on Schedule "E" for
special control.
It is the practice of the District of Maple Ridge to encourage development setbacks established
according to the Land Development Guidelines (Chilibeck, 1992) and to require that these lands are
dedicated as park to ensure watercourse protection. In addition, the District currently requires
development permit security deposits for those areas designated under Development Permit XXX.
As a condition of subdivision approval, the Approving Officer requires a security of $1000 for lots
immediately adjacent to a watercourse protection area to ensure that due care is taken in the
installation of works and the grading of land adjacent to covenant/park areas.
Staff will continue to recommend that all lands designated for protection reflect the intent of
the Land Development Guidelines and that they be dedicated to the District as a condition of
development, thereby limiting the potential for future encroachment from neighboring urban
uses.
Stormwater Management Issues
The protection of these aquatic habitat areas is two-fold and involves not only adequate physical
buffering from development, but adequate control of stormwater input. As outlined in Policy 5 of
the OCP, Maple Ridge supports the development and implementation of stormwater management
plans that are innovative at providing or enhancing habitat. Respecting Policy 5, UMA
Environmental were retained to develop a Master Drainage Plan for Silver Valley. The Silver
Valley Master Drainage Plan was completed in 1995 and included input from the Ministry of
Environment/Department of Fisheries & Oceans (MOEIDFO). The Plan presents a review of the
hydrological, hydraulic, flooding and aquatic biology issues along the major watercourses and
tributaries within the Silver Valley Study Area. The impacts of future development within the
Study area were analyzed and a range of alternatives was examined to determine the most
appropriate method for managing the changes to stormwater runoff that results from development.
A combination of "Best Management Practices" have been recommended for the Master Drainage
Plan, including measures such as: instream improvements, detention facilities and source control
measures.
The Master Drainage Plan is a guideline that provides options for the development of stormwater
management plans. However, with continued advances in the control of stormwater, the MOE/DFO
now suggest the stormwater management options highlighted in the Master Drainage Plan need to
be further refined.
Staff are currently working on establishing a stormwater technical committee that would
involve MOFJDFO and would look further at the management of stormwater in Maple Ridge.
The goal of the committee will be to further advance the application of effective stormwater
management techniques, particularly in the new growth areas. These are technical issues
which can be implemented through subdivision approval and actual construction phases of
development.
-2-
Ve2etation Preservation Issues
The residents of Maple Ridge place a high value on the natural environment. A common theme in
many of the public's comments was the importance of environmental quality and the natural areas
that make Maple Ridge such a desirable place to live. These sentiments are reflected in the public
requests for the increased preservation of open space and greenways in Silver Valley.
The preservation of adequate green space and the premature clearing of vegetation for development
were two issues raised repeatedly at the November 17th public hearing. As outlined in Policy 13 of
the OCP, the District encourages the retention of significant trees as development takes place, and it
is recommended that, upon development approval, land clearing be phased to coincide with
appropriate work schedules. The practice of premature site preparation (land clearing and servicing)
is a concern to the community and staff alike. This practice has implications for the preservation of
significant habitat and the quality of the environment and the potential for erosion is increased in
these situations. By limiting clearing so that it is consistent with works schedules the potential for
erosion is limited. Staff also encourages developers to consider innovative development options
that allow as much retention of the rural and natural character of the pre-development area as
possible.
Until a development application is approved, staff are limited in their ability to control these
activities. Current regulations are designed to address the control of development and not activities
on private property in advance of development.
Staff have prepared two companion reports (both dated January 7, 1999) which recommend a
Development Permit Area for Silver Valley and provide for clearing limitations and
environmental bonding.
Soil Management Issues
For most developments, the District requires that a consultant be retained to design an erosion
control plan that utilizes the recommendations contained in the Land Development Guidelines
(Chilibeck, 1992) to ensure that only clean water moves off the site. This has allowed for a great
deal of interpretation on the design and enforcement of erosion control systems. Although Maple
Ridge is faced in some areas with challenging fine grained soil conditions, there are some basic soil
erosion control measures that can be applied by the District.
• . Staff will.beworking.todevelop erosion. control standards that would serve., as guidelines, for
site maintenance during residential construction and could be included in the Subdivision &
Development Servicing Bylaw. Staff will also be working on the development of a new
Siltation Control Bylaw that would allow for a more clear and concise approach to erosion
control enforcement. .
2. Servicin2 Issues:
There were three main servicing issues raised:
-3-
utilities
roads
equestrian trails
Infrastructure and Roads:
The utilities network and road pattern was addressed in the report prepared for Council in July,
1998. This staff report introduced an infrastructure plan for drainage, sanitary sewer and water
systems for Silver Valley. The report provided conceptual plans which were based on information
received from UMA Engineering Ltd. and municipal staff.
A Guide Plan was also prepared by staff, based on fundamental principals of transportation and
infrastructure planning. This plan also considered the environmental concerns and hillside policies
of the Official Community Plan and followed the land use designations shown on Schedule B of the
OCP.
The report also provided a Transportation Network showing major roads which well provide
adequate inter-neighbourhood connections. In some cases, watercourse crossings will require a
bridge and/or culvert crossings. In most cases, the developers will be responsible for providing
these roads as a condition of their development.
Equestrian Trails:
Schedule "F' of the Official Community Plan provides an equestrian trail system through Silver
Valley. It is intended, through development, to achieve a permanent and multi-user trail system to
meet the needs of the equestrians as well as other users. The trail system is intended to be a
multipurpose trail system and will also address the trails identified on Schedule "F'.
Docksteader Trail is an historic trail which has provided, in the past, a connection between riding
areas west of 224th St. and Golden Ears Park & Malcolm Knapp Research Forest. This is identified
as a Boulevard Trail on Schedule "F' of the Official Community Plan. The trail has not been
accessible for several years as the access has been denied by the owner of the land.
Staff have been discussing this route with the Equestrian Trails Council, and staff recommend that
this trail be relocated to the north to avoid conflicts with anticipated urban development. Staff
believe that this trail could be constructed on a permanent basis along the urban/rural boundary and
across to 232 St. following the ravine system of Anderson Creek to achieve a permanent route
through this area. It is anticipated that an interim trail will be needed on a right of way at the north
of this development site until the permanent trail is achieved.
3. Land Use Issues:
Many of the concerns expressed regarding land use issues also involved concerns regarding the
appearance of development and the contention by some that minimal effort is being made to
-4-
maintain the natural beauty of the Silver Valley hillside. The Official Community Plan provides a
number of policies that address the comrrunities desire to retain this natural amenity. Specifically,
the Hillside, Visual Character, Density and Housing Policies all provide opportunities to augment
the Environmental Protection Policies in an effort to limit the level of disturbance occurring as a
result of development. These policies permit the use of alternative street design standards, slope
sensitive building design and clustering of buildings using density transfer (clustering) principals.
However, these policies are enabling and not necessarily prescriptive, and to date, the development
applications reviewed by Council have all chosen to employ more conventional standards of
development.
The recently published "Conservation Design for Subdivisions" provides a number of illustrative
examples of clustering using actual sites. In an effort to provide a clearer representation of the
objectives of the OCP policies and to illustrate the impact of clustering versus conventional
development, staff have prepared an example from this document and appended it to this report
(Appendix I). This example illustrates opportunities available for development under current
policies of the OCP. Realistically, these opportunities are only available to larger scale
development where sufficient land holdings exist to identify significant areas for conservation while
maintaining the yield potential afforded by conventional development. Efforts byithe District to
achieve comparable levels of conservation given the number of small land holdings within the
Silver Valley area would require a prescriptive approach.
Notwithstanding the "conventional" development proposals for Silver Valley, the Guideplan
provides an acceptable land use framework which is designed to integrate and balance numerous
land use issues involved in Silver Valley. As a growth area, provision must be made for various
housing forms, commercial and institutional recreation uses as well as an effective transportation
network. In addition to environmental and aesthetic issues in the area, it should be remembered that
Silver Valley will emerge as a community for up to 11,900 residents and good planning principles
must be employed to ensure that Silver Valley will be a model community for people to live.
4. Process Issues:
There was concern raised that there was lack of community input into the plan. In September, 1998,
staff prepared a report for Council (see attached) which outlined the Public Participation Program
Process that was undertaken for the Silver Valley Land Use Review. In summary, in 1994, there
was a mail out to all residents of Silver Valley. An orientation meeting was held with a cross
section of neighbourhood residents who expressed the various attitudes held within Silver Valley.
This provided the focus on the direction for four workshops. As well, two open house meetings
were held in order to gain wider public input. These meetings were advertised in the local paper
and a newsletter was mailed out to all Silver Valley residents and property owners. In June of 1995
there was a Public Hearing which considered the Official Community Plan amendment for Silver
Valley.
The petition received from the area residents has also been reviewed. Staff prepared a report for
Council in October of 1998 which responded to the issues raised in that petition. A copy of that
report is attached.
-5-
With respect to this development application, a Public Information Meeting was held on April 2,
1998 on the development proposal. Letter of Notice of that meeting were mailed using the same
mailing requirements as for Notice for Public Hearing (50 in radius from the projerty). At that
meeting elements of the development proposal were provided.
In conclusion, area residents were given many opportunities to participate in the land use review for
Silver Valley. The introduction of an ongoing committee to provide further input into decisions has
been suggested during the Public Hearing process. Given the history of public consultation for the
area and the ongoing provision for public input for each development application, staff question the
need for such a committee.
At the Public Hearing, the request for an archaeological review was made. Staff are not aware of
any recorded archaeological sites in the Silver Valley, but have written to the Provincial
Government for information.
CONCLUSION
The Silver Valley area is identified as an urban growth area in the Livable RegionPlan and the
adopted OCP. Staff are of the opinion that the intent of the policies of the Official Community 41an
are being followed in the evaluation and implementation of development applications in Silver
Valley. Initiatives noted in this report will assist in further refining the process and lead to resolving
some of the concerns expressed by the public.
0C G4 70'
ofrntPlanning J Chief Administrative Officer cWod
Development Services
or
WE
APPENDIX I
In this example, existing development regulations are employed and primary conservation areas for
creeks and ravines are identified. An alternative approach is then prepared where secondary
conservation areas are also protected and the allowable development yield is concentrated into areas
of less sensitivity but organized to ensure that all residents benefit from preserved open space.
The example provided below is comparable to our own residential land use designation of Single
Family Residential at 5 units per net hectare. This designation permits lots of no less than 2000
square metres in area (approx. ½ acre). Under the first scenario (Figure 1), approximately 31% of
the land is set aside to protect the primary conservation areas. On this site these conservation areas
represent flood plain, wetlands and endangered species areas. Allowing development to occur with
consideration for these areas and creating lot sizes permitted under existing regulations, a yield of
72 home sites is attained.
Figure 1
LJfTh...
Fiure2
-7-
p
The second scenario (Figure 2) identifies "Secondary Conservation Areas". These areas include
woodlands containing a variety of native trees, open meadows with indigenous flowers, an
archeological site and view corridors. Housing sites are then located with an effort towards
minimizing disturbance to secondary conservation areas. The resultant plan (Figure 2) identifies 72
home sites on lot sizes of approximately 500 square metres or lot areas comparable to the RS 1-b
zone. This option protects an additional 48% of the site for a total of 79% of the parent site. The
author points to five different distinct and measurable economic advantages over conventional
development design;
Smoother Review - Designs that are sensitive to the conservation objectives of a community
become less time-consuming and costly to achieve. "There is a growing awareness among local
leaders, realtors, developers, and other business people that an area's quality of life is one of its
chief economic assets." (Arndt, pp 9)
Lower Costs - The cost of infrastructure for a subdivision employing conservation principles is
typically lower.
Marketing and Sales Advantages - "developers and realtors can capitalize on the amenities that
have been preserved or provided within the development." (Arndt pp 10)
Value Appreciation - Examples are cited of developments that have consistently outperformed
neighbouring developments in terms of resale value, simply because of the amenities preserved
at the development stage.
Reduced Demand for New Public Parkiand - The preservation of secondary conservation areas
provides a greater level of public open space. Many of these spaces are suitable for recreational
amenities including playing fields and walking trails thereby reducing the demand for additional
parkiand.
Concerns/Questions & Recommendations raised at the November 17' 1998 Public Hearing.
RZ/23/96
Environmental Issues:
• Environmental damage to delicate eco-system of Blaney Bog;
• The close proximity of the northern section to Anderson Creek and the fact that the
catchment area is within areas of Blaney Bog and Cactell Brook.
• ARMS
- short term effects of habitat & water quality degradation;
- long term effects of degradation of water quality and alteration of flow regimes due to
impervious surfaces;
11 safeguards to be put in place prior to development proceeding:
stream classification bylaw;
nvironmental bonding;
siltation control bylaw;
phased development approach;
stormwater detention ponds constructed early in the process;
impervious vs. pervious surface ratios incorporated into municipal standerds;
environment team to oversee projects in environmentally sensitive areas;
Official Community Plan recommendations become governing directives;
completion of streamside protection regulations and passed into law before
development;
full environmental inventory;
sustainable development goals - Regional Growth Strategies - not exceeded
• The plan does not provide for a wildlife corridor through the site;
. Increase in water flow in ditches causing flash flooding with less rainfall;
• The Environmental Team will not have time to assess the environmental impact;
• Run-off in sloped areas that have been cleared;
• Flooding;
• Hydrology of Blaney Bog. Anderson Creek cannot stand alone to provide the only source of
water to it;
• Wildlife corridors preservation.
Environmental Ouestlons:
• Is there a storm water plan that will enhance the habitat;
Environmental Recommendations:
• Comprehensive environmental plans for both Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows;
• Comprehensive water management plan;
• That the remaining natural environment be preserved - no more development.
• That a biofiltration system be used for storm water runoff into Blaney Bog;
• That no development occur until environmental bonding is in place;
Servicing Issues:
• Prior to development, that necessary infrastructure be in place to handle increased:
• population;
• commuters
• With horse trails and driveway crossings, wants a mechanism in place to control pavement
material and removal of any obstruction.
• Traffic along 133 Ave.;
Servicing questions:
p
• Why are major roads and bridges being promoted at a major expense to taxpayers;
Servicing Recommendations:
• Comprehensive infrastructure plans for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows;
Land Use Issues:
• Docksteader Trail must be provided for.
• Mr. Parish wants his land included (see attached letter dated August 13, 1998).
• The development is too large;
• Al Hogarth - that development take place in a more compassionate manner;
• Children have to leave the area to attend school;
• The rural nature of Silver Valley should be protected;
• The park site is too small and should be enlarged into what was to be school;
• No details about the commercial component were presented (This was answered by Terry at
the meeting);
• Density is too high;
Land Use Ouestlons:
• What will the development look like in the end;
• Does Council support the GVRD Livable Regional Strategic Plan;
Land Use Recommendations:
Nil
Process Issues:
Nil
Process Questions:
• Why haven't Malcolm Knapp Research Forest and Golden Ears been involved in early
meetings?
• Questioning the lack of community input;
• Why is Council proceeding with development applications in spite of the petition from the
Silver Valley residents;
Process Recommendations:
• That a citizens advisory committee be established; p
• That the bylaw not be passed until the community has a detailed concept of what is being
proposed;
• That the application be opposed until the citizens have been offered a detailed structural plan
and open house;
• That no further development proceed until the significant concerns are addressed;
Additional Comments:
Comprehensive urban forest plan;
A population movement plan.
That an archaeological assessment be done to ensure that its heritage will be monitored and
recognized.
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
November 17, 1998
The Minutes of the Public Hearing held on November 17, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Councillor T. Baker, Mr. J. R. McBride, Municipal Clerk
Acting Mayor; Mr. J. Rudolph, General Manager of Public Works
Councillor Clements and Development Services
Councillor C. Gordon Mr. T. Fryer, Director of Current Planning
Councillor King Mrs. S.M. Karasz, Confidential Secretary
Councillor B. Levens
Councillor Stewart
Excused
Mayor C. Durksen
Acting Mayor Baker explained the procedure of the Public Hearing and advised that in
accordance with the Municipal Act, no further input into the subject by-laws can be received by
the Municipal Council until the by-laws are either adopted or defeated. The by-laws will be
considered further by Council on November 24, 1998.
The Mayor then called upon the Director of Current Planning to present the following items on
the Agenda:
1 a) RZ123196 - MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING B V-LAW NO. 5689-1998
LEGAL: South East Quarter, Section 32, Township 12, Except: Firstly: Part
Subdivided by Plan 3871; Secondly: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan
6047): Thirdly: Parcel "B" (Reference Plan 6048); Fourthly: Parcel
"C" and "P" (Reference Plan 7680) and Road, New Westminster
District
LOC-AflON:• 1.3.81-9 222S•t.
FROM: A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
TO: CD-3-98 (Comprehensive Development)
PURPOSE: Text amendment to include the CD-3-98 zone (Comprehensive
Development) into the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw. This zone is
intended to accommodate and regulate the development of a
mixture of uses as an integrated unit based on a comprehensive
plan of development, conforming to the use and density of the
Official Community Plan up to a maximum of 500 units.
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 2
1 b) RZ123196 - MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING B V-LA W
NO. 5690-1998
LEGAL: South East Quarter, Section 32, Township 12, Except: Firstly: Part
subdivided by Plan 3871; Secondly: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan
6047); Thirdly: Parcel "B" (Reference Plan 6048); Fourthly: Parcel
"C" and "D" (Reference Plan 7680) and Road, New Westminster
District
LOCATION: North of 136 Ave. in the 23000 Block
PURPOSE: To amend Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan in order
to redesignate the properties
FROM: Single Family Residential (18 units per net hectare), School and
Park and Neighbourhood Commercial
TO: Park, Neighbourhood Commercial, Agricultural, Conservation &
Single Family Residential (18 units per net hectare) and
To amend Schedules "A" & "H of the Official Community Plan to
include the site into a Development Permit Area to ensure the form
and character at the building permit stage for multi-family
development.
Overview - Director of Current Plannin
The Director of Current Planning displayed an overhead map of the properties and read
into the record the legal description. He reiterated the purpose of By-laws 5689-1998 and
5690-1998. He explained the CD-3-98 Zone, noting that it is a new zone that would be
unique to the property under application. The CD-3-98 zone allows a variety of
residential use and park and school use on a non-site.specific basis.
He displayed a summary of a matrix showing the maximum and minimum number of
residential lots that can be achieved under the proposed RM-2, RT-2, RS-lb, R-2 and R-3
Zones within the CD-3-98 zone proposed for this site.
The Director of Current Planning further noted that prior to final approval of the by-laws
a comprehensive plan of development must be approved and that plan of development
must be followed through in the subdivision stages. The comprehensive plan will deal
with the relationship of each of the zones to each other within the CD-3-98 Zone. It will
deal with the internal road systems and external connections to those road systems. The
CD-3-93 Zone gives an overall development option for this community over time as
development continues.
He advised that the comprehensive development plan must also show where the park and
school sites are located and show a general relationship of how the plan brings all the
residential elements together and forms a pattern of development for the future. The CD-
3-93 Zone is a distinction between traditional zoning where there is no comprehensive
plan of development available as a condition of zoning.
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 3
The Director of Current Planning referred to the two maps attached to Official
Community Plan Amending By-law No. 5690-1998. He explained that one map shows
the proposed changes to the Official Community Plan (OCP) as a result of the following:
(1) work that was been achieved over time with the development plan in concert with
staff and the developer and (2) it reflects the guide plan recently adopted by Council for
the Silver Valley area. These amendments to the Official Community plan will bring it
into compliance with that guide plan.
He added that the second map attached to By-law No. 5690 declares the site a
Development Permit Area at the building permit stage for multi-family development.
He displayed and elaborated on the adopted guide plan for the Silver Valley area and
indicated how it relates to the development proposal under discussion.
Hunter Laird (C. Arvchuk) - Site Plan
Mr. Clarence Arychuk, Senior Planner, Hunter Laird Engineering Ltd., noted the
following site characteristics;
• the property is approximately 100 acres in size
• it slopes to the north and west at grades between 10 to 20%
• the elevation changes approximately 55 metres from a height of approximately 60
metres
• the property has approximately 315 metres or 1000 feet of frontage on 232 Street
• approximately 20.3 acres is within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and that
status will not change with this development
Mr. Arychuk displayed the proposed comprehensive site plan and advised that it has
evolved through a process which consolidated the natural features, such as slopes and
environmentally sensitive areas, and the planning controls, such as the ALR boundary,
with the Silver Valley Guide Plan. The result is a comprehensive plan which includes a
combination of residential forms ranging from conventional single family lots to
townhouses.
He noted that during the process of analysis, it was evident that the agricultural land
reserve boundary, which was a straight line, required an adjustment to more logically
follow the toe of the slope. The adjustment achieved a net balance in terms of land that
was excluded from the ALR and other lands that were included.
He further advised that a variety of housing forms will be utilized to implement the
principles of the District's Hillside Development Guidelines. The steeper slopes will
have-larger-andLprimariiywider-iotSWhile-the-flatterPOrtlOflS-Wili havesmalier-residential
lots. The plan being displayed accommodates approximately 490 units which is just
below the cap of 500 in the CD-3-98 zone in the by-law. These maximums will never
likely be achieved based on the analysis that has been done. -
The plan also includes a 4 acre neighbourhood park which has been incorporated into the
site plan. There are other open spaces within the plan in addition to the neighbourhood
park; they are natural areas which protect the ravines and environmental areas.
Pedestrian circulation will accommodate movements throughout the site with the
strategic placement of walkways and sidewalks. By utilizing a component of pathways
along the edge of the farmland, there will be a pedestrian pathway system developed that
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 4
will connect to the east and to the access points to the park and the ravine area to the
north.
He advised that another issue that was discussed with the planning Department was the
OCP policy for equestrian movements. Equestrian movements have been accommodated
and provided for in a north-south direction along the edge of the residential development
next to the ALR lands and there is provision for an east-west connection following the
existing network system in place through the subdivision. The possibility of extension to
the east is there and could be continued.
Mr. Arychuk explained the public information process that has been carried out, noting
that 28 people attended an open house/public information meeting and 8 of them
provided comments on the plan. He noted that the plans shown at the public information
meeting were somewhat different as they pre-dated the adoption by Council of the Silver
Valley Guide Plan. The concerns raised at the public information meeting related to
density, park space and schools and the Silver Valley Guide Plan and revisions have been
made to address many of those concerns.
He added that servicing of the site will follow the recommendations of the Silver Valley
Guide Plan and include the extension of sanitary sewer and water mains to the property.
A major road connection will go through the site to connect with 224 Street via 136 and
137 Avenues and also will connect to 232 Street. The road and also the storm drainage
system will be consistent with the Silver Valley Guide Plan. The ravines being preserved
are in accordance with the standards of the Ministry of Environment and a full setback•
of 15 metres from the top of bank will be provided. The ravines were surveyed by local
surveyors engaged by the developers who also established elevations and benchmark
locations so top of bank could be established on the three watercourses.
Enkon Environmental Consultants (Glen Stewart) - Environmental Assessment
Mr. Glen Stewart of Enkon Environmental Consultants advised that they did an
environmental assessment for the project. He explained how Enkon gathered data
through the use of aerial photographs, field work, topographic maps, etc. During the
course of the assessment, they talked to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans
and the Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife and Water Management Branches,
with respect to their regulations. Their objective was to identif' environmentally
sensitive areas so they could pass those concerns onto the developer early on so there
would be no conflict. He noted that a key area is Anderson Creek which has trout as well
as salmon further downstream. It is also important to protect Blaney Bog.
He added that Enkon have also suggested some guidelines for storm water management
and they reflect maintaining existing drainages where they start from and go to. They
have tried to come up with treatment for storm water so that any water leaving the site
will not cause problems for fish located downstream. They have also recommended
erosion and sediment measures. He added that the District has a report from Enkon
detailing all those issues.
Hocfart Myles Architects (Ron Hoffart) - Hillside Development Guidelines
Mr. Ron Hoffart of Hoffart Myles Architects displayed extended cross-sections to
illustrate how the housing forms will relate to the District's proposed Hillside
Development Guidelines. He provided technical details of lot grading and retaining wall
construction, how the buildings will meet building height regulations and highest
Public Hearing Minutes
November, 17, 1998
Page 5
building face regulations. He demonstrated the practice of "stepping back" the highest
walls, etc.
He summarized that the intention is to have two storeys with a basement and a roof with a
reasonable pitch which will achieve a reasonable scale on the street and down the hillside
so that the house does not look like a three storey box.
Hunter Laird (Declan Rooney) - Servicing
Mr. Declan Rooney, P. Eng., Hunter Laird Engineering Ltd., provided the following
details of the servicing aspects, which will be carried out in accordance with the Silver
Valley Guide Plan.
Water
There will be a water main extension from the existing G.V.R.D. system along 232
Street
The higher portions of the development will be in a pressure zone and will require
pumping facilities.
Sanitary Sewer
• Servicing in the westerly area will be achieved by a lateral trunk service discharged
to a pump station at the eastern end of 136 Avenue and southward to 224 Street.
• In the easterly area, sanitary sewer service will be achieved via an extension of the
sewer trunk facility at 128 Avenue.
Drainage
• the guide plan envisages that drainage will be collected by a system of trunk storm
sewers running along the base of the hillside and discharging to storm detention
ponds prior to discharging to receiving streams, e.g. Anderson Creek. The existing
drainage goes to Anderson Creek.
Summary
Mr. Arychuk advised that the proponents appreciate the time allocated to them to provide
details of the project. The process they have followed has taken a number of years which
is indicative of the number of studies and analyses that have been done. The development
will be achieved over a period of time at a very reasonable rate. The natural features of
the land have been respected.
The Director of Current Planning summarized the purpose of the by-laws.
At the request of the Acting Mayor, the Municipal Clerk read into the record in summary
form the following items of correspondence which have been received and circulated to
the Municipal Council:
• letter from Ms. Patricia Morrison of 24003 Fern Crescent dated November 17, 1998
opposing by-law No. 5689-1998. Her main concern is environmental damage,
particularly the delicate eco-system ofBlaney Bog.
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 6
• letter from Mr. Douglas Stanger of 24003 Fern Crescent dated November 16, 1998
opposing By-law No. 5699-199 and asking that the necessary infrastructure to handle
the proposed increase in population and commuters be put in place prior to the
development taking place.
• letter from Mr. Bill Archibald of 24208 - 102 Avenue dated November 13, 1998
opposing the rezoning of the subject land until the matter of the Docksteader Trail has
been resolved, noting that it has been shown on Schedule "F" of the OCP since its
inception in 1980.
• letter from Mr. Lawrence Parash of 22679 - 136 Avenue dated November 12, 1998
advising that his property is affected by the proposed road along his eastern property
line and objecting to not being involved in the plans as noted in his attached earlier
letter to the Municipality dated August 13, 1998.
• facsimile letter from Mr. Peter R. W. Sanders of 14294 Marc Road recommending
that that the following be undertaken based on the details provided in his letter:
• comprehensive infrastructure plans for the Districts of Maple Ridge and
Pitt Meadows
• comprehensive environmental plan for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
• comprehensive urban forest plan
• comprehensive water management plan
• population movement plan
• letter from Mr. Ross Davies, Watershed Co-ordinator, Alouette River Management
Society (ARMS) dated November 17, 1998 detailing ARMS' concerns regarding the
close proximity of the northern section of the proposed development area to Anderson
Creek and the fact that the area is within the catchment areas of Blaney Bog and
Cattell Brook. ARMS provided several recommendations for mitigating the impacts.
The Municipal Clerk further explained that the following letters were submitted to him
just prior to the commencement of the Public Hearing and they will be circulated to the
Municipal Council tomorrow.
• Eleven identical letters stating "I oppose the proposed rezoning of the area west of
232 Street from A-i Upland Agricultural to Comprehensive Development".
• letter from Pam Southwell dated November 17, 1998 opposing the rezoning urging
Council to preserve the remaining natural environments of Maple Ridge, particularly
on the hillsides.
Mr. Bill Archibald referred to his letter asking that the guide plan not be approved until
the equestrian trail network is resolved. He questioned the fact that the developer has
said it has been approved, noting that this was not the case when they met with the
developers on several earlier occasions.
The Director of Current Planning explained that the comprehensive development plan has
not been finalized. It is a concept plan at this point. There is more work to be done on the
plan by staff and consultants. One element to be finalized is the equestrian trail network;
accommodation of the Docksteader 'Trail must form part of the plan and staff will not
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 7
bring a by-law forward for final consideration until that element is finalized, either
through this site or the surrounding area.
Mr. Archibald provided further details of negotiations that the equestrian groups have had
with adjacent property owners to achieve a continuation of the trail network. He also
noted that "Docksteader" is a historical name and should be included as part of the area.
The Director of Current Planning further clarified that the Silver Valley Servicing and
Guide Plan has been adopted by Council. The development plan being presented at this
meeting has not been approved.
Mr. Ross Davies, Watershed Co-ordinator of ARMS, Box 21117, Maple Ridge, reviewed
the two primary concerns of ARMS and the measures they recommend in their letter to
mitigate against them which are summarized as follows:
there is potential for habitat and water quality degradation during the construction
phase (short term effects).
ARMS recommends that any land alteration that is carried out be done with appropriate
environmental safeguards as described in the Land Development Guidelines for the
Protection of Aquatic Habitat and that an environmental bonding system be
implemented.
Degradation of water quality and alteration of flow regimes due to the establishment
impervious surfaces (permanent, long term effects).
ARMS recommends several mitigating measures as detailed in Items (a) to (d) in their
letter.
Mr. Peter Barnes, Vice President of ARMS read and submitted a letter asking that
Council not rush development in Silver Valley and mess up the pristine beauty , that can
never be reclaimed if it is not done right the first time.
Mr. Barnes also submitted a further letter from Mr. Ross Davies of ARMS detailing 11
safeguards that ARMS feel must be put in place prior to the development proceeding.
Mr. Mike Rousseau of 23021 - 132 Avenue advised that he is an Archaeologist.
He explained that he feels there are a few areas affected by this development proposal
that have the potential to contain prehistoric artifacts, e.g. Anderson Creek could contain
the remains of prehistoric campsites.
Mr. Rousseau submitted for Council's information several copies of handbooks entitled
Archaeological Resource Management and Archaeological Impact Assessment
Guidelines which have been produced by the Provincial Government. He noted that there
is Provincial legislation in place which provides for an assessment whereby
archaeological sites can be identified before development occurs. Also, the Heritage Act
requires that people who engage in the alteration of public lands are responsible to ensure
preservation of those archaeological assessments. The penalty for an individual disturbing
the site is $50,000 and for a corporation it is $1 million.
He added that he would like to see an assessment done on this property and any other
properties connected with Silver Valley to ensure that its heritage will be properly
monitored and recognized.
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 8
Janet Dmitrieff of 9490 - 263 Street, Vice President of the Equestrian Trails Council,
read and submitted a letter dated November 16, 1998 explaining the efforts that have
made to secure the Docksteader Trail on Schedule F of the OCP. Also included were
attachments recording those efforts.
Ms. Dmitrieff further noted that although the Docksteader Trail was legally gazetted in
1910, no official conveyancing took place and the right-of-way was never officially
recorded. She advised that the Planning Department has stated that the Equestrian Trails
Council must wait for a rezoning application on each portion of the land that affects the
trail and ask for it to be recognized and officially dedicated. She asks that Council assist
them in their efforts to preserve a historic trail and offer the public access to a safe
corridor by recording this right-of-way.
Mr. Fred Voglmaier of 27050 Ferguson Avenue referred to the practice of putting horse
trails on road shoulders close to the roads. This is a concern to him as the horse and rider
then has to cross numerous driveways. Maple Ridge has no way of controlling private
driveways once the development is completed. The driveways are paved with materials
that become very slick and dangerous and the residents place obstructions in their
driveways. He asked that the Municipality put a mechanism in place to control
driveways situated on public lands/ road allowances.
Ms. Sandy Scheer of 13031 - 224 Street expressed the following three concerns: (1)
aquatic issues, which have been noted by previous speakers; she supports ARMS; (2)
this plan does not provide for a wildlife corridor through the development so the wildlife
can get from one side to the other; (3) she objects to land being removed from the A.L.R.
which result in the ALR being nibbled away which has happened in Richmond, etc.; (4)
Blaney Bog will be destroyed by pesticides and other chemicals contained in the run-off
from the new residences.
Mr. Bill Elder of 13398 - 233 Street advised that he is opposed to this large proposal. He
feels that the citizens of Maple Ridge have the right to see some smaller developments
completed first so people can determine if that is what they want in this area. He asks that
Council reject this large development and look at doing something on a smaller scale
first.
Mr. Craig Speirs of 124 Avenue advised that he has lived at both the top and the bottom
of this hillside area for many years and has walked every square mile of it. It is a
beautiful area, particularly around Blaney Bog. An expert, Dr. Dave Bellamy, toured the
bog and was very impressed. He is Europe's equivalent of Dr. Suzuki. It is important
that the bog receives pure water. He recommends that bio-filtration systems be used to
take care. of pesticides, chemicals, etc. in the storm water run-off from the homes.
Mr. Speirs asked that a citizens advisory committee be established to help direct the pace
and direction of this proposal and mitigate any damage. There will be damage and there
will be no way around it.
Mr. Al Hogarth of 22031 Dewdney Trunk Road advised that he is a member of the Silver
Valley Neighbourhood Association and ARMS. He shares the view of the vast majority
of Maple in that they say 97% of the people very much look at Maple Ridge as a very
natural setting. He finds the scope of this development staggering. The Silver Valley
Guide Plan that was adopted by Council has not been before the citizens. That is contrary
to the OCP. He noted that the commercial site has been moved from its original site due
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 9
to a large outcropping. He finds it ironic that the site was not good enough for a village
centre but that it is good enough for building lots. Only the land use is being addressed
here and not the form and character of the buildings. The development plan will not be
finalized until after this Public Hearing.
Mr. Hogarth added that he feels that there is a way to develop this absolutely gorgeous
site with the same number of units but in a more compassionate manner. The zoning by-
law allows this site to be totally and substantially altered. In order to build the houses,
the land will have to be manipulated to a degree that it will be unrecognizable when the
development is done. Although there will be retaining walls, most of the vegetation will
have to be removed. It is high time the Municipality got into doing some real planning
and really addressed the OCP. This application was presented to Council just last month
and the plan is already different than the one that was given first reading. He cannot
support the plan as presented and feels the applicants can do a lot better.
Mr. Dave Smith, 24818 - 100 Avenue, a member of the Maple Ridge Equestrian Trails
Council, Haney Horseman Association, GETPARC (Golden Ears Trails Preservation and
Restoration Club) and the Ridge Meadows Watershed Council, read and submitted
letters on behalf of the Maple Ridge Equestrian Trails Council dated November 17, 1998
and the Haney Horseman Association dated March 15 and 16, 1998. The two
organizations are concerned that the Docksteader Trail will be lost as no accommodation
has been made for it in these plans.
Mr. Smith also expressed concern regarding the aquatic life and wildlife in the area as
animals also need a habitat. He does not feel that such a large mixed use is acceptable in
this part of the community and is concerned that the increased traffic will be a serious
problem. He also has concerns with respect to water and drainage problems. He feels that
before the development proceeds there has to be a meeting of the residents and the user
groups. He questioned why the U.B.C. Research Forest and the Golden Ears Park are
not privy to any of these meeting and why they are not more involved.
Mr. Frank Hauzer of 22909 - 132 Avenue advised that he has lived on that 10 acre parcel
since 1977. He noted that progress and development are difficult or impossible to stop
but they must be controlled. He has the following two concerns regarding the proposed
development: (1) Traffic along 123 Avenue is increasing at a very aggressive rate and
threatening recreational activities such as jogging, horseback riding, cycling and walking;
(2) He has seen a dramatic increase in the water flow through two large ditches and
creeks on his property. Flash flooding is now occurring in the area with less rainfall.
A speaker stated that if Council has been considering development in Silver Valley for 17
years, they have heard the all these sentiments before. He feels that Council has already
decided how they will be voting and the Public Hearing is just a formality. He asked that
Council amend the application to read that no Development Permit will be approved until
an environmental bonding system is in place so that it can be ensured that the consultants'
recommendations are carried out.
He further noted that two-thirds of the people in Silver Valley have asked Council to stop
development. The residents want development done right. He asked that if there is
anyone on Council who is willing to work with the residents to do the development in a
better way that they come forward.
A resident of 232 Street advised that she lives just to the north of the development and
she loves the area. She noted that all the children will have to leave the area to go to the
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 10
closest school which is Yennadon. She advised that she teaches at Yennadon and the
school is full. She acknowledged that school sites have been designated but noted that
the schools come along at a later stage.
Mr. Zale Hammren of 14202 Marc Road read and submitted a letter. He questioned what
the hurry is. He noted that there are 1500 to 2000 people who have signed a petition who
have major concerns about the way that Silver Valley is being desecrated. The people
who signed the petition want details of the run-off plans for the whole area, etc. He asks
that Council not approve the development unless it can be one everyone can look to with
a sense of pride at ajob well done.
Mr. Gavin Roache of 13034 - 236 Street read and submitted a letter dated November 17,
1998 which expresses concerns that the type of development proposed is a "land use
blank cheque". He wants to see a comprehensive development plans and a comprehensive
environmental study. This development will define the character of Silver Valley and it
will be the first impression for thousands of people but no one knows what those first
impressions will be. He questioned where the innovative site development proposals are
that the OCP talks of. This public hearing is the last chance people will have for public
input. Even if development does not take place for 10 years, they will not get another
chance to speak, and yet they do not have any idea what the finished product will look
like. If approved, this method of rezoning will set a precedent for future applications. He
urges Council not to pass these by-laws until the community has a detailed concept of
what is being proposed.
Chris of 24318 - 104 Avenue spoke in opposition to the proposal. She advised that she is
a member of the Pitt Polder Preservation Society who want to preserve Blaney Bog. She
advised that she participated as a citizen on some of the panels of the Rural Plan and OCP
Review and some of the recommendations did not come true for her. She lives near an
environmentally sensitive area in Albion where trees were cut down. There are large
tracts of land in Maple Ridge that are not environmentally sensitive that could be
developed on. These include areas towards Garibaldi School and parts of Albion.
She further stated that the Rural Plan promoted larger parcels in rural areas, as well as
keeping the rural lifestyle distinct. She quoted recommendations from the Rural Plan
which she does not feel are being addressed in this proposal. Silver Valley is a rural area
and the quality of the rural lands in Silver Valley should be protected. She wants to see
the storm run-off issues addressed.
She also referred to the G.V.R.D.'s Livable Region Strategy, which she feels is a joke,
noting that residents should be able to say "not in my back yard" if it means having a
livable community. Also, the OCP says to encourage housing densities in currently
developed area.
Ms. Lyn Peters of 13034 - 236 Street read and submitted a letter which, in summary,
strongly protests the rezoning of agriculture land to comprehensive development, noting
that the public has no idea of what the future plans are for this land, except there will be
500 units. This is a blanket permission to the developers to do what they want. She
questioned the lack of community input. She also noted that the newly hired Municipal
environmental team will not have time to assess the environmental impact.
She also posed questions regarding the adequacy of stream setbacks on Anderson Creek,
loss of greenway connecting trails, infrastructure to the development, why Maple Ridge is
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 11
not being promoted as an outdoor experience, and why major roads and bridges are being
promoted at a major expense to the taxpayers
Ms. Peters further states that she opposes this rezoning until the citizens have been
offered a detailed structural plan and open house. Also, it is her understanding that the
School District does not require one of the school sites and she wants the park site
enlarged into that space.
Ms. Carol Botel of 14218 Marc Road advised that she has lived there since 1962. She is a
member of the Alouette Field Naturalists. Her water source is Anderson Creek and this is
of great concern to her. She questioned how it can be said that Anderson Creek is
considered to be a protected area, yet storm water run-off will be permitted to go into it
She supports everything that has been said by ARMS and those who want to protect
Blaney Bog. She noted that there used to be a whole population of Chinook salmon in
the creeks right up to her location on Marc Road.
Dr. Shiraz Mawani of 13320 —232 Street advised that he is a member of the Silver Valley
Neighbourhood Association. He referred to a petition signed by 1500 residents asking
Council to delay further approval of developments in the area. He noted that those
residents keep saying the same thing over and over and the fact that this process has
continued flies in the face of what public participation means. The OCP is supposed to
be a document that allows continued public input and participation. Those who have
voiced their concerns cannot say too strongly that they object to and do not want to see
continuing development until the many significant concerns have been addressed. They
are not talking about setting aside the 20% of the land that is environmentally sensitive
and continuing along with the remaining 80% as the 80% will affect the 20%. They have
suggested other approaches. They wish to break this impasse with Council and staff so
that they are not saying the same thing over and over. The process is flawed as there is
little information in the concept plan and no one knows what the development will look
like in the end. The residents need far more details. They look forward to Council
providing that detail before this development is approved.
Dr. Mawani further noted that it says in the OCP under Policy 5 that Maple Ridge
supports the development and implementation of innovative development plans. He
questioned if there are innovative storm water plans for this development that will
enhance the habitat.
The General Manager of Public Works and Development Services advised that Municipal
staff are working with the Ministry of Environment (MOE) on all the storm water issues
in Silver Valley, Albion and Cottonwood. They meet with MOE staff on a regular basis
as to how to approach these issues and will continue to that. It is work in progress. The
Municipality relies on MOE input and has a good working relationship with them. The
best storm water practices will be applied as the development occurs over the course of
time.
Dr. Mawani stated that the Public Hearing process is flawed as the residents will not get
another chance for input. There is an urgency for them to be heard on this matter.
Dr. Mawani referred to the run-off problems that occurred when slopes in the area were
denuded of trees before development occurred and asked that measures be taken so that
this does not happen again. He also noted that a flood occurred on 132 Avenue last week.
He feels that further flooding in the area will occur if more significant development is
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 12
allowed. It has been said that studies on these matters will take place; he questioned what
the Municipality will do if the studies do not pan out.
Mr. Kevin G. Midgley of 22416 - 129 Avenue read and submitted a letter which, in
summary, opposes the proposed rezoning, noting that basic requests of the Silver Valley
residents' petition have not been implemented. The people who signed the petition want
a workable environmental bonding system in place before the development is approved.
Mr. Midgley questioned what the rush is, noting that this is the biggest development ever
proposed for approval at one time in Maple Ridge's history. His concerns include
adequate setbacks for sensitive areas, planning for development is being done without the
roads in place, and the lack of a neighbourhood structure plan. He noted that Kelowna
has such a plan.
Mr. Steve Broughton of 23627 - 132 Avenue advised that he is a member of the Silver
Valley Neighbourhood Association. He noted that the Association has requested a
neighbourhood structure plan and he is opposed to this development proceeding until that
plan is in place.
Mr. Don Gehring of 22355 River Road advised that he is opposed to the proposed
development plan. He stated that has not heard any details about the commercial
component and questioned what uses would be allowed, e.g. restaurant, neighbourhood
pub, etc.
The Director of Current Planning responded that the neighbourhood commercial area has
moved off the subject site to 137 Avenue. The commercial site shown on the guide plan
is roughly 4 to 5 acres and is intended to serve the local population. There are two
commercial centres proposed for Silver Valley. A larger centre will be at 236 Street and
136 Avenue.
Mr. Michael Saether of 21837 Laurie Avenue advised that he reiterates the concerns that
have been expressed with respect to Blaney Bog. He urges Council to pursue with the
utmost vigour the preservation of Blaney Bog. Council must be aware of the
hydrological features of the bog and what it requires in terms of water input into the
system, and must obtain the expertise that is required as this is a complex matter. Upland
development will affect the hydrology of the bog. Anderson Creek cannot stand alone as
the only source of water to the bog.
Mr. Saether noted that Silver Valley was approved for development 10 years ago and in
the interim society has begun to recognize more and more the down-side of urban sprawl.
The G.V.R.D. has come up with the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) to address this
problem. H would like to know from Council if the support the Livable Region Strategic
Plan. The plan states that the final population of Maple Ridge is to be 93,000. He
questioned how that compares to the proposed development. He hopes that all
Councillors will make their position on the LRSP clear as it is of paramount importance
to decide if they are behind that plan or not. He asked that hard decisions be made to
prevent urban sprawl.
He added that he is pleased to see the green area around Anderson Creek but questioned
if the setback is adequate.
Mr. Jim Osborne of 14136 Marc Road voiced his objection to the Zone Amending By-
law as he is disturbed by the high density of this project. There is very little chance that it
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 13
will look anything but like another Mary Hill which is not a concept most people want for
Silver Valley.
Mr. Roy Josephson of Fern Crescent read and submitted a letter which, in summary,
states that there appears to be a breakdown in the application of the OCP in Silver Valley.
He fears the loss of huge tracts of wooded land nearthe gateway of Golden Ears Park
which are used for hiking, biking and horseback riding. He questioned why Council is
proceeding with this and other development applications in spite of the large petition
submitted to them from the Silver Valley residents.
Mr. Josephson in his letter refers to the following policies of the OCP which the proposed
development does not appear to live up to - Policy 1.3.2.1 (Page 4) re density bonusing
and transfer; Policy 12 (Page 30 re greenways; Policy 31 (Page 39) re special needs
housing; Policies 37 (Page 40) and 52 (page 42); Policies 49 (Page 42), 59 (Page 48) and
6 1-63 (Page 51) commercial centres; Policy 60 (Page 49) participatory planning.
At the request of Acting Mayor Baker; Mr. Arychuk of Hunter Laird Engineering Ltd.
responded to several of the concerns raised by the speakers as follows:
Open space and parkiand. These areas represent over 30% of the site. The agricultural
component and lands that are to be preserved next to the bog area equal 20 acres. The
neighbourhood park is a 4 acre parcel and there are 5.25 acres of conservation areas that
are to be protected in the Anderson creek and tributary ravines. There is a significant
clustering of the densities.
Equestrian Trail - a commitment was made earlier to establish an equestrian linkage
through the site which will be worked out with Municipal staff at the subdivision stage.
Staff envisions that linkage as a "country road" and there will be no need for the horse
and rider to cross over boulevards. It will be a clearly designated trail system
Wild4fe Corridors - there are major protected greenway and wildlife corridors identified
on the plan. The adjacent portions of the corridor are not shown on the plan.
Visual image of the site - it is tucked in back behind a knoll and therefore will be less
visible to visitors to the area.
He further noted that the road system will have minimal grading to accommodate the
services for the development. The high elevations changes will be minimized. Mr.
Hoffart has experience with the hillside policies and was brought into the project for his
expertise in that regard.
Drainage issues
The most advanced technology of the Ministry of Environment will be used. Storm water
will be handled in accordance with the Silver Valley Guide Plan. Detention facilities will
be to the north of the property for each site and then brought to Anderson Creek refined.
Mr. Arychuk added that it is a big project and it carried with it substantial requirements
for infrastructure which will serve as the basis for all of Silver Valley. The services
cannot be done for 5 or 10 lots at a time as it requires a major investment. It is too much
for one developer and has been co-ordinated with other developers to ensure that there is
no cost to the general taxpayer.
Public Hearing Minutes
November 17, 1998
Page 14
Mr. Hogarth questioned what the intent is for the ALR lands. He noted that they not
identified as Park; they are not being identified as something that can be preserved or
dedicated. He expressed concern that they could be subdivided off and sold at some time.
Mr. Walt Johnson, the Development Manager of Silver Maples Development Ltd.
advised that he represents the owner of the property He responded that they have had
many discussions on this issue. The Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) has certain
desires for that land and Maple Ridge has certain concept plans. The proponents will be
working with Maple Ridge with respect to their wishes. They will have to co-ordinate
with the ALC.
A speaker asked if there is any guarantee that the intentions voiced by the developers
today will not be changed.
The Director of Current Planning explained that the concerns and questions raised at this
meeting will now be discussed by Council and referred to staff for analysis. Many of the
requests made this evening are for more details of the development plan which has not
yet been done, e.g. storm drainage, grading plans, etc. The final concept plans are not
designed yet. These happen as subdivision evolves. Subdivision normally happens after
the zoning application. The topic of this meeting is land use. Subdivision is not part of
the public scrutiny, however, Council has now heard the concerns and questions raised by
the citizens and they will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Josephson asked if Maple 1idge has a model for development in Silver Valley. He
participated in the Vancouver City Plan and they canvassed two neighbourhoods by mail
and did a survey and a workshop and compiled the results to utilize in their decision
towards development. He submitted a copy of the Vancouver City Plan Tool Kit.
On question, the Director of Current Planning identified the proposed school sites, noting
that the School District has advised that one site located in the northern portion is not
now required.
There was no further comment and the Acting Mayor declared By-laws 5689-1998 and
5690-1998 dealt with.
2) RZ115198 - MAPLE RIDGE *ONE AMENDING B YLA W NO.5736-1998
LEGAL:
LOCATION:
FROM:
TO:
Parcel 1,District Lot 398, Group 1, Reference Plan LMP 13237,
New Westminster District
11566224
RS-1 (One Urban Residential)
Nm
PURPOSE: To permit the of a two storey 1 560m2 office building
The Director of Current Planning display an overhead map of the site and called upon
Mr. Harvey Hatch, the architect, to descri he proposal.
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Mayor and Council DATE: September 16. 1998 FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Review Of Silver Valley Public Participation Program
SUMMARY:
Council requested a summary of the public participation program used to review the Silver Valley land use
designations of the Official Community Plan. One of the purposes of involving the public in the Silver Valley
Land Use Review of 1994 was to:
• review area-specific work previously undertaken,
• review interests of the other government agencies and public utilities,
• meet the aspirations of the areas population.
The views of the public were given special weight in the preparation of the plan review. Four workshops and two
Open Houses were held during the course of the study. As well, a Public Hearing was held to consider the
implementing bylaws.
p
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
BACKGROUND:
Public participation in the Silver Valley Land Use Review of 1994 was structured around a series of workshops,
in which area residents and others worked with the consulting team to identify issues, set objectives, and test
solutions. The process began with an orientation meeting with invited area representatives from a cross-section of
neighbourhood residents who could express the various attitudes held within Silver Valley. The information
gained from this meeting helped to focus on appropriate directions for the subsequent workshops.
Prior to the first workshop, a four page newsletter was mailed to all Silver Valley residents and property owners.
As well newspaper adverts were placed in the local newspapers informing those interested thit the land use
review was underway. Also, a 9-page discussion paper documenting background information and key issues was
distributed at the first workshop or mailed following the workshop.
Each workshop had two objectives: the minor one was to verify, or adjust, the team's work based on the previous
workshop; the major one was to provide direction to the team for the next stage of plan development. Four
workshops were held during the course of the study.
In order to gain wider public comment, two Open Houses were also held, one at the mid-point of the process and
oneat-the-end. At-ehOpen-Houseattendeeswereaskcd-to-siga-in 1 mark •the••location-oftheir•house•on a-large-
map of the area, and fill out a questionnaire providing comments on planning issues and options described in the
display material. This information was incorporated into the consultant team's work. Details of the public
response at the two Open Houses are contained in Appendices to the consultants report.
Following the Land Use Review, Council received the report and recommendations and
instructed staff to review the material and prepare implementation bylaws. Many
meetings and much discussion occurred between Council and staff on achieving the
recommended plan. Implementation bylaws went to a Public Hearing on January 11,
1995.
Public Participation.Specific Meetin2s
Orientation Meeting Workshop #1 Workshop #2
December 9. 1993 January 20, 1994 February 10. 1994
Ten area representatives 130 participants 96 participants
attended this briefing.
Open House #1 Workshop #3 Workshop #4
March 03, 1994 April07. 1994 May05, 1994
125 participants 109 participants 124 participants
Open House #2 Implementation
May 26, 1994 Public Hearing
140 participants January 11, 1995
Other Consultations
In addition, three studies were undertaken that were used in the Silver Valley Land Use Review. They were:
Environmental Assessment Study, Gartner Lee Ltd., 1992
Stormwater Management Study, UMA Engineering
Traffic and Transportation Study, Ward Consulting Group
Several government agencies and crown corporations were consulted to gauge their plans and requirements
related to future development in Silver Valley. These included:
• Agricultural Land Commission
• B.C.Hydro
• B.C. Transit.
• Central Fraser Valley Health Unit
• Departnnt of Fisheries and Oceans
• Greater Vancouver Regional District
• Ministry of Envimnrncnt Lands and Parks
• Ministry of Transportation and Highways
• Bchool District No.42
,1 •')
Dlrector, Long Range Planning
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor C. Durksen DATE: October 21, 1998
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: CIW PW & DS
SUBJECT: Silver Valley
SUMMARY:
The following outlines staff comments on the Silver Valley petition. It is staff's understanding
that the petition has been submitted to Council largely in response to concerns regarding the
environmental impacts of urbanization in the area. This staff report attempts to respond to those
issues raised in the submission.
it
RECOMMENDATION:
Submitted for information only.
BACKGROUND:
The Official Community Plan (OCP) is the paramount municipal planning document which
provides the broad policy framework to guide the physical growth and development of the
District. The intent is to implement the OCP through the Zoning Bylaw and specific development
applications wherein the terms and conditions of any approval ensure compliance with the OCP.
The District has also the opportunity to undertake more detailed planning studies to address
specific areas of the community. Examples include the Rural Plan, Downtown Action Plan, and
the Silver Valley Guide Plan. While not adopted by bylaw, each of these initiatives are reviewed
by Council with ihe intent to be used as a guideline in evaluating future development
opportunities.
The petition suggests that the development of Silver Valley may be in contravention of the OCP.
In fact, Silver Valley is a designated growth area in Maple Ridge and is intended to concentrate
new population and development. At question, then, is how such development is accommodated.
Through the guide plan process, it was determined that in excess of 20% of the Silver Valley
growth area will be permanently protected from development. In large measure, these are the
ravines and river valleys and other environmentally sensitive areas in the area. In addition, the
Silver Valley area will be served by a major and improved park area to the south, adjacent to the
Alouette River as well as school parks/school sites. Much of the higher elevations in Silver
Valley are scheduled for very low denSity development which has the potential to provide for the
NONE
permanent protection of additional tree canopy in the area. It is further. noted that staff hay
proposed the introduction of a comprehensive development zoning for parts of Silver Valley
which provides greater flexibility to work with the landscape and concentrate densities, thereby
providing Opportunities to retain selected tree stands.
The petition has suggested that the preparation of an Area Structure Plan is necessary before
development advances for the Silver Valley Area. The term Area Structure Plan is actually used
in Alberta and is essentially the same type of document as the Guide Plan prepared by staff. The
background leading up to the current Guide Plan is summarized as follows:
1981 OCP designation of Silver Valley as Urban Reserve. OCP process included
public participation program.
1992 Gartner Lee Environmental Study prepared for Silver Valley
1994 Albion/Silver Valley Land Use Reviews conducted with,public participation
program
. P
1995 UMA Study on Silver Valley Stormwater Management prepared
1996 $1.25 million extension of trunk sewer into area
1996 OCP designates Silver Valley as Urban Growth Area with extensive publi
participation
1997198 Transportation reports prepared on Silver Valley Arterial
1997/98 Development applications submitted for Silver Valley with tirst major urban
residential development occurring
1998 Hillside Development Guidelines work undertaken to examine techniques to
achieve appropriate standards for building heights and retaining walls
1998 Guide Plan prepared using OCP framework and numerous background reports
as reference materials
As indicated in the foregoing, the planning program for Silver Valley has a 17-year history.
There has been a considerable amount of background work completed to better understand and
manage growth in the Silver Valley area. In addition, there have been several opportunities for
public participation over the years, most notably those opportunities associated with the current
OCP (see attached).
The result is a guide plan that provides for a mix of residential densities supported by a centrally
located community core. Significant ànvironmental features have been identified for protection
and the trunk servicing and transportation framework rationalized.
-2-
Given the work to date, the need for further review of development potentials and issues in Silver
Valley must be questioned. Rather, attention now is focused on the numerous development
applications under review for the area and the opportunities to apply the most current
development and environmental standards. It is through these development applications that the
more detailed decision making for Silver Valley will be occurring and the vision of the OCP
achieved. Ongoing Opportunities for public consultation will be afforded with each zoning
application considered by Council.
Working with the Ministry of Environment and with the support of in-house environmental staff
resources, staff are confident that development activity in Silver Valley will be respectful of
valuable environmental resources. Staff are prepared to support the concept of performance
bonding for drainage, tree stand protection and other environmental issues through development
agreements and development permits. These processes enable Council to apply a variety of
measures for the purpose of maintaining environmental integrity as a condition of development.
Through the development review process staff will advise Council about the opportunities
available to them in achieving this objective, including:
p
Limits to clearing consistent with work schedules that will limit the potential for excessive
erosion.
Guidelines for site maintenance during residential construction.
Site rehabilitation measures to manage runoff during winter months.
Siltation control as a component of storm sewer design.
Further, staff will recommend that all lands designated for protection be dedicated to the District
as a condition of development thereby limiting the potential for future encroachment from
neighbouring urban uses.
Staff have proposed comprehensive development zoning to provide a new more flexible zoning
mechanism to better allow development to coincide with challenging topography while still
achieving densities. Staff view this as a zoning technique with advantages to all concerned.
Conclusions
Staff are appreciative of the concerns expressed in the Silver Valley petition. However, a solid
planning foundation has been established for urban growth in the area through numerous studies,
the OC?, and the Guide Plan. The challenge at this time is to guide development in accordance
with OCP policies through detailed development review processes and effective enforcement
mechanisms.
r 1 k CAfiEkdminJ4 I r%tmOfter
JJR:bkg
-3-
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 11, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO: DP166199
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev
SUBJECT: DP166/99- Town Centre Redevelopment
Leisure Centre Expansion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This development permit application is the second of several expected for the Town Centre
redevelopment. This application addresses requirements associated with construction of
additions to the existing Leisure Centre Complex. The expanded Complex would include a new
gymnasium, youth centre and additional lap pooi. The comments provided by the Advisory
Design Panel are supportive of the proposal and Development Permit Area Guidelines have been
addressed. It is recommended that the permit application be supported.
II RECOMMENDATION:
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal DP/66/99 respecting property
located at 11995 Haney Place.
III BACKGROUND:
Applicant: Maple Ridge Town Centre Development Ltd.
Owner: Maple Ridge Town Centre Development Ltd.
Legal Description: REM 118, PL 60562
OCP: Existing: Town Centre Commercial
Proposed: Town Centre Commercial
Zoning; C-3
Surrounding Uses
N: Commercial
S: Institutional/Commercial
E: Municipal Building
W: Commercial
-: Existingand oposed..UseofProperty:. - isureCentre..Complex-
IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The second phase of the Town Centre development proposes a significant expansionto the existing
Leisure Centre facility. The expanded structure will house a new youth facility, a gymnasium and
new lap pool. Associated ancillary space is also provided.
The new facility will also refocus its presentation towards the north of the facility where it will now
provide the main entry. The focal point is the reorganized Centennial Park. This reorientation
combined with building expansions that narrows pedestrian spaces to the east and south,
j?"'OR, 0.3
necessitates careful consideration of the impact of the reduced space on pedestrian activity. This is
addressed with the inclusion of exterior activity space to the east, and windows along the south wall
that permit observation into and out of the facility.
V PLANNING ANALYSIS
Analysis of the project is guided by the Official Community Plan and specifically by
Development Permit Area XXX VI guidelines. These guidelines were prepared in anticipation of
the redevelopment of the area bounded by Dewdney Trunk Road, Lougheed Highway, 224th
Street and 226th Street. Comments are grouped within the four categories identified by the
Guidelines.
Site Plan Guidelines (DPA XXX VI
The guidelines relating to site planning for the development require that particular consideration be
given pedestrian use of the area. Focus on public space with attempts to define opportunities for
public gathering are encouraged.
Comments:
The site plan for the complex addresses the criteria identified for this section of the guidelines.
The orientation towards Centennial Park recognizes the park as an important public space. The
creation of outdoor activity space to the east of the facility also provides a linkage between
facility activities and outdoor pedestrian activity. Pedestrian access is maintained around the
perimeter of the building and concerns regarding the visibility of pedestrian activity around the
building are addressed.
Building Form Guidelines (DPA XXXVI)
The guidelines pertaining to building form reflect those of the site planning for the project. They
focus on a need to maintain a pedestrian scale and provide prominence to entry points. The use of
building materials that are consistent with other public buildings in the area is encouraged and the
use of fenestration to provide a good level of visibility to surrounding activity is required.
Comments:
The building addresses the building form guidelines. The Advisory Design Panel in particular
noted the efforts of the applicants in addressing earlier concerns regarding the building form.
The Panel suggested three minor modifications to the proposal;
Suggests that the applicant consider, as an alternative to painting the wave wall, a sculptural
treatment and creative use of materials.
Suggests that user groups be encouraged to utilize the end wall of the gymnasium for
banners and coordinate this use with the design team.
Suggests a curved element in front of the Leisure Centre similarto the other buildings.
-2-
Landscaping Guidelines (DPA XXXVI)
The specific guidelines governing landscape design for the Development Permit Area are:
Landscaping should define the purpose and emphasize the desired character and function of public space.
Landscaping should reinforce design continuity with neighbouring properties and the streetscape by
providing consistency in street trees, plant materials, and other landscaping elements. Simplicity in
landscaping materials is desirable and should be encouraged for screening purposes.
Street trees will be a required component of all development.
Comments:
The landscape design provides elements recommended by the guidelines. Detailed landscape
plans have not been provided with the proposal and should be required as a condition of final
approval of the permit. Of particular concern at this time is the location of street trees adjacent to
the north side of the building. The space allocated for the trees does not appear to be sufficient to
ensure the tree canopy is clear of the building wall. The street trees are an important element in
defining the quality of the public space fronting the building.
VI CONCLUSION:
The second phase of the Town Centre development proposal addresses the requirements of the
Development Permit Area Guidelines. Further detail is required regarding landscape design and
the Advisory Design Panel has proposed some minor changes to the building. It is recommended
that the application be supported.
Prepared by: Moreno ossi, MCIP
Registered
Approved by:/Ter - ryer, P. EnVJ
/Virector of Curp69( Planning
Jake J. Rolph, AICP, MCIP GMj_.Jublic Works & Development Services
Co'ncurrence: R6bert W. Robertson'AICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
mrfbjc
.3-
'Row 404.9
U
EXtTlP8
---- -
OrvnAu.
mcm
it —A
4
I4TQ9 A.
C fAlST' 'N
— (Tee
- S4I5TIW, / CCRA A41 PEL1' DALDIW,
(TO 5e (TO BE l4P) --
•
5••__ -
- -
S
- -- ToeY
RUSSELL
r44 40çq4. (2
?±4_cte L)l A e&44T .t CV 6 & PMWS M1qCl.
2,TVkjr ..T5 1465 401 ,40tP .4,,
..6AI41I5b6R C4.0 3 LA5. oS4o: 411(6,44415
ASSOCLATES
I •.c -AMCWECTS
TOBY
Qb'.,A6 T t'51
0
- E4AnlvE )T
' RUSSELL
UCKWELL
& pafiners -
arcnhtecls
5 S4 FLOORS, A 85R4 OF 4*4'.
Sf1.64. a 6r6 -
.FVER . .
1 ____ -__ -
t..4.0 - 4.116 sq. Is
5549 4q14 sq. II.
C'Rfl. .4414 sq It.
tAt0M49. -
- - -- - -_ -- T01A4 AbOVE SRA - 30 54*,.,
- .45
- 13
YAP41PCIC.,.F--t -5" --
_OCPSTA1*.. - I
E.O 1iW I
C4T II5 OTAL .*5'IC4.t64AkV 541€ 2o 5T*,LS
I
.1(.6HeOARo J - P LOT
ma
- - •EI
QESTAURM
'ARKIWI
E53 //r
SLC *(LL
flCIECTS
14
AnkeflmJA -
AbSOCL1tO$
Inc
low II I L L)
LT PLEVATICH •.3 pd
O1i1I-I ELEvTI -
A53.O1
MOM i INE amm ME I ~ WE I
-
ii
wi
77
IN
/ I -
-
-\:" •\ U1UI_,..ff ftj'_ .- ----: -
I:
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
a S
a S
a
ii ........... .
.I.I.I.I.I.I
+ •••
PII BLACKUALLNINIUM
iDETAL
iii•i•iim
iiiiiiii
ThRED PMTNG PATIER
M'RINTED SNE.AS1ED
cONcRETE AND COLOLM
ONRE1E BA1CRG
4 IRJGIT LcR MU1M RM ma. SEE D(TAA.
2 - TEAIINC STEPS AND - SITP9ED PUNIOTE
Mimi
NJ
1R1N$1Th COMMOKIN
MUNHAZEL
1RmuE41Th MAiAS
TOWN
CENTRE
MALL
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
Advisory Design Panel Meeting
Thursday, January 6, 2000
DP-66-99
• Applicant: Toby Russell Buckwell & Partners
• Proposal: Town Centre - Leisure/Youth Centre
• Location: Dewdney Trunk Road and 224th Street
RESOLUTION:
It was duly MOVED and SECONDED that the following resolution be passed:
The Advisory Design Panel expressed overall support for the project and were particularly
encouraged by the lengths the applicants have gone to in order to meet the earlier concerns of
the PaneL
The Panel also:
Suggests that the applicant consider, as an alternative to painting the wave
wall, a sculptural treatment and creative use of materials.
Suggests that user groups be encouraged to utilize the end wall of the
gymnasium for banners and coordinate this use with the design team.
Suggests a curved element in front of the leisure centre similar to the other
buildings.
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 7, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP181/99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev
SUBJECT: DVPI81/99
20318 Dewdney Trunk Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Development Variance Permit application has been received in which the applicant is
requesting a reduction in the rear yard set back from the required 6.0 meters to 1.1 metres. After
reviewing the application, staff recommend that DVP/81/99 be given favourable consideration.
II RECOMMENDATION:
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval
of DVP/81/99 respecting property located at 20318 Dewdney Trunk Road will be
considered by Council at the February 15th, 2000 meeting.
III BACKGROUND:
ApplicantfOwner: 509918 BC Ltd.
Legal Description: Lot 1 District Lot 222 Group 1 NWD Plan 77583
Existing Zoning: CS-i Service Commercial
Staff are currently reviewing a building permit application in which the applicant is proposing
construction of a gas bar and convenience store. Before issuance of a building permit, one of the
condItions to be satisfied is the District of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, which states that "no
building or structure shall be sited less than 60 mfrom a rear lot line."
The applicant is requesting that the rear yard set back be reduced from 6.0 m to 1.1 m.
IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located on the southwest corner of 203 d Street and Dewdney Trunk Road.
There is an existing mall development on two sides of the subject site with on site access points
to the west and south. Road access to the site will be provided at two points on Dewdney Trunk
Road. The building location is proposed for the southwest corner of the site in approximately the
same location as a previous building.
V PLANNING ANALYSIS
According to the Zoning Bylaw, where there is more than one fronting street, the lot line with the
narrowest dimension is considered the front lot line. In this case, the narrowest dimension is the
01.0a ?
east property line fronting on 203 Street. The rear lot line is therefore the west property line and
a reduction in the rear yard setback from this line is requested.
As this site is in a prominent location, staff recommend that the applicant present this project to
the Advisory Design Panel. In anticipation of Council's agreement with this recommendation,
the applicant presented this project to the January 6, 2000 Design Panel meeting. Attached are
the comments of the Panel, and the applicant has advised that the comments will be incorporated
in the final building permit application.
VI CONCLUSION:
As the site is bounded by a service commercial use on two sides and the reduced rear yard is
adjacent to one of these uses, staff recommend support for this application to reduce the required
rear yard setback.
441
Prepared y: Bruce McLeod, ISA Certified Arborist
Landscape/Planning Technician
Approved by:
Planning
ake J. Kiidolph, AICP, MCIP
GM: Public Works & Development Services
(
: Robert W. Robertson, AICP,
Chief Administrative Officer
(3)
-2-
33
-1b
ff4bi
rji 818
47 46 45
I 1214U I
N P41572 2
51 9825
P 72496 I 249
2 _____________
P7249
1 12125\ 12122
RP 17121
P- _________________ ______________
P 41 572
44
12119
- I 20 12087 12080 I 22 - H QI •- 37
_
120B3
CLI- I 12079\
P75684 Rd-i 38 I 18 2\'-112 1_092
Rem 12105 P 83237 \Toi5'. 1 P4a 120651 1
K — P4 15
16 j •\1207
P7062 I I EL _____________
0 14 N LM_5 /_P\
2832
C,
0
DEWDNEY TRK RD
00-2-9
0 1
N 81 7L.i_D77C
SUBJECT PROPERTY..
P6i-.
P61704
Mtl
—Jr
8 Co 8 0 N N
LMP4
P-4
LMP 34007
LMP
C-2
779 SRI
F11 27 Ic
PcLl
I 68
LMP 34007 I P 6407
I D 75
• CC Ir.
33673 IN /i
Rem 1
Rem PcI ONE
RP 7774
Rem5
— —I A •ri I \ ho
LANGLEY FP7
S.
SILVER 20318 DEDNEY IRK RD
1:4 CORPORATION OF I THE DISTRICTOF I MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE NORNHII.L Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
_____ DATE: Dec22 1999 FILE:DVP-81-99 BY: JB
Ap
73
SITE PLAN
PROJECT DATA
T!.*UIP *TaI
IM16
______
.DADMORaILMD AV r47.VW .WACE
—r
11
- -
1
—I
• * II
v • 4.
• .ihJ 4
'ac.cwEa. )• Itl
*CI .* 7fl. •...
I4 $U •
T, Ia
IAIV •afl IOC S 101 • lao ('Ml
• V
IN
WEST ELEVATION
Ta. _.•,
SIGN ELEVATION
t '•.ij•. •.
CANOPY ELEVATION
i
NORTH ELEVATION
I- w uJ
(U
Q_ c'c)
(U UA
>0 0
(U a
-J u1 < CL
(U -
O
Ui 0
Iro. 1 ,c s to. '.IOO tcam. •o.(cU ..
as
vagaveftloRw
Tt ua * = -
• __ ______
NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION
mo
C
L E C' C.CCY -.8O/E —
E.<IST CCE5 1 17 )
Hc
- -
...........
__
1_ -
EhC E'/E.OF'ENT LandscapePlan
—I CF _ 4N 7,51
bO.\CA. 'h.1E CMC'.' 1 Ar1E 5ZE &i t.T TE_ .0 0 GOf01 TO
s APICCE50.0 A4EB" -e - 1 S-3 545 ALL I..1.E0 lJREAS, TC wAve I C0tQ OF C.SE 11AW .&L COL 10 BE V AI,I .0V0 101L!S" CCQ
SOlE. tSC. E'G E '0 ! C T-.E LACSC.1P!
'I IAICNA F5T'CA - 0 -.€ SOIL C '0114 !RTL i!
SOIL 0 5e BASED _• E 5C5 ... SAO COIESVS 'I'. 1.
ES 0.IC.S E3 EPTIS SC'L 0 5 AS 1.L2 ' z.eEL. Z.18f.. I L.-.i..
t..tITG 4.i$0 Q.I.N E! q10Q N5t-..-. c' $OIL 515 '0SS4LC5 <'( 0 Q5S 0 SE cSS OF I.EECS 5' !4L SI.S.E _.O5C.LE - - R.iSE!
:0 -SE.L._ 6 ,'S
.I OQ .. C'.E -- - ---IS
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
Advisory Design Panel Meeting
Thursday, January 6, 2000
DVP-81-99
• Applicant: Urban Design Group
• Proposal: Convenience Store and Gas Bar
• Location: South West Corner of 203 and Lougheed Highway
RESOLUTION:
It was duly MOVED and SECONDED that the following resolution be passed:
The Advisory Design Panel expressed overall support for the project with the following
comments:
The Panel particularly liked the low level signage, the rooflines, and
general design of the building.
The Panel suggested that a tree survey be conducted to establish the
location of trees. The Panel also suggested that the existing bench be
included in the landscape design along 203rd Street.
The Panel recommends that the ramp adjacent to the disabled parking spot
be constructed for the entire width of the spot. The Panel also suggested
that the sidewalk be widened by two feet to allow for the car overhang.
The Panel suggested the possibility ofputting more lights on the south and
west elevations of the building to break up the length of wall and provide
more security.
The Panel would like to see provision for an enclosed area for garbage
collection.
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 11, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP/80199
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dcv
SUBJECT: DVP/80/99
23281 Kanaka Way
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Development Variance Permit application has been received in which the applicant is requesting
that the requirement to convert existing overhead wires on the north side of Kanaka Way to
underground facilities be waived. After reviewing the application, staff recommend that
DVP/80/99 be given favourable consideration.
II RECOMMENDATION:
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval
of DVP180199 respecting property located at 23281 Kanaka Way will be considered by
Council at the February 15th 2000 meeting.
III BACKGROUND:
Applicant/Owner: Concordia Ventures Ltd.
Legal Description: Lot 2 District Lot 404 Group 1 NWD Plan LMP 36190
Previous Applications: DP/3/98 RZ/49/96
IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Staff are currently reviewing a building permit application in which the applicant is proposing a 23
unit townhouse development. Before issuance of the building permit, one of the conditions to be
satisfied is the District of Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw, Schedule
"B", which states "that parcels within a proposed subdivision or development shall be provided
with services in accordance with Schedule "A" and all highways within, or immediately adjacent to
a proposed subdivision or development shall be constructed in accordance with Schedule "A ".
Schedule. "A' requires1u1Lurhan.scrvicesiniheRMLzone,inc1udiflg curb,..gutter, sidewalksand
underground wiring."
The applicant is requesting that the requirements to convert overhead wiring to underground on
the Kanaka Way frontage be waived.
V PLANNING ANALYSIS
Policy Implications
The subject property is located north of Kanaka Way east of Cottonwood Drive. The overhead
wires on Kanaka Way at this location appear on a reference map attached to an earlier policy
recommendation indicating lines which will not be converted.
VI CONCLUSION:
Based on the current policy, Staff recommend support for this application.
Prepared by: B. McLeod, ISA Certified Arborist,
Landscape/Planning Technician
App rovedØ: erry Frye'P! Eng.
/ DirectpIofurrent Planning
Jake J. 1folI4CP, MCII'
GM: PubUCjWorks & Deyelopment Services
LU '2-
Robert W. Robertson, ICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
-2-
P 27689
14
11252
14
P 27689
jSl
CIA
A PARK PARK
-7
12
C")
11
16
PARK
a- 9
1 -J 8
1
6
20 6
LMP 34625
22 '3
2
26
21
PT. 1
'7- P809
SIp'.
2
LMP 36190
RM-V PARK
LMP 36190
LMP 36190
-
A
36954
C'.
RP 4208
Rem 28
P 46383 ..AN2158 \
\ 18
Rem 2Q\
Rem2
N ____ 23281 KANAKA WAY
CORPORATION OF
SCALE 12500 !MAP __
MAPLE RIDGE
JB
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 5, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: CoW
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 5881-2000
SUMMARY:
Staff has drafted for Council's consideration a bylaw to amend the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit
Regulation Bylaw No. 5763-1999. The proposed amendments attempt to eliminate any discretionary
interpretation of what constitutes an exempt activity within the Agricultural Land Reserve under the
District's Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw and introduces a few minor housekeeping changes to the
bylaw at the same time.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 5881-2000 be read a first
and second time and rules of order be waived and the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation
Amending Bylaw No. 5881-2000 be read a third time.
BACKGROUND:
In recent discussions with legal counsel it was determined that the discretionary authority given the
District in Section 5.9 of the Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw made the enforcement of non-
conforming fill activity within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) difficult. Bylaw exemption
criteria needs to be specific in order to eliminate enforcement loopholes.
Staff has drafted for Council's consideration an amendment to Section 5.9 that now specifies what
constitutes an exempt activity within the ALR using provincially established criteria. It is the
opinion of our legal counsel that the clarity provided by the amendment will make the bylaw more
enforceable on lands within the ALR.
The need to amend Section 5.9 of the Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw also provided an opportunity to
Theseamendmentsinclude:'
• the Removal of Section 3.3 because it has been made redundant by recent amendments to
Development Permit Area XXX in the Official Community Plan;
• the replacement of the words "place" and "will" with the more legally defensible words
"deposit" and "must;"
• the modification of Section 8.4 to remove discretionary authority from the Manager of
Environmental Affairs and place it with the District as a whole; and
0 94, 004?f 06
• the removal of the phrase "so as to cause a hazard or a nuisance" from Section 10.8 to eliminate
any argument about whether mud on the road is good or bad when the District's policy is to
ensure that our roads remain free of any debris.
DISCUSSION:
It is the opinion of District staff that the amendments proposed in the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit
Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 5881-2000 will make the Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No.
5763-1999 more enforceable on lands within the ALR.
Prepared by: Kim G1\)ut, P
Affairs
Approved by: .Tohn Bastaja //
Director of Long't&ange Planning
Approvej,f Jake J. Rwj&ph, AICP, MCIP
GM: Public Works & Development Services
(JLj
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative OffIcer
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 5881-2000
A bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. 5763-1999
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No.
5763-1999;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in
open meeting assembled, Enacts as Follows:
This bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Amending Bylaw No.
5 88 1-2000.
2 Bylaw No. 5763-1999 is hereby amended as follows:
a) By deleting Section 3.3.
b) By deleting Section 4.3 in it's entirety and replacing it with the following:
"4.3 Not withstanding Section 4.1, no person shall cause or permit the deposit of
fill on any land within the Agricultural Land Reserve unless the Provincial
Agricultural Land Commission provides written comment on their position to
the District and a permit has been issued pursuant to this bylaw."
c) By deleting the phrase "building project permit" in Section 5.7 and replacing it with
the phrase "development permit agreement."
d) By deleting Section 5.9 in it's entirety and replacing it with the following:
"5.9 where the deposit of fill is on lands designated Agricultural Land Reserve and
is associated with or involves:
i) cultivation of lands,
-i.i)--appli.cation-of-.feil-izers .manu.res,-.eompost-s.m.uichesorsoil-condit-ioiers3
construction and maintenance of roadways drainage, irrigation and livestock
watering works for farm use where the total volume of soil deposited does
not exceed 320 cubic meters per 16 hectares, and
operations of a florist, nurseryman, turf farmer or greenhouse operator
where the amount of soil deposited is reasonably necessary for the growth
and maintenance of the plants grown."
e) By deleting:
the word "placed" as it appears in Sections 4 through 9 and replacing it with the
word "deposited";
the word "placement" as it appears in Sections 4 through 9 and Section 14.3 and
replacing it with the word "deposit"; and
the word "placing" in Section 14.5 and replacing it with the word "deposit."
By deleting Section 8.4 in it's entirety and replacing it with the following:
"8.4 Any additional technical information as may be required by the District to
ensure compliance with this bylaw."
By deleting the word "will" from Section 10, Section 12.3 and Section 14.5 and
replacing it with the word "must."
By deleting the phrase "so as to cause a hazard or a nuisance" from Section 10.8.
READ a first time this day of ,2000.
READ a second time this day of ,2000.
READ a third time this day of ,2000.
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2000.
MAYOR CLERK
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
BY-LAW NO. 5763- 1999
A BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE PLACEMENT OF FILL ON LAND IN THE
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No.
4569-1991 as amended.
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge,
in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: -
CITATION
1.1 This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation
Bylaw No. 5763-1999".
1.2 The "Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. 4569-1991" and amendments
thereto is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this Bylaw:
"Soil" means clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, boulders, peat or other substance of which land is
naturally composed, or any other combination of these substances.
"Other material" means
construction, building or demolition wastes such as masonry rubble, concrete
rubble, asphalt, plaster, lumber, metal, shingles, glass, gyproc or any other
material derived from building demolition and construction;
hog fuel, sawdust, shavings, edgings, or other wood waste which results from
the manufacturing process of lumber or other wood products;
land clearing wood waste, consisting of stumps, brush and logs or any other
waste derived-from-land-clearing-activities;.
waste material derived from commercial, industrial and manufacturing
activities.
"Deposit" means the act of temporarily or permanently placing fill on any lands within the
District of Maple Ridge other than that where it originated, including a stockpile or
other storage facility.
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 2
"Fill" means any "soil" or "other material" defined herein brought on land within the District of
Maple Ridge.
"Building Project" means any construction that involves the erection, alteration, replacement,
addition, removal, move andlor demolition of buildings, structures and all
appurtenances thereto including without limitation, plumbing, sewer,
drainage, septic, electrical, gas, oil, and includes all site preparation,
excavation, filling and grading.
"The Manager of Environmental Affairs" means the Manager of Environmental Affairs for the
District of Maple Ridge andlor their designate.
"Bylaw No. 5764-1999" means the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge bylaw to impose
fees for soil deposit permit applications and to impose fees for the
deposit of soil or other fill material on land.
"Bylaw No. 5535-1996" means the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge bylaw to regulate
outdoor burning in the District of Maple Ridge.
APPLICATION
3.1 This Bylaw applies to all land within the District of Maple Ridge. Where lands
proposed to be filled are designated as agricultural land reserve pursuant to the
Soil Conservation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, Chapter 10, the District will require an
application pursuant to the Soil Conservation Act, R.S.B.C., Chapter 434 be
made to the Agricultural Land Commission prior to District approval.
3.2 An approval or exemption to fill under the authority of the Soil Conservation Act
in no way relieves the owner or his/her agents of the responsibility of adhering to
all local bylaws of the District of Maple Ridge and Provincial legislation,
including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
3.3 For filling within Development Permit Areas as designated in the District of
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan No. 5434-1996 a Development Permit
needs to be applied for that would meet the requirements of a soil deposit permit.
PROHIBITIONS
4.1 Subject to Section 5 of this Bylaw, no person will cause or permit the placement
of "fill" on any land within the District of Maple Ridge until a permit has been
granted pursuant to this Bylaw.
4.2 No person will cause or permit the placement of other material on any land
within the District of Maple without a valid permit or exemption under the Waste
Management Act, and amendments thereto, and until a permit has been granted
pursuant to this Bylaw.
4.3 Not withstanding Section 4.1, no person will cause or permit the placement of fill
on any land within the Agricultural Land Reserve unless the Provincial
Agricultural Land Commission grants written approval or exemption under the
Soil Conservation Act to the District of Maple Ridge.
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 3
4.4 Any fill placed without a permit must be removed from the land. Failure to
remove the fill will constitute an offence under this Bylaw.
5. PERMIT EXEMPTIONS
Provided the placement of fill is carried out in compliance with the relevant provisions of this
Bylaw and subject to the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act, a permit may not be required:
5.1 where the fill is used for construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of a
highway;
5.2 where the fill is used for the construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of
public works or services undertaken by a governmental authority;
5.3 where soil is from or on parks and municipally owned lands and is conducted by
or on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge and in accordance with the standards
of this bylaw and accepted Erosion Control or other Best Management Practices
(see Schedule "A");
5.4 where the fill is placed and stored on land for the purpose of being used as an
ingredient or component in the manufacture of topsoil on the same property;
5.5 where fill is placed as a necessaiy element in the construction of a work, building
or structure authorized by a plumbing permit or a building permit issued by the
District of Maple Ridge, provided such plumbing or building permit and the
plans pertaining thereto disclose the placement of fill and the resulting elevations
of the land in relation to the work, building or structure authorized by the
plumbing permit or building permit with the extent of the fill limited to the
creation of an acceptable building envelope;
5.6 where the volume of soil placed on a parcel in one year does not exceed 50 cubic
meters;
5.7 where the soil is placed pursuant to a preliminary subdivision approval in respect
of which subdivision examination fees have been paid, or pursuant to either a
subdivision servicing agreement, rezoning development agreement or building
project permit entered into between the owner of the land on which the soil is to
be placed and the District; provided that in all such cases the placement of soil is
carried out in accordance with the terms of the preliminary subdivision approval
or agreement as the case may be including any engineering plans and
specifications forming part thereof and in accordance with the terms of this
bylaw;
5.8 where fill is placed pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of a written
authorization from the Ministry of Health pursuant to an application, by the
owner of land on which the fill is to be placed, for a permit to install a septic
field;
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 4
5.9 where the deposit of fill is on lands designated Agricultural Land Reserve and an
exemption under the Soil Conservation Act has been issued by the Agricultural
Land Commission and been approved by the District;
5.10 fertilizers, manure, composts, mulches or soil conditioners for agricultural,
farming, horticulture, nursery or domestic gardening and landscaping purposes
deposited in accordance with good agricultural practice as defined by the BC
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Agricultural Land
Commission where the land is within the Agricultural Land Reserve;
5.11 wood chips, hog fuel, bark chips, shavings, trimmings, sawdust and other wood
wastes generated by sawmilling and lumber manufacturing- readily incorporated
into the soil, to a maximum depth of 10 cm. for agricultural, horticultural,
nursery or domestic landscaping purposes, provided the material is placed in
accordance with good agricultural practice or sound landscaping practice
whichever the case may be;
5.12 where such material is wood waste, the product of a processing or manufacturing
activity situated on the same or adjoining parcel, a product for the deposit of
which a permit or approval has been issued under the Waste Management Act;
5.13 wood chips, hog fuel, bark chips, shavings, trimmings and sawdust and other
wood wastes generated by sawmilling and lumber manufacturing used for animal
bedding, or as foundation material for equestrian or construction purposes,
provided the maximum area of land over which the material is deposited on any
parcel of land will not exceed 25 % of the surficial area of the parcel to a
maximum of 4000 square meters and the maximum depth of the material will not
exceed 30 cm. annually to a lifetime maximum compacted depth of 50 cm; and
5.14 where material consists of stumps, brush and tree stockpiles from land clearing
operations, the intent of which is to burn under the terms and conditions of
Bylaw No. 553 5-1997.
6. PERMITS
6.1 Any person who proposes to place fill on a parcel of land will first obtain a
permit undet this bylaw except where the land is within the Agricultural Land
Reserve. In this instance, an application pursuant to the Soil Conservation Act
will precede the Bylaw application.
6.2.. A permit must not be issued if the proposed placement of fill will: -
endanger or otherwise adversely affect any adjacent land, structure, road, or
right-of-way, or
foul, obstruct, impede or otherwise adversely affect any stream, creek,
waterway, watercourse, groundwater aquifer, waterworks, ditch, drain, sewer
or other established drainage facility unless the owner holds a permit to do so
under the Water Act or Pollution Control Act and amendments thereto.
6.3 A permit issued under this Bylaw is valid for a period of 12 months from the date
of issuance and is non-transferable.
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 5
6.4 Every application for a permit to place fill must be made by the owner(s) of the
land or his/her agent.
65 An application for a permit shall:
i include a fully completed and signed form as set out in Schedule "B"
attached and hereto annexed and made part of this Bylaw; and
ii be accompanied by the applicable permit fee calculated in accordance with
Bylaw No. 5764-1999.
6.6 The Manager of Environmental Affairs may refer any application for a permit to
the Engineering Department, Inspection Services, or consultants for advice. The
applicant may be required to provide better and more detailed information to
supplement the application. Where further information is required by the
Manager of Environmental Affairs, the application will be deemed incomplete
until the information is provided.
6.7 The owner and contractor agree to indemnify and hold harmless the District of
Maple Ridge, its agents, employees or officers from and against any claims,
demands, losses, costs, damages, actions, suits or proceedings whatsoever by
whomsoever brought against the District, its agents, employees or officers by
reason of the District granting the owner and contractor named herein the Soil
Deposit Permit to conduct the work in accordance with the plan submitted and
described in this application.
7. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Every application for a permit pursuant to this bylaw shall be made in writing to the Manager of
Environmental Affairs and shall contain the following information:
7.1 the legal description and civic address of the land where the fill originates;
7.2 the legal description and civic address of the land on which fill is to be placed;
7.3 the name and the address of the person applyingfor the permit;
7.4 the name, address and telephone/fax numbers of the registered owner(s) of the
land on which the fill is to be placed. Where there is more than one registered
owner, the names, addresses and telephone/fax numbers of ALL registered
owners must be provided;
7.5 the exact location and depths where the fill is to be placed, defined by reference
to any existing buildings, structures, improvements, and parcel boundaries all of
which must be shown as a dimensioned contour sketch plan in metric units;
7.6 the composition of the proposed fill;
7.7 the proposed method of placing the fill;
7.8 the dates proposed for commencement and completion of filling;
7.9 the proposed methods of access to the site during and upon completion of filling;
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 6
7.10 measures proposed to prevent personal injury or property damage resulting from
filling;
7.11 the measures proposed to control erosion, drainage and soil stability;
7.12 the reclamation measures proposed to stabilize, landscape, and restore the land
upon completion of filling;
7.13 the location of all watercourses, waterworks, wells, ditches, drains, sewers, septic
fields, catch basins, culverts, manholes, rights-of-way, public utilities and public
works on or within 30 meters of the boundaries of the parcel on which fill is to be
placed, and the measures to protect them;
7.14 the proposed routes to be taken by vehicles transporting fill to the land;
7.15 measures proposed to minimize or prevent tracking of soil or other material onto
municipal streets and roads and measures for cleaning the streets and roads
abutting the parcel on which fill is to be placed;
7.16 if the proposed depth of fill is greater than 1 meter above existing ground
elevations of fill site, or if the proposed fill site is on a floodplain designated
pursuant to Section 910 of the Municipal Act or is proposed on a slope any part
of which exceeds 30%, the application will be accompanied by a survey
prepared by a B.C. Land Surveyor that includes:
contour plans to a scale not smaller than one thousand to one (1000:1),
showing at one (1) meter intervals the elevations as they exist and showing
one (1) meter intervals the proposed elevations of the land after filling; and
the proposed slopes which will be maintain during and upon completion of
the filling.
7.17 if the proposed depth of fill is greater than 1 meter above existing ground
elevations of fill site, or if the proposed fill site is on a floodplain designated
pursuant to Section 910 of the Municipal Act of is proposed on a slope any part
of which exceeds 301/6, the application will be accompanied by a report prepared
by a professional engineer that certifies:
the proposed volume of fill including calculations, cross-sections and other
engineering data and pertinent information used in calculating volume; and
that there will be no more settlingor subsidence of land, abuilding or a
structure forming any part of the premises or adjoining property than prior to
filling;
that the placement of fill and resulting settlement or subsidence will not
prevent any use permitted under the District of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw
No.3510-1985;
that adjoining property will not be subject to increased flooding caused
directly by stormwater runoff from the fill site; and
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 7
v) that also includes the assurances and undertakings of the engineer who
prepared the plans and of the applicant for the permit in the form of attached
to this bylaw as Schedule "C".
7.18 if warranted, the District may require an environmental assessment and
independent monitoring of the fill operation;
7.19 copies of all certificates, permits and approvals, as may be required by the
Ministry of Environment under the Water Act or the Waste Management Act and
amendments thereto or any other authority having jurisdiction;
BUILDING PROJECT CONDITIONS
Any operation involving the placement of fill as is necessary for the construction of a bona-fide
building project authorized by a building, plumbing, gas or electrical permit will comply with the
requirements of the District of Maple Ridge Building Bylaw providing the following information
in sufficient detail to establish the volume of fill to be placed:
8.1 The justification for the fill as it directly relates to the proposed building or
structure project and the grading section of the current District of Maple Ridge
Building Bylaw;
8.2 Plans of the lands upon which the applicant proposes to fill, which show the
topography and surface elevations of the site prior to the commencement of
filling, and the finished contours of the fill area;
8.3 a statement of the total volume of fill placed on the land along with cross-
sectional profiles, calculations, and other engineering data and pertinent
information used in calculating the total volume of fill.
8.4 Should additional technical information be required by the District the
application will not be deemed complete until the information is provided; and
Upon completion of the project, the lands upon which fill has been placed will be developed in
accordance with the site plan approved for issuance of the Building Project Permit.
SECURITY DEPOSITS
A security for the full and proper compliance with the provisions of the by-law and the
performanceofall-termsandconditiofls-expreSSediflthepermitWilFbereqUiredwhre the••soil-to
be deposited is on a slope or portion thereof that exceeds 30%, is within 50 meters of the top of
bank of a watercourse, on a floodplain designated pursuant to Section 910 of the Municipal Act or
if the elevation of the deposited fill will be greater than 1 meter above the elevation of the site
prior to soil deposit. A security under this Bylaw will not be required for land within the
Agricultural Land Reserve provided the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission incorporates a
security requirement in its written approval.
9.1 The applicant shall provide a cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit drawn
upon a chartered bank, in a form acceptable to the District and in the amount of
ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000) for each hectare or part thereof of a site
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 8
upon which fill is to be placed, which security shall be maintained in full force
and effect throughout the permit period plus a period of One Hundred & Twenty
(120) days following expiration of the permit. If proper compliance with the
provisions of the Bylaw is not met within Ninety (90) days following the
expiration of the permit, the security will be cashed and held by the District until
compliance is met or use the cash to complete the work. If the cash is
insufficient for the District to complete the work the applicant will pay any
deficiency to the District on demand.
9.2 If the applicant complies with the provisions of the Bylaw and meets all the terms
and conditions of the permit the District will promptly return the deposit to the
applicant. If any letter of credit will expire prior to the applicant complying with
the provisions of the permit, the applicant will deliver to the District, at least 30
days prior to its expiry, a replacement letter of credit on like terms. If the
applicant fails to provide a replacement letter of credit the District will draw on
the original letter of credit prior to expiration and will hold cash until a
replacement letter of credit is provided or the work is successfi.tlly completed
whichever occurs first.
9.3 Security deposit(s) must be deposited with the District prior to the issuance of a
permit.
10. SOIL DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS
Filling will at all times be conducted in accordance with the following requirements:
10.1 The slope of any part of an exposed face of any fill will not be greater than the
angle of repose necessary for stability of the fill.
10.2 The fill will not in any way interfere with the established above or below ground
drainage pattern of any adjoining lands, and will not cause the groundwater table
to rise on adjoining lands so as to cause flooding or malfunctioning of a septic
disposal system or contamination of a well. Where necessary, a system of
interceptor or relief drains will be installed which are sufficient to compensate for
any interference which might otherwise occur to established drainage patterns as
a result of the fill project.
10.3 The fill will be graded in such a manner that positive gravity drainage is assured,
and a drainage system of sufficient capacity and extent will be installed to ensure
that runoff to any adjacent lands will be no greater than run-off prior to the
commencement of the fill project.
10.4 Fill must not be deposited over any dedicated public right-of-way or registered
easement without first obtaining the written approval of the authority having
jurisdiction over the right-of-way or easement, and a copy of the written approval
has been provided to the Manager of Environmental Affairs.
10.5 Where the natural subsoil is compressible no fill will be placed in the immediate
vicinity of any utilities or services which might be damaged by settlement of the
fill without first obtaining written approval from the authority having jurisdiction
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 9
over the right-of-way or easement, and a copy of the written approval has been
provided to the General Manager, Public Works and Development Services.
10.6 Fill must not be placed over wells or private sewage disposal systems.
10.7 All damage to District or privately owned drainage facilities, natural
watercourses, roads, lanes, or other District or privately owned properties or
facilities, resulting from fill project must be promptly and properly repaired to
the complete satisfaction of the District.
10.8 Dirt, mud debris etc. resulting from a fill operation which is tracked onto public
roads so as to cause a hazard or a nuisance must be removed on a daily basis or
as directed by the Manager of Environmental Affairs or alternate. Should the
permit holder fail to do so, the District may direct others to perform this work
and the cost will be the responsibility of the permit holder. The permit holder
must remit all payments within 14 days of receiving the invoice(s). If the permit
holder fails to remit all payments within the specified time frame, the District
may draw on all or part of the irrevocable letter of credit to cover the cost of the
work and/or suspend the permit until all bills have been paid, or both.
10.9 All drainage facilities and natural watercourses must be kept free of silt, clay,
sand, rubble, debris, gravel, and all other material originating from the fill
project, which might cause obstruction to drainage facilities and natural
watercourses.
10.10 Stockpiles of soil which are part of a fill project must be confined to the locations
prescribed in the permit and must be maintained in accordance with Best
Management Practices so there are no adverse effects or damage to adjacent
properties.
10.11 The fill must not encroach upon, undermine, damage or endanger any adjacent
property or any setbacks prescribed in the permit.
10.12 Filling is prohibited on any Sundays and is restricted to between the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. any other day of the week.
11. RECTIFICATION PROVISIONS
Upon completion of filling, the permit holder will forthwith:
11.1 Leave all surfaces of the filled area with a slope not greater than the grade shown
on the plans filed pursuant to Section 10.1 and as specified in the permit.
11.2 Cover all surfaces of the fill with an established growth of grass or other ground
cover suitable for erosion control.
11.3 Should the necessary rectification of the property not be completed within a
period of ninety (90) days following expiration of the permit, all letters of credit
held as security for the project will be cashed and all monies will be held by the
District until the completion of all required works.
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 10
11.4 Should the permit holder not complete all the necessary rectification work to the
satisfaction of the District, under the terms of the covenant registered against the
property the District will enter the lands and carry out the necessary work or the
work that can be completed using the total amount of the bond monies.
12. PERMIT ISSUANCE
12.1 Every permit issued will be deemed to incorporate the plans, specifications,
documents and information in the application as approved and will be
incorporated into the terms and conditions of the permit. A permit will be
substantially in the form of Schedule "D" attached to this bylaw.
12.2 No application for filling will be complete unless a soil deposit permit fee is paid
pursuant to the Soil Deposit Fee Bylaw No. 5764-1999.
12.3 Upon completion of filling, the permit holder or the owner of the land will, prior
to the expiry of the permit:
protect the boundaries of all adjacent lands, dedicated rights-of-way, and
utility easements from erosion or collapse, and
complete all such works in accordance with accepted engineering principles
to the satisfaction of the District.
13. PERMIT RENEWAL
13.1 Application for renewal can be made to the District as outlined. There will be no
obligation upon the District to renew any permit.
13.2 If an applicant applies for a renewal of a soil deposit permit, the Manager of
Environmental Affairs may issue the renewal if all applicable drawings and
specifications for the fill area are updated as necessary to identif' any material
changes to site conditions and to demonstrate compliance with current bylaws
and regulations and any required fees and/or security is updated.
14. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT:
14.1 This Bylaw will be administered by the Manager of Environmental Affairs or
designate(s).
14.2 The Manager of Environmental Affairs, the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and all
District employees under their direction will have the right at all reasonable hours
to enter upon and inspect any land or premises in the District to determine if the
provision of the Bylaw are being met.
14.3 In the event of a breach of any of the provisions of this Bylaw or the permit, the
Manager of Environmental Affairs or the Bylaw Enforcement Officer will issue
to:
the owner of the lands upon which the fill is being deposited, or
the person placing the fill, or
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 11
the applicant for the permit, or
the holder of the permit, or
any or all of them a notice of such breach. Any person receiving a notice of
breach will forthwith cease and desist filling, or permitting the placement of any
further fill upon the lands until the breach is remedied.
14.4 In the event that any person, having received a notice of breach, fails to remedy
the breach within the time frame specified by the District, or otherwise proceed
to breach any provisions of the Bylaw and/or permit, the permit will become null
and void and all monies collected with respect to, the permit, will be forfeited.
Once the breach has been corrected, it will then be necessary for the permit
holder to apply for and obtain a new permit and all fees set out in the Bylaw will
be due and payable as a condition of permit issuance.
14.5 No further permit for placing fill upon any lands within the District will be issued
to any person who has had a permit revoked, unless and until such person shall,
in addition to any other security required pursuant to this Bylaw, posts an
additional security up to a maximum of $10,000 as determined necessary by the
District.
14.6 Where any permit holder neglects and/or refuses to carry out the works in
accordance with the permit, then in accordance with the provisions of this Bylaw
and/or conditions of said permit, it will be considered an offense against the
Bylaw and every day that the land and/or the required works remain in a
condition contrary to the provisions of this Bylaw and/or terms and conditions of
the permit, a new offence is committed and the permit holder will be liable to the
penalty hereinafter provided.
PENALTY
Every person who violates any provisions of this Bylaw or fails to comply with the terms
and conditions of a permit or an order issued under this Bylaw commits an offence
punishable upon Summary Conviction and will be liable to a fine of not less than
$2,000.00 and not more than the maximum penalty provided by the Offence Act and,
where the offence is a continuing one, each day that offence is continued will constitute a
separate offence.
If any section or lesser portion of this Bylaw is held invalid, it will be severed and the
validity of the remaining provisions of this will not be affected.
Schedules "A", "B", "C", and "D" attached to this Bylaw are incorporated herein and
form part of the bylaw.
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 12
READ a first time the 25th day of May, 1999.
READ a second time the 25th day of May, 1999.
READ a third time the 25th day of May, 1999.
RECONSIDERED AND AD TED this 23rd day of November, 1999.
MAYOR
CLi
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 13
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
BY-LAW NO. 5763-1999
SCHEDULE "A"
SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The following Best Management Practices for erosion control are suggested for consideration as
they apply to works undertaken under a soil deposit permit: -
Try to restrict works where possible to dry weather.
Sloping Terrain (between 20% to 30%):
• interceptor ditches at 5 meter intervals vertically
• sediment control pond for 1.0% of total disturbed area, or in accordance with a design
with a registered professional engineer with all runoff from the disturbed area directed to
the pond; and
• and as required for Other Areas
Other Areas:
• poly-covering of exposed areas and stockpiles subject to erosion;
• seeding to all disturbed areas in the growing season (prior to September 15);
• diversion swales for all slopes exceeding 30 m. in length;
• silt fence properly installed around all stockpiles or unvegetated fill areas;
• gravel site access pad installed prior to fill activity;
• gravel berm or silt fence installed beside all curb and gutter areas prior to fill activity;
and
• silt trap at all catchbasins.
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 14
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
BY-LAW NO. 5763-1999
SCHEDULE "B"
SOIL DEPOSIT PERMIT APPLICATION 71
(ftill name) (address)
hereby apply for a permit to place fill
(telephone/fax)
on the following property:
Address: ________
Legal Description:
The source(s) of the fill is(are):
Address:
Legal Description:
The registered owner(s) of the property on which the fill is to be placed is
of
(full name)
(address) (telephone/fax)
If the Applicant is not the registered owner of the property on which the fill is to be
placcd then the registered owner by signing here, authorizes the Applicant to make this
application.
(signature of owner(s))
5. The fill is proposed for the following reason(s):
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 15
6. The surface area of the proposed fill site is hectares. Note I
hectare equals 2.47 acres.
The proposed total volume of the fill is cubic metres.
7. Dimensions of the fill area in metric units:
Area (length x width)
Depth(s):
8. Attached hereto is a dimensioned sketch (in metric units) of the property on which the
placement of fill is proposed, showing all roads adjoining the property, all existing
buildings, structures and other improvements, the location of water, sewer and other
utilities as well as natural watercourses, ditches, drains, manholes, culverts, catch basins
and other public works on or within 30 metres of the property, the location of wells and
septic fields on any adjoining properties, and the exact location and depth of the proposed
fill site.
9. Attached hereto are 2 cross sectional profiles of the proposed fill site. One profile cutting
from north to south and the other cutting east to west. All profiles must identify:
the existing ground profile; and
the ground profile after filling.
10. The fill is comprised of:
IL The proposed method of filling is
12. The proposed dates between which filling will take place are
to
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 16
Vehicles access to the fill site will be via
(name of Street)
as shown on the sketch plan provided pursuant to Section 8 of this application.
The proposed route to be used in and through the District of Maple Ridge by vehicles
delivering fill to the fill site is:
The following safety measures to prevent personal injury or property damage to persons
or property in or about property or on adjacent roads will be implemented:
Filling must not cause erosion, stability or drainage problems on the property or to
neighbouring properties and the following measures will be taken to achieve these
objectives:
(if insufficient space, please attach a clearly marked schedule.)
IL After filling the following measures will be taken by the applicant to stabilize, reclaim,
landscape and restore the property:
(if insufficient space please attach a clearly marked schedule.)
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 17
The following measures will be taken to prevent fill from being tracked onto municipal
streets and roads, and to clean the same:
The following measures will be taken to protect and keep wells, natural watercourses,
septic fields, water works, sewers and other utilities, drains, ditches, culverts, catch basins
and other public works clear and clean of all sediment, silt, leachate or other fouling or
obstruction of
(if insufficient space, please attach a clearly marked schedule.)
Attached, as part of this application, are the following reports, as may be required under
Section 7.16 and 7.17 of this bylaw:
BC Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer site plans
Geotechnical Certification of Professional Engineer
I HEREBY DECLARE that the above information is correct, that it is my intention to place fill
on the property in accordance with the attached plans and specifications and information, that I
am aware of the provisions of the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation By-law No. 5763-1999
and that I will abide by all applicable provisions of said by-law and such terms and conditions as
may form part of any Soil Deposit Permit issued pursuant to this Application.
I further agree to indemniiy and hold harmless the District of Maple Ridge, its agents, employees
or officers from and against any claims, demands, losses, costs, damages, actions, suits or
proceedings whatsoever by whomsoever brought against the District, its agents, employees or
officers by reason of the District granting the owner and contractor named herein the Soil Deposit
Permit to conduct the work in accordance with the plan submitted and described in this
application.
Date:
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 18
Signature of Applicant:
Applicant's Name Printed:
Received from: - this day of
199 the sum of $ for
Soil Deposit Fee (if applicable).
Receipt No.
Manager of Environmental Affairs
Processing information: (to be filled out by District of Maple Ridge)
ALR Approval
Development Permit -
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Approval
Title and Legal Description Correct
Zoning Correct
Authority of Owner Provided
Survey site plan as required
Geotechnical Certification as required
District site visit conducted
Permit Fee Receipt No.
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 19
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
BY-LAW NO. 5763 - 1999
SCHEDULE "C"
ASSURANCE OF GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR
SOIL DEPOSIT AND COMMITMENT FOR FIELD REVIEW
Date (year, month, day)
Manager of Environmental Affairs
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9
Dear Sir:
Re: Application for Soil Deposit Permit
- at
(civic address)
1, the undersigned registered professional engineer/landscape architect hereby give assurance that
the design, location, quality, nature, depth, volume and configuration of the fill to be deposited
and works to be constructed and undertaken in support of and in relation thereto all as shown on
the plans and supporting documents prepared and signed by me and attached to this letter are
consistent with sound reasonable engineering fill and soil deposit practice, and when and if
carried out in conformance with such plans and specifications will not constitute any reasonably
foreseeable risk or hazard to persons or property.
The undersigned undertakes to conduct such supervision, testing and field review to ensure filling
complies with the plans, specifications and supporting documents attached hereto.
I assure you that I have been given the authority by the owner of the lands on which the soil is to
be deposited and by the applicant for the permit (if different from the owner) to stop, remove or
redirect the placement of fill as required in my judgment and as required to comply with the
plans, specifications and supporting documents attached hereto
I will notifr you in writing immediately if my contract for field review, testing or supervision is
terminated or limited at any time before the completion of filling described in the plans,
specifications and supporting documents attached hereto.
(affix professional seal)
Signature
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 20
(Please Print)
Name
Address
Address
1, the applicant for the Soil Deposit Permit for the placement of fill at the above address,
acknowledge that I have read this letter and agree with its contents. I have also reviewed the
plans, specifications and supporting documents attached to this letter and agree with them. I
advise you that I have given
(name of registered professional)
the authority to conduct testing, field review and to supervise filling including the authority to
stop the placement of fill, remove fill or redirect it as set out in this letter. I acknowledge and
understand that all authority and permission to place fill under any permit issued to me pursuant
to any application will automatically cease and be suspended if the registered professional's
services are terminated or limited and will not be reinstated until such time as another registered
professional submits to you a signed and completed letter in this form.
Witness's Signature Signature of Applicant for Permit
Print Print
Name Name
Address Address
or:
The Corporate Seal of_____________________________________________
was hereto affixed in the presence of:
Authorized Signing Officer Authorized Signing Officer
S
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Page 21
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
BY-LAW NO. 5763-1999
SCHEDULE "D"
SOIL DEPOSIT PERMIT NO.______
Pursuant to the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation By-law No. 5763 - 1999, permission is
hereby granted to:
(Name)
of
(address) (telephone)
to deposit cubic metres of upon the
(address of property)
(legal description of property)
in accordance with the provisions of the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation By-law No. 5763 -
1999, Application No. and the plans, spec ificátions and other supporting documents -
filed therewith as approved, and initialed as approved by the permit holder, all which form a part
of this Permit and constitute the terms and conditions of this Permit: -
Conditions: (to be stipulated by the District of Maple Ridge)
This permit is issued on the condition that the permit holder fully comply with all provisions of
the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation By-law No. 5763 - 1999 and all terms and conditions
herein of this Permit.
Rivedfroin this - dayof____________
199 the sum of $ as Soil Deposit Fee (if applicable). Receipt
No.:_____________
This Soil Deposit Permit is issued this _____ day of , 199_ and shall
expire twelve months after the day of issuance.
Manager of Environmental Affairs"
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: January 10, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO: R7f35/99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN:
STJBJECT: Landscape Screens to Buffer Commercial Use C0
SUMMARY:
At the Committee of the Whole Meeting January 4 th, 2000, where a first reading memo for
RZ135/99 was considered, concern was expressed with respect to ways to minimize the impact of
commercial activities on adjacent residential properties. As a result Staff were requested to
prepare a report reviewing the issues of lanes vs. cross access easements, landscape screens and
opportunities to buffer commercial activity adjacent to residential use.
RE COMMENDATION:
That the Memorandum dated January 7, 2000 be received for Council consideration,
and
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5842.1999 and Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.5843-1999 be given First Reading.
BACKGROUNTh
Lanes and Cross Access Easements
In reviewing the site plans for R.1135/99 there was discussion of a proposal to eliminate the lane,
and instead provide a cross access easement at another location in the lot to serve the same
function as a lane. It was felt that this arrangement would provide a wider area for landscaping
along the north property line and move the commercial lane traffic away from the rear yards of
the adjacent residential properties.
Cross Access Euemeni agreements have been established on other commercial sites to eliminate
the need to exit and re-enter via the public road to access from one neighbouring commercial site
to the next.. The reduces the potential for conflicts between pedestrians and other vehicles
traveling past the site. These easements offer this opportunity where it is not feasible due to site
constrictions or proximity to an intersection, of creating a rear lane access from a flanking street.
The easement is an agreement between two property owners to provide access to the others
property in a location identified by a survey plan. In new construction the establishment of an
easement will effect the layout of subsequent developments on adjacent lands to insure the access
points are aligned.
-1.
b C)q 'O
To this Point easement agreements have been a workable alternative where municipal roads or
lanes are not feasible due to tejn or other constraints. However it is preferred to create a lane
or road through dedication to ensure public access is not lost due to termination of the private
agreements or eliminated with subsequent reconstruction or renovations on these private lands.
A dedicated lane With curb returns provides a readily defined access point from a flanking Street
for pick-up and delivery traffic visiting the site. A lane off a flanking street reduces the need for
mid-block left turn movements onto the site by encouraging leftturns to occur at road
intersections. This reduces the potential for conflicts between pedestrians who are not
anticipating vehicles to cross their path at mid block to access a Site.
The dedicated lane proposed in R2135199 will provide the opportunity for vehicle access to the
rear yards of adjacent properties. The popularity of this secondary access is evident in the
residential areas of the District where lanes exist and corner properties have often created access
to the lot from two streets. The lane will introduce traffic adjacent to these properties, however
there will also be two other access Points into the site to accommodate traffic demand.
Landscape Screens and Buffers
The use of landscape screens as defined in the Zoning Bylaw is an effective tool to hide
unwanted views from adjacent properties. By definition, a Landscape Screen is a visual barrier
composed of a continuous evergreen hedge, wooden fence or masonry wall, or combination
thereof, which is broken only by access drives, lanes and walkways.
Landscaping alone however does not function as an effective sound barrier. Landscaping in
combination with ground forms such as berins or hills is often employed where space permits the
berm to be high enough to deflect sound waves up and over the intended quiet zone. Depending
on the noise source an effective berm can be quite high and require an area greater than six times
the height to accommodate a typical 3 horizontal to I vertical fill slope ratio. There is little
desire to set aside large areas in urban settings to create landscaped sound barriers. As a result
terms like buffering or landscape buffers are used by landscape architects to describe areas of
landscaping found typically along the edges of development. This landscaping provides an area
of transition from one use to the next, or visually buffers the hard edges of structures and paved
surfaces. These areas are wider than what is required for a landscape screen, however they are
not of sufficient width to create a landforin to deflect sound. Good buffers and landscape screens
can be designed as significant visual barriers, to hide the source of noise from view. This leaves
the impression that tho buffer is offering some sound attenuation, however this is only a
perceived or psychological barrier to sound when the source of noise is no Longer in view.
Often when space I. limited a sound barrier is constructed to deflect the noise. Examples of this
are typically found along highways to provide some noise abatement. These structures are higher
than typical rear yard fences and an constructed of steel or concrete panels. A fence height
greater than the maximum permitted in the Zoning Bylaw (2.0 meters) is needed to be effective.
The down side is these structures appear massive in urban setting and prevent the opportunity of
residents to monitor activities in the neighbourhood.
-2-
It is important to Consider the location of landscape buffer areas to insure that the responsibility
for future maintenance is clearly understood. Often boulevard areas adjacent to rear yards are not
maintained once a landscape screen or 2.0 m high fence is installed. The attitude is often why
should I maintain what is on the other side of my fence and outside my property. For this reason
when considering SUbdiVjsion layout design the preference is to avoid lot designs where rear
yards back onto the Street. This would be a concern in the R2135/99 application if a landscape
screen was proposed on the north side of the lane, adjacent to the rear yards.
RezoningApplication RZ135199
In reviewing the plans submitted with this application it is evident that there are subtle
differences that make this application unique to recent developments where conflicts in use exist.
The siting of the commercial building provides a structural barrier between the gas
bar/convenience store and the residents to the north. Conflicts exist on other commercial sites
where noise generation (i.e. from vacuums, car wash activities etc.) occur adjacent to property
lines without making use of structures to muffle the noise of these activities.
Conflicts often occur where a house is oriented to the flanking street, resulting in the side of the
house being closer to the commercial use with only a narrow side yard set back separating the
uses. In application RZ/35/99 the existing houses front on the street to the north. As a result the
rear yard set back provides a greater separation between the uses.
CONCLUSION:
The plans presented with the first reading memo for R7135199 demonstrates an organized site
plan that attempts to minimize potential conflicts between adjacent uses. The aspect of a.
dedicated lane to serve this site and further development to the west is a superior alternative in
providing public access. A secondary consideration is the potential for providing an ad4itional
vehicle access to the rear yards of neighbouring residences. Based on this information staff
continue to recommended First Reading to continue on to the next stage, Public Hearing.
/ Prepjby: B McLeod ISA Cerdfled Arbarist f' Lf(&Pe ,PJ fhT s Technician
P.
of
Jak.J.Rudolpb,AICP,MCIP
General Manager. Public Works & Development Services
R. W. Robertson, AICP, MCI?
CMe( Adnilnlstraths Officer
-3-
0.
13 14 112,
——
1
I
20U
2
12 ?Iig ' 10
9/ CL 12074 12073
11
*20900.
1 2071 2 4 12069
16
120e7 120 cr3 17... 3 (j LM 3 403
7 — 8 5 15 12055
AS -lb I208AvE
z 2 !
919fr202 " 4i5 1 3 6 7 {8
ILM
22I 1.23r.24V.s25
3Co3
§
LMP 3403
Rem PcI. 2 of PcI. A uj . 27 28
0. RS -3 T1
P 82308
Rem I
Rim Pd. A
LMP 30402
P -6
CT PROPERTY
4 '.4
P72572 :kT 119791>
1h19u1
I
2 3029t2827/
R3 11
—4 .
16 1198 AVE 11951
1 1975
11949 is I 20 09 21
14 6 11943 P 72572
1193$ 19 122
J23
2I ' 1$. Ji3I
L 12 11923 1192$ 17 1 11920
1'930 _________
11 io''
16
11914
15
11908
4'- - 14
1 11 908 0.
13
\ø2 :cJ, • i- tISlig
12 I
____ I i
13 I 2 Rim
25 P 95134 ! 14
A R 3 R
)
RimA 119"t
24 j P 17 P 1878
I19BAVE Rim
\ (F iaes W 1/2
/ ¶5
1T9Q 2 uj
$35 1 I_2 I l
_0.17 7 _____ _____ E C
pliLP1 1 I
123 j1i213
11 9A AVE
I!. 117
ii I
uI _LAP41 I I
1 2l 30j31132
LMP
11190 4
1' I'd I- —1
I- I 119A
$ lull)
flk2J lI . 3 '.Z
N 1iLvt f 238b1OTR
wlaw
cc
iE £E
L \s:1:;j::1 (j IISVDOII? It S.lJ1 . 1614 PLANNING OEP
SCALE: 1:2,500 KEY MAP OATE:Junl6 1999 FILE BY:JB -
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5842. 1999
A By-law to amend zoning on Map "A" forming part
of Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5842-1999."
That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 28, Section 21, Township 12, Plan LMP30403, New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1219 a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this by-law, is hereby rezoned to CS-i (Service Commercial).
Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510- 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto
are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the dayof ,A.D.199.
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of
READ a second time the day of
READ a third time the day of
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the
199.
,A.D. 199.
,AD. 199.
,AD. 199.
dayof ,A.D.
MAYOR CLERK
I
29 2 '
,196
r [p 125721 I 301 291 28 I27
/2 1I
lU J LP 30401
0(w04Cv TRUNK W
• Ti1
4
ijp 39851
Il
l36rø. II
(-4
Co LMP 30404
P82308
0310
Rem 1
14
'E I20S0
'205 - LM 304 Rem PCI, •A , 17 18 3 7 r : 'iou 2 2S a
20 3 AVE 1 20 8 AVE.
4 1,25
LMP 30402
;z 5 ~186 61 21T
1 3 4 0. i 3003 t
Ii
Z1i08_ I
- LMP U 30403
Rem PcI. 2 of PCI. A 27 I 28
CL
(.4 ER 1734 0.41 o 0.43I'o
2
a -
LMFE7920
72573 UP 13iIJ4P 3158
Rm
I
417
P 167I
A
71 _1L,,fl4 RmA P 11 4 4 LUPSQ8 -
wr
---
Rem'
w/ x -
LMP 1642 OF- 7 _____ E V E
LI I 4
9 L 8 11 2 3 LM 2 t 3
'we'•• " 1-5 5 I 20I21 i C4 P - 's .
.. . 'I
966 14 "
P 7572J 22 23
- _ __
FP4, 7 _____ ________ I _______________ U,
j21-
-J
8
18 /
2, 9 '9 17 /
11910
L
'
,tII '
"9.70 ________ 6 s UI 4 I1
I L to ".' -
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 5842-1999
Mop No. 1219
From: RS-'3(One Family Rural Residential)
To: CS-1(SeMce Commercial)
MAPLE RIDGE
Ineorporatid 12 S.pt.mber. 1874
A '
LJ
CORPOLTION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5843- 1999.
A By-law to amend the Official Community Plan
WHEREAS Section 997 of the Municipal Act provides that the Council may revise the Official
Community Plan;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "A" & "H" to the Official Community Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open
meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
This By-law may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Amendment By-law No. 5843 - 1999."
Schedule "A" is hereby amended by adding the following in correct numerical order to
Subsection (B) of Development Permit Area XXXII in the Appendix:
Lot 28, Sec. 21, Tp. 12, Plan LMP30403, NWD
That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 28, Section 21, Township 12, Plan LMP30403, New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 583, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms
part of this by-law, is hereby designated as Development Permit Area XXXII (2) on Schedule
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Designation By-law No. 5434-1996 as amended is hereby
amended accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME the day of , A.D. 199
PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of ,AD. 199.
READ A SECOND TIME the day of ,A.D. 199 .
READ A THIRD TIME the day of A.D. 199.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the dayof ,A.D.199.
MAYOR CLERK
1 LMP 39851 12711 17 1.336 he.
•1 1.33 pi
(.4
L.MP 30
?14 13 12b P 82308
0.537 h
2 CL
Rem 1
''
0
17 2O.5 LM 3043 Rem PcI. 'A 12 1.J 18 8 7 6 5 LL LJ 1J f 2.22 he
I2oa*.
122 ij I
T25"
(.hlP 30402
LM~ °- Ii LMPI
r I P
291
f
12 27 R•m' 301 28 _L l
— (.hlP I 30403
Rem PcI. 2 of PcI. A b .. 27 I 28
EP 1734 C4 0.451 he I 0.451 he 1 0
ILM,±p13
16374 72513 3186
'I
2 9
. Cl
2 "'
J Lj (.hlP 30401 I
OLWC$CV ThIJN* RO. I
RP 84994 I
[1 I
Rem A
cO '
16 _\ I ia At I
._7/
14 '
I'aw Rem A
— .417 h
__
19 I 4 LMP8O6 P 167 P 1676
15 1,g68 119d. 1196 AT. _____ Rem
W 1 / 14 a. IISd#)
2 642, 2
—01
13 a.111.1 ___________ ___________ _ a.a. 17 _________
L
E
8
,ig
______________
'ISIS 17
/ 4
16 _______
19"I
_______________
10 11914 - I..MP 1145
MAPLE RIDGEOFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDiNG
Bylaw No. 5843-1999
Map No. 583
PURPOSE: TO DESIGNATE AS DEVELOPMENT.
PERMIT AREA XXXII(2)
I Q, zon kt~~~a
MAPLE RIDGE Incarpartt.d 12 September. 874
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: December 10, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: R2135/99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev
SUBJECT: First Reading
Bylaw Nos. 5842.1999 & 5843.1999
(23853 Dewdney Trunk Road)
SUMMARY:
This development proposal is to permit construction of a gas bar, convenience store with
residence, and a commercial building.
Council gave favorabLe consideration to the above noted application on August 10 " 1999.
However, first Reading to the Zone Amending and Official Community Plan Amending Bylaws
was deferred on September 21 k, 1999, pending a staff report recommending development
standards for commercial development abutting.residential districts. This development proposal
has subsequently been amended to address concerns expressed by neighbouring residents and
complies with or exceeds, the requirements for commercial development in a residential
neighbourhood as recommended by staff. The applicant has addressed all other conditions prior
to presentation at Public Hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5842.1999 and Maple Ridge Official'.
Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 5843-1999 be given First Reading.
DISCUSSION:
Over the past year Council has heard various concerns regarding the development of commercial
projects adjacent to designated residential neighbourhoods. As a result Council requested a
report be prepared with policy recommendations to ensure all service commercial applications
are considered on an equitable basis. The Planning Depamnent has prepared a report for
Council's consideration that identifies the issues and makes recommendation to best address
Council's concerns. This report will be presented for consideration at the Council/Staff meeting
on January 4 1999. The following is a discussion of the recommendations and other issues
identified in thiS memo and how the applicant intends to address these concerns.
Recommendations from the Service Commercial Memo:
1. Provision of a 3.0 metre landscape strip for service commercial uses adjacent to
designated residential uses.
The current proposài indicatEs there will be a 6.0 metre lane separating the uses along the north
properly line. The applicant has deleted the drive through component for the restaurant and
shows the area that was drive aisle as a landscaped buffer strip greater than 3.6 metres in width
along the commercial building north elevation.
that the landscape screen provide a visual barrier between service commercial uses and
adjoining designated residential uses.
Within the buffer strip described above, a 7.0 ft. high closely planted landscape screen of
evergreens is proposed on the site plan adjacent to the commercial building.
for service commercial uses adjoining designated residential uses that drive though uses
be located to the interior of a property, and be buffered by the principal building.
The drive through component for the restaurant has been deleted from this application.
Hours of Operation
The Applicant has offered to restrict the hours of operation for the gas bar from 6:00am to
10:00pm.
Parking
The proposal is for 35 parking stalls, which is one greater than is required in the parking bylaw.
Development Permit Area and Design Guidelines
A condition of this rezoning application is to include this site in Development Permit Area XXXII
for service commercial use. The guidelines for this area are:
Building and siting must ensure adequate site circulation, safe access to public streets and
proper orientation to adjoining residential uses.
Particular attention should be made to the image presented to the streefront.
Streeifront landscaping will incorporate street trees for definition of site boundaries and
enhancement ofpublic space.
A well-defined pedestrian access to the commercial use will be provided from the public
sidewalk Design will ensure that pedestrian use is given precedence over vehicular use.
Building design will .nhnic recent residential construction in the neighbourhooS
Parking areas may be limited to the requirements of the accessorj residential use.
Attached to this memo is a copy of the first reading memo that was deferred by Council on
September 21", 1999. The development plans have recently been amended with revisions to
vehicular access from Dewdney Trunk Road. The Advisozy Design Panel comments are also
included with this memo.
Since all of the requirements prior to first reading have been met, it is recommended that i
reading be given to the subject bylaws. As indicated in the land use memo dated July 27' 1999,
notice will be given that final approval to rezone this property will also include Council approval
to allow the overhead wires on Dewdney Trunk Road to remain adjacent to this site. This notice
will eliminate the need for issuance of the Development Variance Permit. 4 4V
Prepared by: Bruce G. McLeod, ISA Certified Arborist
Landscape/Planning Technician
IM
Approved by: Xffy er, P. En a/I
j Dir of Currp.élanning
, Approved RudoLph,)P. MCIPOc Public)diks & Development Services
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP
Chief AdmlnLstrattve Officer
-3-
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor C. Durksen
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: First Reading
Bylaw Nos. 5842-1999 & 5843-1999
(23853 Dewdney Trunk Road)
DATE: September 8" 1999
FILE NO: R7J35199
ATTN: CofW - PW&Dev
SUMMARY:
This development proposal is to permit the construction of a gas station, convenience store with
residence, and commercial building with drive through access.
Council gave favourable consideration to the above noted application on August 10" 1999 with the
stipulation that prior to being presented at a Public Hearing, the following would be complied with:
Comments from the Advisory Design Panel.
The comments from the August 26" 1999 meeting are attached.
A Public Information Meeting must be held.
This meeting was held on August 24" 1999 and the following is the staff summary of the
meeting.
The public information meeting was well attended by thirty members of the public. Concerns
expressed at that meeting focused on:
neighbouring residents opposed to the change in use (to commercial).
concerns over an increase in traffic on residential streets as a result of this development
some residents in attendance were prepared to accept the change in use provided they have
the opportunity to restrict some uses on site and make changes to the proposed plan with
respect to vehicle access.
there was also a concern that the notice for the meeting was not deLivered to enough area
residents. Subsequent review of the mail out area was confirmed as having met thà
requirements for notice of a Public Hearing.
In response to the above noted concerns, we offer the following comments.
This site is designated for Service Commercial use on the Official Community Plan (OCP). as
are lands to the west of the site fronting on Dewdney Trunk Road. With respect to concerns of
increased traffic generated by this new use, the intention is to construct a lane from 238B to 237"
Street to accommodate the service commercial traffic. This will provide access between these
uses and avoid additional traffic load on adjacent residential streets. This. lane will also provide a
greater separation between the residential use to the north and the proposed service commercial
use.
Access to this Site IS provided at two points; from the lane and from a sidewalk crossing on 238B
Street. It is the desire of staff to limit access to these locations to reduce the potential for
conflicts with pedestrians and reduce the impact on Dewdney Trunk Road. The current proposal
indicates that there will not be an access off of Dewdney Trunk Road. only an exit for westbound
traffic. A traffic signal at 238B Street and Dewdney Trunk Road will be installed at an
approPflate future date.
The applicant has not determined the tenants for the commercial building or the type of drive
through business. A gas retailer has also not been determined at this time.
3) Fully dimensioned development plan showing the following:
Neighbourhood context plan;
Site plan;
C) Building elevations;
d) Landscape concept;
Subsequent to the Advisory Design Panel and Pubic tnformation Meeting the applicant has made
the following changes and revisions to the plans attached to this memo.
addition of speed bumps at the vehicle entry points to limit the speed of vehicLes entering
and exiting the Site.
a site context plan showing the relationship of the site to existing residential uses.
a site section showing the proposed building height in relation to existing houses.
The above has been received and it is recommended that jg reading be given to the subject bylaws. As
indicated in the land use memo dated July 27* 1999. notice will be given that final approval to rezone
this property will also include Council approval to allow the overhead wires on Dewdney Trunk Road to
remain adjacent to this site. This will eliminate the need for issuance of a Development Variance Permit.
RECOMMENDATION
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 58424999 and Maple Ridge Official Community
Plan Amending Bylaw No. 5843.1999 be given First Reading.
B.l4cLeod, ISA Certified Arborist
Landscape/Planning Technician
R. V. Robero, MCIP AICP
Chief Administrative Omear
r, P.
r Public Workiand AFr of
Development Services I
Planning
-2-
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
Advisory Design Panel Meeting
Thursday, August 26, 1999
RZ-35-99
• Applicant: Gordon Kiassen
• Proposal: Retail/Restaurant and Convenience/Service Station
• Location: 238B Street and Dewdney Trunk Road
RESOLUTION:
It was duly MOVED and SECONDED that the following resolution be passed:
The Advisory Design Panel expressed overall support for the proJec4 with the following
recommendations:
GIven that the use Is undefined at this time, the Panel approves the attempt to
blend with. the residential design of the neighbourhood.
Consider a pedestrian or vehicle cross access immediately to the west of this
site.
Consider better pedestrian access to the commercial building off 2388 Street
and consider a corner pedestrian access into the site.
The Panel would like the opportunity to see this project again prior to
Development Perm14 once the uses are more defined.
£ Consider low ievcl lighting for parking lot areas to prevent light pollution Into
the residential areas.
£ Consider a left-turn bay offDewdney Trunk Road onto 238B Street
7. Consider changing the concrete block to brick or cultured stone to blend In
. materials used In the neighbourhood.
I
ePAM
I.,
Oil,
1IIIIFIIrLi: a ½
.z
ILI Rlu
iIIIII!
—
- - - - - - - - - -
II ILIINIII
:•-u U ______________
dig
OR
I
am
hill
IIIiLu1I P -:
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 14, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: BC Hydro Recycling Levies
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
BC Hydro requests under Section 578 of the Municipal Act that the municipality consider
waiving the annual recycling levy of $16.85 on 14 properties because the properties in question
do not require the service provided under Section 577.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Manager of Revenue and Collections supports our charge of the recycling levy on all BC
Hydro properties based on her interpretation of Bylaw 4655.
BACKGROUND:
Two properties mentioned in the attached appeal letter that received special consideration are
Crown Provincial and are exempt from all taxation.
Financial Implications: BC Hydro requests a refund of $235.90 for 1999.
Prepared by:
Accounting Clerk, Finance
4'c
Approvby: Jake Sorba, C.G.A.
torof Fin
Concurrence: Robert W. Roberton, A.I.C'P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/cm
0901,103,10/
S Ju1y1999
r _ 4,.
<0
0'
H
0.;
BCh!Jdro guns THE POWER IS YOURS
Orval Wright
Manager
Property Tax & Appraisal Section
Property Services Department
Phone: (604) 6234151
FAX: (604) 623-3951
Corporation of The District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C.
V2X 6A9
Attention: Kay Fenn
Dear : Ms. Fenn,
Subject: Maple Ridge Recycling Charges By-law No. 4655-1992
During our review of the 1999 property tax bills, we noted that there was a recycling levy of
$16.85 on all but two of our tax bills. Due to time constraints involved in processing the bills
in time for the tax payment due date, there was not sufficient time to go into a more in depth
review as to the nature of this levy, so it was included in this years tax and grant payment,
as was also done in prior years. In prior years we had concerns about the levy and intended
to do a follow up that never happened, sort of out of site out of mind.
I requested a copy of the above noted By-law and my interpretation is that the annual
recycling levy and blue box curbside collection charges are a user levy and that these
charges would be levied on the" Taxable Property" listed on the assessment roll that
- includes a dwelling on such property and noton those properties that are undeveloped and
bare land.
For the Stave Falls transmission line, BC Hydro has a right-of-way over two parcels of
crown land that are non assessable and tax exempt, as per roll numbers 05374-0100-3 and
05393-0100-0 but the 1999 recycling levy was applied, which I understand has now been
reversed after further review by your staff.
In reference to those lands and improvements owned by BC Hydro that are used for
purposes of transmission line rights-of-way, the Alouette Dam or for substation sites that do
not have any buildings but just substation equipment, there are another fourteen roll
numbers where the recycling levy has been charged on the tax bills and in my mind is
PROPERTY SERVICES - A SHARED SERVICES SUPPLIER
British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 8th Floor - 333 Dunsrnuir Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 5R3
www.bchydro.com
.11
-2-
questionable. In all cases, there would not be any refuse, etc. or service provided so there
should not likely be a recycling charge.
The roll numbers for the properties in question are as follows:
312-05256-0000-0
312-05372-0000-9
312-05373-0201-3
312-05373-0202-5
312-05375-0100-9
312-05376-0000-0
312-05392-0000-1
312-05395-0000-8
312-05402-0100-5
31242199-0000-7
312-63280-0200-2
312-94778-00004
312-94807-0000-1
312-94822-0100-0
Stave Falls Transmission Line Right-of-Way
a a
a a a a
a a a a
a a a a
a a a a
Alouette Dam
Alouette Road Right-of- Way to the Dam
Maple Ridge Substation - land for expansion
Vacant land
Whonnock Substation site- land & equipment
Ruskin Transmission Line Right-of-Way
a a a a
Could you please review and advise if I am correct in my interpretation and the intent of the
By-law that only land with a building where the refuse service is provided should be
charged the annual recycling levy. If there has been an error in charging the recycling levy
to the above noted roll numbers, would you please reimburse the 1999 payments made on
the tax payment due date. We will not go back to the prior years for a correction.
If all taxable property, vacant land or not, is levied the annual charge, I request under
Section 578 that you consider waiving the annual recycling levy because the property does
not require the service provided under Section 577.
Please give we a call if you wish to discuss the issue further.
Yours truly,
OF
Hght
1996 MVNIcIPAL ACT RS CHAP. 323
Sewer and drain charges and tax
575. (1) A Council may, by bylaw, do one or more of the following:
impose a connection charge and set the terms of payment on owners of real property to
defray the cost of laying connecting pipes from sewers to land on which buildings or
structures are located and from drains to land required to be drained;
impose a frontage tax in accordance with sections 429 and 430 on the owner of land or real
property capable of being drained into a sewer or drain, whether or not the land or real
property is connected to or drained into the sewer or drain, for the opportunity to use the
sewer or drain;
impose a charge against the owner or occupier of real property for the use of a sewerage
system, a drainage system or a combined sewerage and drainage system.
(2) A charge imposed under subsection (I) (c) for drainage facilities alone may vary in relation to
the area of the land served or benefited.
(3) A charge imposed under subsection (1) (c) for sewerage facilities, or for combined sewerage and
drainage facilities, may vary in relation to one or more of the following:
the ramiber of outlets served;
the quantity of water delivered to the premises by a utility;
the volume of effluent discharged by the user;
classes of users or effluents;
for charges in relation to sewerage facilities of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and
Drainage Disthct any of the factors and section 7C (2) (b) and (c) of the Greater
Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DLctrict Act.
(4) A bylaw under subsection (1) may provide that the frontage tax or a charge under subsection (1) (c)
may be waived or lessened for real property, any present or previous owner or present occupier of which
has constructed at the person's own expense a portion of the sewerage or drainage system of
the mcipality, or
has paid all debt and debt charges, including interest, in respect of that portion of the
sewerage, drainage or sewerage and drainage system of the municipality that serves the real
property.
. .•tgzg-2:1W3&i9i&5&199T-254Ot
576. Repealed. [1998-34-119]
DivisIon 6— Waste Ramoval
Waste removal works and services
577. (1) A council may, by bylaw, do one or more of the following:
establish, m2jlIt2jn and operate public incinerators;
establish, maintain and operate grounds for disposal of garbage and of noxious, offensive or
unwholesome substances;
establish and maintain a system to collect, remove and dispose of garbage, ashes, refuse and
other noxious, offensive, unwholesome and discarded matter;
compel persons to makeuseofasystemestablished- to-disposeofgazbage, ashes, refuse and
other noxious, offensive, unwholesome and discarded ma'r, and specify the terms and
conditions on which persons make use of the system;
establish a scale of charges payable by owners or occupiers of real property for the removal
to the public incinerator or another designated place of trade waste, garbage, rubbish and
matter and, in relation to this, establish a system for compelling payment of the charges;
impose penalties for neglecting to remove or have removed and brought to the public
incinerator or the other place the trade waste, garbage, rubbish and other matter;
Repealed. [1998-34-120]
establish, maintain and operate on or under a street, or elsewhere, comfort stations,
lavatories, and 5iTflhl2T conveniences;
Sept. 23199 191 . Quickscribe Services Ltd.
1996 MUNICIPAL Ac'r RS CHAP. 323
(i) COIZRPCI and regulate the emptying, Cleansing and djsjnfecting of private drains, cesspools,
nS,pL 2!3!!>S
septic tanks and privies, and the removal and disposal of refuse from them.
A COUnCil may, by bylaw, entei break up, take or enter into possession of, and use any real
property in any waY necessary or convenient for any PWPOSC mentioned in subsection (1) (a) or (b) without the consent of the owners of the real property.
Repealed. [1998-34-120] tg (4) For works referred to in subsection (1) (a) and (b), a council may, by bylaw,
provide for their establishment outside the municipality, and
set a scale of charges and make regulations for the use of the works wherever located.
28VI97 (5) Before adopting a bylaw under subsection (4), the council must obtain the consent of the other
affected local government as follows:
if the area outside the municipality is another municipality, the consent of the council of that
other municipality is required;
if the area outside the municipality is not another municipality, the consent of the regional
district board for the area is required.
Exemption from charges
if services not required
578. (1) If a council is satisfied that a person or a person's property does not require service provided
under section 577, on application by the person, the council may waive the charges imposed under that section.
(2) A council may limit the period of time for which a waiver under subsection (1) is effective.
DIvision 7— Intermunldpsl Works
Intermunicipal boundary roads
579. All highways forming all or part of the boundary between municipalities must be opened,
maintained, kept in repair and &upiuved by themunicipalities of which they form a boundary, and their councils have
joint jurisdiction over them and are liable accordingly, although the highway may, in some places, deviate to b
wholly or partly inside one or more of the municipalities.
... ....................... .
Bylaws on intermunicipal
boundary roads
580. (1) A bylaw of a municipality interested in a boundary highway does not have any effect for the
highway until mutually acceptable bylaws have been adopted by the councils with joint jurisdiction.
If a council, for 3 months after notice of a bylaw adopted under subsection (1), omits to adopt an
acceptable bylaw, the omission is an inability to aee within the meaning of section 581 and that section applies.
This section does not apply to a work of local improvement undertaken on petition wholly at the
cost of the owners of abutting property, if
the work is inside the municipality proposing to cmy out the work and
one month's notice of intention has been given to the councils of the other municipalities
having
- .
Disputes regarding boundary roads
581. (1) If the municipalities interested in all or part of a boundary highway are unable mutually to agree
to their joint action in opening, miitmimg, repairing or improving the highway, one or more of the councils may
apply to the Minister of Transportation and Highways to determine the amount each municipality must be required to
expend and the mode of expenditure on the highway.
(2) An award and decision of the Minister of Transportation and Highways under subsection (1) is
final and binding on the municipalities interested and may be enforced by any municipality in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Sept. 23198 192 Quzckscribe Services Ltd.
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: January 4, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1999 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1999 Collector's Roll
through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #8/99. The Collector is required to make all the
necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
276 folios are affected:
Two Business Class properties had assessed improvements decreased due to Assessment
Appeal Board decisions based on income and vacancies.
22255/69 Dewdney Trunk Road had improvement value of $231,000 reduced to $10,000.
22295 Dewdney Trunk Road had improvement value of $422,000 reduced to $277,000.
One Residential Class property in a new Albion development on 102 Avenue had the
assessed value of land decreased due to an Assessment Appeal Board decision.
273 Residential Class properties in the same development in Albion also had assessed land
values decreased.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated January 4, 2000 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $22,877.13 in taxes receivable of which
the municipal share is $11,376.26.
6.
Prepared by: Kathleen Gory
Manager of Revenue and Collections
AppY6ved 6y: Jake Sorba, C.G.A.
Dire torof Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/cln
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MA1LE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 14, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1999 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority revised the assessed values for the 1999 Collector's Roll through
the issuance of Supplementary Roll #5/99. The Collector is required to make all the necessary
changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
Ten folios are affected:
The BC Hydro property for Alouette Dam had its assessed value of improvements decreased
due to an Assessment Appeal Board decision affecting the levy for school taxes only.
Three Residential Class properties owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation had
exemptions applied to accurately reflect the taxable values. This government agency pays a
grant in lieu of taxes.
One Residential Class folio, which should have been deleted in 1994, was deleted from this
roll.
One Business Class property formerly owned by Crown Federal had exemptions removed to
accurately reflect the current taxable status.
One Residential Class property had improvements reduced and exemptions reduced on land
components, due to an error in the split between taxable and grantable values for the
property.
One Recreational Class property owned by the GVRD had its assessed improvements
removed.
One Residential Class property had assessed improvements added to reflect a lease from
GVRD.
One Residential Class folio was added to reflect a lease of property from BC Buildings
Corporation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 14, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $49,129.62 in taxes receivable of which
the municipal share is $3,501.33.
Prepared by: Kathleen Gormley
Manager of Revenue and Collections
Approved by: Jake Sorba, C.G.A.
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/c in
-2-
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 8, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1999 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The BC Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1999 Collector's Roll
through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #3/99. The Collector is required to make all the
necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
Two folios are affected:
One railway property had its land assessment decreased to accurately reflect taxable values.
One residential property had assessed improvements removed to accurately reflect the
demolition of a house.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 8, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $294.76 in taxes receivable of which the
municipal share is $151.95.
Prepared by: Kathleen Gormley
-Manager-.of-Revenueand.Collections. -. --
Approved by: Jake Sorba, C.G.A.
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/cln
4.
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 8, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1999 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1999 Collector's Roll through the
issuance of Supplementary Roll #4/99. The Collector is required to make all the necessary changes to her
records and report these adjustments to Council.
Four folios are affected:
One Business Class property had exemptions removed as per a Supreme Court decision. The library
must be the fee simple owner of the land and improvements in order for exemptions to apply.
One Business Class property had the assessed value of improvements reduced to accurately reflect
taxable values.
One Residential Class property had the assessed value of improvements removed to accurately reflect
demolition of a property.
One Residential Class folio was deleted, as its assessed value was included in a consolidated folio.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 8, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net increase of $31,095.74 in taxes receivable, of which the
municipal share is $14,997.75.
Prepared by: Kathleen Gormley
Manager of Revenue and Collections
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.l.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/cln
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 8, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1999 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1999 Collector's Roll
through the issuance of Supplementaiy Roll #6/99. The Collector is required to make all the
necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
Three folios are affected:
Two Residential Class properties owned by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have
exemptions applied to accurately reflect taxable values. CMBC pays a grant in lieu of taxes.
One Residential Class property had assessed improvements added to accurately reflect
taxable values.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 8, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $688.43 in taxes receivable of which the
municipal share is $348.19.
Prepared by: Kathleen Gormley
Magr
Approved by: Jake Sorba, C.G.A.
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/cln
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 8, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1999 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1999 Collector's Roll
through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #7/99. The Collector is required to make all the
necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
Two folios are affected:
1. Two bare land Residential Class properties had assessed values decreased to accurately
reflect taxable values.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 8, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $8,281.74 in taxes receivable of which
the municipal share is $4,188.82.
L/44&7
Prepared by: Kathleen Gorrntey
Manager of Revenue and Collectior%s
Approved by: Jake Srba, C.G.A.
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AJ.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/cm
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 8, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1997 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1997 Collector's Roll
through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #17/97. The Collector is required to make all the
necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
One folio is affected:
1. The BC Hydro property for the Alouette Dam had the assessed value for improvements
decreased due to an Assessment Appeal Board decision, which affected the levy for school
taxes only.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 8, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $56,940.80 in taxes receivable of which
the municipal share is $0.00.
Prepared by:
Manager of Revenue and Collections
Approved by: Jake Sorba, C.G.A.
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
•1'
KG/cm
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 8, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1998 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1998 Collector's Roll
through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #16/98. The Collector is required to make all the
necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
One folio is affected:
1. The BC Hydro property for the Alouette Dam had the assessed value for improvements
decreased due to an Assessment Appeal Board decision affecting the levy for school taxes
only.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 8, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $56,565.00 in taxes receivable of which
the municipal share is $0.00.
~ A -I, 4-~ 2
Prepared by: Kathleen Gormley 47
Manager of Revenue and Collections
Approved by: Jake orba, C.G.A.
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/cln
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 8, 1999
and Membersof Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1996 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1996 Collector's Roll
through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #21/96. The Collector is required to make all the
necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
One folio is affected:
1. The BC Hydro property for the Alouette Dam had the assessed value for improvements
decreased due to an Assessment Appeal Board decision affecting the levy for school taxes
only.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 8, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $56,100.00 in taxes receivable of which
the municipal share is $0.00.
Ll
Prepared by: Kathleen Gormley
Manager of Revenue and Collections
t(Jake
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KG/cm
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: December 8, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 1995 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 1995 Collector's Roll
through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #21/95. The Collector is required to make all the
necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council.
One folio is affected:
1. The BC Hydro property for the Alouette Dam had the assessed value for improvements
decreased due to an Assessment Appeal Board decision affecting the levy for school taxes
only.
RECOMMENDATION:
The report dated December 8, 1999 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $23,347.50 in taxes receivable of which
the municipal share is $0.00.
Prepared by: Kathleen Gormley /
Manager of Revenue and Collections
Approved by.
Director of Finance
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
KGIcln
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: January 12, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO: 0360-20-01/LMTA
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Endorsement of LMTAC "First Principles"
for Treaty Negotiations
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report entitled LMTAC "First Principles" dated January 12, 2000 be received for
information.
BACKGROUND
The Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) developed this "First Principles" document
to identify the fundamental policy statements for local government input as full members of the
provincial negotiation team. The "First Principles" are a result of extensive public input and consultation
by LMTAC. The broad issues covered include land selection and management, resources and
environmental issues and governance/intergovernmental relations.
Prepared by: 1revor Wingrove \J
Municipal Clerk
............... Approvedby Pa Gill BA,CGA
Gener nager: Corp rate & Financial Services
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
TW/kk
Attachment
d?O34 03
OC 1 4 999
01-tt/ .Ml'4
December 3, 1999
This letter sent to Mayors of all
LMTAC Member jurisdictions
Dear
q
e
Copies to Mayor & Council
D Copies to Council] Reading File
O For Information Only
s/For Response byL -
0 Copies to
RE: Endorsement of Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee "First Principles".
The Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) members have officially endorsed the LMTAC
First Principles at the November 24, 1999, year-end meeting. The revised First Principles document is
forwarded for your information and records.
The LMTAC First Principles are the most notable accomplishment for 1999. These First Principles are
fundamental policy statements that establish the basis on which specific Local Government interests will be
expressed at Lower Mainland treaty negotiation tables. The First Principles should be viewed as a "mandate
document", in that they provide the context for Local Government input as full members of the British
Columbia Provincial treaty negotiation team on significant topics, including land selection and management,
resources and environmental issues, and governance/intergovernmental relations.
A majority of LMTAC member Council/Board jurisdictions sent in suggestions of amendment or requests to
add new principles. The Committee appreciates all input, and LMTAC agreed that the suggestions as well as
minority views will be recorded in a separate backgrounder for future reference. The LMTAC 2000 members
will determine what actions may need to be taken on that document, including any belated responses on the First
Principles received from member jurisdictions.
LMTAC 1999 members wish to thank each of you for your keen interest and feedback. The participation of
every LMTAC Council/Board member will continue to be critical in the Lower Mainland for Local
Government. Allow me to also thank you personally for your dedication, time and commitment.
Best wishes for future LMTAC endeavours.
T\ .QLL
Councillor Nancy A. Chiavario
Chair, Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee
Enclosures
cc: 1999 LMTAC Representatives; Federal Ministry, Indian Affairs; B.C. Ministry, Aboriginal Affairs;
Federation of Canadian Municipalities; Union of B.C. Municipalities/Aboriginal Affairs Committee;
B.C. Treaty Commission; Public Libraries/GVRD
4th floor, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5H 4G8 Tel (604) 451.6179 Fax (604) 4366860
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory
Committee (LMTAC)
FIRST PRINCIPLES
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC)
December 1999
LMTAC First Principles - Final Version 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Participants Involved in the Development of the LMTAC First Principles
Jurisdiction Representative Alternate
Village of Anmore Councillor Ken Juvik Mayor Hal Weinberg
Village of Belcarra Councillor Jamie Ross
Councillor Bruce Drake
Moira McGregor
Larry Scott
City of Burnaby Councillor Jim Young Chad Turpin
City of Coquitlam Councillor Louella Hollington
Councillor Mae Reid
Don Buchanan
Robin Hicks
Corporation of Delta Councillor Vicki Huntington Dave Ellenwood
Greater Vancouver Regional
District (GVRD)
Director Ralph Drew Ken Cameron
Marino Piombini
City of Langley Councillor Ron Logan
Township of Langley Councillor Karen Kersey
Village of Lions Bay Mayor Brenda Broughton Bernice Pullen
District of Maple Ridge Councillor Candace Gordon
Councillor Betty Levens
Robert W. Robertson
City of New Westminster CbUtcillor Bob Osterman Ms. Leslie Gilbert
City of New Westminster Councillor Chuck Puchmayr Jim Hurst
City of North Vancouver Mayor Jack Loucks Ken Tolistam
District of North Vancouver Mayor Don Bell
Councillor Pat Munroe
Dave Stuart
Cameron Thorn
District of Pitt Meadows Councillor Janis Elkerton Nancy Gomerich
City of Port Coguitlam Councilior Michael Wright Jim Maitland
City of Port Moody Councillor Rob Fenger
Mayor Rick Marusyk
Colleen Rohde
Jim McIntyre
City of Richmond Councillor Ken Johnston
Greg Halsey-Brandt
Jim Bruce
George Duncan
District of Squamish Mayor Corinne Lonsdale Grant McRadu
Squamish-Lillooet Regional
District (SLRD)
Director Pam Tattersfield Rick Beauchamp
Sunshine Coast Regional
District (SCRD)
Chair Bruce Milne Brian Chambers
City of Surrey Councilior Jeanne Eddington Rob Costanzo
City of Vancouver Councillor Nancy A. Chiavario Paul Hancock
District of West.Vancouver Mayor Pat Boname
Councillor L.A. Williams
Steve J. Nicholls
Resort Municipality of
Whistler
Mayor Hugh O'Reilly Jim Godfrey
City of White Rock Councillor James Coleridge
Councillor Doug McLean
Diane Middier
I
Kirk and Company Consulting Raincoast Ventures
Frontline and Associates LMTAC Staff
Lower Mainland Treaty Adviso,y Committee (LMTAC) Adopted: November 24, 1999
LMTAC First Principles - Final Version
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee
FIRST PRINCIPLES
PREAMBLE
LMTAC 's First Principles are fundamental policy statements that provide the framework for
Local Government input as full members of the British Columbia provincial negotiation team.
LMTAC's First Principles were developed through extensive consultation. All LMTAC members
had open invitations to participate, all principles were forwarded to Lower Mainland area
Councils, and many member municipalities and regional districts held public meetings
to receive community input.
Subsequent to the consultation process, LMTAC endorsed the following First Principles
for treaty negotiations.
Definitions for bold faced terms may be found in the Glossary of Terms
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Conmiittee (LMTAC) First Principles will be
applied to all Lower Mainland treaty agreements.
Treaty agreements in other regions of the Province should not be used as a precedent or
template for urban treaty settlements. Provisions in Lower Mainland area treaties should
reflect the complex realities of the urban environment specific to each treaty.
Local Government shall be recognized in the treaty process as an independent,
responsible and accountable order of government not as a secondary level or third party
interest.
Trëaties will upliOldthe principles of the CanádiaIiConstitutibn.
Treaty settlements must respect the values, heritage, culture and traditions of Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal peoples.
Tripartite treaty negotiations must be open and provide for meaningful public input
throughout the negotiations. The cost of the public process to be funded as an essential
part of the process of treaty making by the tripartite negotiating parties.
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Adopted: November24, 1999
LMTAC First Principles - Final Version
Agreements in Principle (Stage 4) shall not be completed until all conflicting land,
water and resource issues of those Aboriginal Peoples who have been qualified by the
British Columbia Treaty Commission (BCTC) have been resolved and shall include the
details of the overlap resolution agreement.
The Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) is the voice for Lower
Mainland area Local Governments on all issues relating to the treaty process.
LANDS
Urban treaty settlements should be composed primarily of cash and other fiscal
considerations rather than land because of scarcity of unencumbered and uncommitted
lands in the Lower Mainland area.
Privately owned fee-simple lands, Crown Corporation lands, and Local Government
owned lands and assets. including those acquired through a local government process
must not be available for land selection. Lands and assets include but are not limited to:
local government facilities, rights-of-i'ay, lands leased from other levels of government,
Crown lands subject to a Local Government license or tenure, municipal and regional
parks, conservation and protected areas, greenbelts, school board, lands, and local
government commercial operations (i.e. forest lands, park restaurants).
The continuation of local government regulatory and taxation authority over lands within
a municipality or regional district that may be transferred as part of a treaty settlement is
paramount.
Lands received by a First Nation as part of a treaty settlement should be held in fee-
simple and have no new or special status. Lands to be added after the treaty is signed
must remain subject to Local Government jurisdiction and taxation unless otherwise
agreed to by the Local Government through a community consultation process.
Clarity and consistency in regulatory jurisdiction is paramount in the post-treaty
environment. Treaty settlement lands within municipalities and regional districts are to
be treated like all other fee-simple lands (e.g. be subject to compatible zoning bylaws, be
assessed for regional services, and not include ownership of sub-surface resources).
Local governments must ensure continued access (via land, water or air) to local
government lands and assets on, between or adjacent to treaty settlement lands as well as
to privately held and leased lands on, between or adjacent to treaty settlement lands for
the purposes of, but not limited to, infrastructure development and maintenance.
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Adopted: November24, 1999
LMTAC First Principles - Final Version 5
RESOURCES: NATURAL and PHYSICAL
Sustainability of local economies is a priority in the post treaty environment. Lower
Mainland area renewable, natural resources, including but not limited to forests, water
and fish, must continue to be managed on a sustainable basis in order not to undermine
the economic base of Local Governments and their communities.
International agreements and federal and provincial legislation that applies to non-
Aboriginals with respect to conservation (of wildlife, migratory birds, fish and other
species) be incorporated into all treaties.
Present, future and potential refuge and environmentally sensitive areas, including but not
limited to the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area, Maple Wood Flats and Indian
Arm, must be identified and protected during the treaty process.
Lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) must remain in the ALR and under the
jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC).
Local Government leases and licenses (including park tenures and agricultural, mining,
forest and range leases/licenses on Crown lands), and the economic and environmental
viability of these agreements as well as any provisions for their renewal, must be
respected and preserved.
Local Government and private interests in water must be preserved. Interests include but
are not limited to: historic rights of water use, watersheds, water licenses, access to
shorelines, status of water lots, access and easements for servicing, enforcement of purity
control standards and water use regulations, and ground water and aquifers.
Clarity and consistency in regulatory jurisdiction with respect to natural and physical
resources is paramount in the post-treaty environment. Development of resources can
have a significant impact on local governments. Treaty settlement lands (TSL) within
municipalities and regional districts should therefore to be treated like all other fee-simple
lands and not include ownership of sub-surfaàe or submerged resources.
Forest land which may come under aboriginal control must remain and continue to be
managed within the existing timber supply areas and Forest Districts to ensure no loss of
Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) on the land base.
GOVERNANCE
Treaties must recognize and respect the authority and jurisdiction of federal, provincial
and local governments.
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Adopted: November 24, 1999
LMTAC First Principles - Final Version 6
Treaty settlements should remain within the framework of the Canadian Constitution and
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadian Criminal Law should continue
to apply as well as existing precedents set out in civil law in British Columbia.
Treaties must uphold the principle of "no taxation without representation" for all persons
residing on treaty settlement lands. Treaties should contain mechanisms to ensure that all
persons who are living on treaty settlement lands and who are paying taxes or levies to
the First Nation have access and a voice in First Nation governance systems.
Aboriginal self-government provisions must provide for First Nation participation in, or
partnerships with, Local Governments or regional governments for more effective and
efficient delivery of services and programs.
Standards and regulations that apply to treaty settlement lands should meet or exceed
established standards set by federal, provincial and Local Governments for issues
including but not limited to: environmental protection, public health, labour, safety, fire
protection, building codes, noise and licensing.
Treaties should include an effective dispute resolution mechanism that is accessible to
Local Governments, particularly relating to inter-jurisdictional issues such as but not
limited to: planning, land use, natural resources, growth management, stewardship and
transportation.
Local Governments must be provided the opportunity to access local government-related
powers, as defined by provincial legislation, also available to First Nations post-treaty.
Aboriginal self-government should uphold the principle of democracy and accountability.
Lower Mainland area local governments have increasing Aboriginal populations that are
not from the traditional territories of Lower Mainland area First Nations or that will not
reside on future treaty settlement lands. Treaties must therefore include mechanisms to
ensure that the costs of providing programs and services to these populations does not
become the responsibility of Local Government.
Treaties must identifS' programs and services which because of their regional significance
(such as, but not limited to, air quality and sewage treatment) First Nations must provide
to their constituents, either directly or indirectly through a contract with Local
Governments or other agencies, the provision of those programs and services.
The principle speaks to the various interconnections between urban communities that
Lower Mainland area treaties will need to address, and recognizes the responsibility that
all jurisdictions have in creating and sustaining systems that benefit all residents of the
Lower Mainland.
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisoiy Committee (LMTAC) Adopted: November24, 1999
LMTAC First Principles - Final Version 7
FISCAL
Treaties must recognize the limited fiscal capacity of all levels of government and not
impose any cost to Lower Mainland taxpayers, other than their contribution to treaty
settlements through the cost sharing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
Provincial Government and the Government of Canada.
All existing and future service agreements must be respected to ensure Local
Governments receive financial contributions from all users of Local Government
programs, services and infrastructure.
There must be no demand placed on Local Government tax revenues or revenue sources
resulting from treaty settlements, particularly on the ability of Local Government to
derive tax revenue from sources such as property taxes services fees, utility charges and
grants-in-lieu from Crown lands. Any revenue loss to Local Governments arising from
treaty settlements must be fully compensated.
The provincial Municipal Act and Vancouver Charter, through Municipal Act reform,
must enable Local Governments to develop flexible taxation and cost recovery
mechanisms when dealing with Aboriginal governments post treaty.
Treaties must respect and recognize existing provincial fiscal commitments to Local
Governments.
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Adopted: November24, 1999
LMTAC First Principles - Final Version 8
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Agreement In Principle (AlP) in Stage 4 of the BC Treaty Process, the negotiating parties work
towards finalizing an "Agreement in Principle" (AlP). The AlP
outlines topics for negotiation and the related treaty provisions
developed by the parties.
Fee-Simple an estate of virtually infinite duration in land, conveyed or granted.
Sustainability the ability to make development meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. Definition adapted from Our Common Future,
World Commission on Environment and Development
Traditional Territory the geographic area that a First Nation has identified as the land it
has historically used and occupied.
Treaty Settlement Lands (TSL) term used to refer to lands owned by a First Nation post-treaty.
Tripartite of three (3) parties. In the BC Treaty Process, parties at the
negotiating table include the Governments of Canada and British
Columbia as well as members of the First Nations Summit.
Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Adopted: November 24, 1999
•1
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: January 11, 2000
and Members of Council FILE NO: 0530-01
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Question Period
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
To respond to Council's request for information regarding Question Period.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report entitled Queslion Period dated January 11,2000 be received for information.
BACKGROUND:
Council previously requested information on how Question Period at Council Meetings is treated in other
jurisdictions. An informal survey of Lower Mainland communities was completed and the results are as
follows:
- no Question Period
- no Question Period
- televised Question Period after adjournment
for matters on the agenda
- no Question Period
- televised Question Period as part of the
agenda on any matter
- televised Question Period after adjournment
on any matter
- televised Question Period after adjournment
on any matter/matters on the agenda
- Question Period prior to the meeting and after
adjournment on any matter - broadcast policy
is under review
City of Abbotsford
City of Burnaby
City of Coquitlam
Township of Langley
City of New Westminster
District of Pitt Meadows
City of Port Coquitlam
City of Port Moody
It is apparent that there is no correct or incorrect approach to Question Period but rather each Council
must adopt a policy that best meets community needs and interests. It should be noted that many local
governments are completing a similar policy review at this time.
Maple Ridge Council Procedure By-law No. 5871-1999 provides for a ten minute Question Period
followingadjournmént.on any- matter.that appears- on-the agenda. The By-law is-silent on whether the
Questio Period is televised or not and should be addressed by Council resolution.
)'lunicipal Clerk
Approved byl EPauiiflrB.B.A., C.G.A.
N C',
enea nager: Corp ate & Financial Services
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.LC.P., M.C.LP.
Chief Administrative Officer 0103.0
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: December 20, 1999
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: . C 6 IAJ
SUBJECT: Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Bylaw Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:
That Maple Ridge—Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues amending
Bylaw No. 5845-1999 be read a first and second time and the Rules of Order be waived and the
Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues amending
Bylaw no 5845- 1999 be read a third time.
BACKGROUND:
The intent of this bylaw amendment is to bring clarity to the joint Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
structure of the Committee.
The Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues was established in 1996 through By-law No.
5420-1996. The primary function of the committee has been to advise the two Councils on access issues
on behalf of people with disabilities residing in the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows area. At present the
Committee consists of 12 members, six appointees representing various agencies and organizations, 5
members at large and 2 council members, one from Maple Ridge and one from Pitt Meadows.
The Committee has presented to Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Councils and has had members at large
from both communities. The Committee regularly receives correspondence and assistance requests from
both communities citizens.
The intent of the bylaw amendment is to strengthen the references to providing service in both Maple
Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Despite involvement from representative of both communities there is a lack of
clarity about the joint function in the wording of the previous bylaw.
The Committee has been viewed as an excellent vehicle for two-way communication and information
flow between citizens and Councils. Through the Committee's commitment and work, members have had
the opportunity to advise Council on consumer needs such as curb design, accessible parking,
installations of facility ramping and providing Councils with consultation as well as resources for
monitoring architectural plans and public facilities during the design and building process. The
Committee provides regular reports to Council and public information through displays, the Districts web
site, and publications and awareness campaigns. Some of the groups the Committee liaises with are the
Greater Vancouver Regional District, BC Parks and The BC Human Rights Commission to name a few.
Through Council representatives the Committee is able to keep attention appropriately focused on the
access issues and assist in long-term planning to meet the future needs of all citizens.
When the Committee was initially formed the objective of both Councils and the Committee was to
achieve The Five Star Award presented by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Secretary
-1-
of State Department. This award was presented to municipalities demonstrating an outstanding
commitment to integration and significant progress in the areas of transportation, recreation,
employment, education and housing. The award provided the opportunity to show that the municipality
has enabled full participation of people with disabilities in the community. In order to implement this
objective the Committee established five sub- committees, one for each of the 5 star areas. When the By-
law was established in 1996 a representative from the members at large was appointed to each of the 5
sectors and that structure was enscribed in the bylaw.
The Committee and Councils have agreed to continue working within these five sectors, as they are
believed to be the "areas of living". However, in order for the Committee to function effectively it is
recommended that the By-law be amended to remove the formal structure of sector appointments. This
change will provide the committee with greater flexibility in how it accomplishes its goals.
Prepared by: Dorothy Trochta-BelaiParks and Leisure Services
App/oved by: Mike Murray
7 Parks and Recreation
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
-2-
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 5845 - 1999
A By-law to repeal Maple Ridge Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility
Issues By-law No. 5420 - 1996 in its entirety and adopt Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows (Ridge-
Meadows) Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues By-law No. 5845 - 1999.
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to have the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility
Issues, established by By-law No. 5420 - 1996 repealed in its entirety in order to formally
establish a joint committee with the District of Pitt Meadows.
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge,
in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
This By-law shall be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows (Ridge
Meadows) Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues By-law No. 5845 -
1999".
Maple Ridge Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues By-law No. 5420 -
1996 be repealed in its entirety.
Definitions
For the purpose of this by-law, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Committee" means the Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on
Accessibility Issues.
"Councils" means the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge and the
Corporation of the District of Pitt Meadows;
"Disability" means a physical or sensory disability, learning difficulty or mental health
problem, which is regarded as a significant challenge in daily life or at work.
"Districts" means the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge and the Corporation of
the District of Pitt Meadows.
"Maple Ridge" means the geographical area known as the Corporation of the District of
Maple Ridge.
"Pitt Meadows" means the geographical area known as the Corporation of the District of
Pitt Meadows.
"Mayors" means the elected Mayors of the Districts.
"Member" means a current member of the Ridge Meadows Municipal Advisory
Committee on Accessibility Issues, whether appointed by Council or elected as a
Member-at-Large.
Mandate
4. Council hereby establishes a committee to be known as the "Ridge Meadows Municipal
Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues", hereafter called the "Committee".
By-law No. 5845— 1999
Page (2)
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Councils on matters relating to the
improvement of the community's response to accessibility issues for people with
disabilities.
Composition and Appointment
6. The Committee is comprised of thirteen (13) members.
7. Eight of the thirteen members are representatives of the following governments, agencies
and organizations which will appoint a person to the Committee who has a particular
interest in disability issues:
One Councillor from the District of Maple Ridge;
One Councillor from the District of Pitt Meadows;
School Board of School District No. 42;
Ministry of Children and Families;
Ministry of Education, Skills and Training;
Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living;
Simon Fraser Health Region
Ridge Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Citizen's Advisory Committee.
8. The remaining five members are called "Members-at-Large" and are appointed by their
respective Councils after a newspaper advertisement is placed asking people who have an
interest in improving the community's response to accessibility issues for people with
disabilities to write to the District, stating their background and their reasons for wanting
to be appointed to the Committee.
9. Four of the five members-at-large must be:
a resident of Maple Ridge;
employed in Maple Ridge; or
be eligible to be in the Municipal Voters List for the District.
The fifth member-at-large will reside or primarily work in Pitt Meadows or be eligible to
be in the Voters List for the District.
10. Applicants for the position of member-at-large will be interviewed by their respective
Councils and a ballot will be prepared. The applicants with the most votes from Council
become members of the committee.
11. No member-at-large of the Committee as appointed by Council will serve concurrently
on another District of Maple Ridge Advisory Committee.
12. Other people who may attend meetings, to provide opinions, advice or information or
other services but who are:
the Mayors.
the Chief Administrative Officers or his/her designate; and
District staff.
e
By-law No. 5845 - 1999
Page (3)
13. No member of the Committee will receive any remuneration for services, however, a
member shall be reimbursed for any reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred on behalf
of and previously approved by the Committee.
Term of Appointment
14. The term of appointment for each member appointed by the governments, agencies and
organizations listed in Section 7 above, is one year commencing on January 1st in the year
they are appointed and termination one year later on December 31St
15. The term of appointment for each member-at-large is two years commencing on
September l in the year they are appointed and terminating two years later on August
3 1St.
The appointments of the members-at-large to the Committee shall be as follows:
Three members-at-large from the District of Maple Ridge shall be appointed
for a one (1) year term;
One member-at-large from each of the Districts shall be appointed for a two (2)
year term.
16. Members-at-large may be appointed to not more than three consecutive terms totalling
six (6) years of service. A person appointed to a vacancy with more than one-half of the
original term left will be considered to be serving a full term for the purpose of this
section.
Vacancy
17. Notwithstanding other sections of this by-law, a vacancy created by death or resignation
will be reported as soon as possible to the Mayor, who may appoint a replacement for the
unexpired term of the former member.
Chairperson
18. The members will annually elect a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson from amongst
themselves by a simple majority vote. The Vice-Chairperson will act in the capacity of
the Chairperson at any meeting where the Chairperson is absent
Absenteeism
19. A member who is absent, except for reason of illness or with the leave of the chairperson
of the Committee or his/her designate, from three consecutive, or five in any twelve
consecutive, regular meetings is deemed to have resigned, effective at the end of the third
or fifth such meeting, as the case may be.
Ouorum and Voting
20. Quorum is six (6) members of the Committee.
21. Only members may vote on issues and resolutions and any members not voting, but
present, is deemed to have voted in the affirmative.
By-law No. 5845 - 1999
Page (4)
Meeting Schedule and Procedures
The Committee will meet monthly between September through to June, although special
meetings over and above the monthly meetings may be called by the chairperson as long
as each member is given not less than forty-eight (48) hours notice of such meeting,
which can only be waived by unanimous vote of all the members of the Committee.
Meetings are open to the pubic.
Council may include in its annual budget such sums as are necessary to defray the
expenses of the Committee. The Committee must provide a detailed budget proposal to
Council on or before August of the year preceding the budget year.
The minutes of the proceedings of all meetings of the Committee will be maintained in a
minute book and forthwith following each meeting of the Committee, a copy, when
signed by the Chairperson or member presiding shall be forwarded to the Municipal
Clerk of both Districts.
The Committee will be provided with secretarial and staff support to carry out its
functions.
READ a first time this day of
READ a second time this day of
READ a third time this day of
RECONSIDERED and finally adopted the day of
MAYOR
10
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 04.01
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 11, 2000 be adopted as
circulated.
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
- Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
,4o-Anne H
.v' Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation andlor such action as may be required by your Department. - -
January 26, 2000
Date Municipal Clerk
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 04.02
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the Minutes of the Public Hearing of January 18, 2000 be received.
"Al Hogarth"
DEFEATED DEFERRED
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
- Dir - Current Planning
Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
,4o-Anne H
_/ Karla K
MAYOR
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date MuJpallerk
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 04.03
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meetings of December 21,
1999 and January 7 and 12 (2), 2000 be received.
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
Dir - Finance
Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development (f 0 x-.1
- Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
- Jo-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
17QtQ(A/ü4
Date Municipa} Clerk
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 06.01
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit No.
DVP/71/99 (property at 12791 and 12793 - 228A Street).
(an application to relax the front lot line setback from 7.5 metres to 3.5 metres and the rear lot
line setback from 7.5 metres to 1.5 metres and to waive the requirement for both dwelling units to
be contained within one structure sharing a common roof by allowing the separation of the
buildings with an architectural feature on the second storey)
(:CAj:ED:) DEFEATED DEFERRED
"Al Hogarth"
MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
- RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
en Mgr - Public Works & Development______________________________________
- Dir - Current Planning v.x(: QiMQ viS i44E:ok -eit
- Dir - Long Range Planning ____________________
- Dir - Inspection Services (9 Q(&t (ik 'y
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
n-AnneH . VKarlaK
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation andlor such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 08.01
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5866-1999 be read a second and third time.
(RZ165/99 - 11579-240 Street to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to CD-1-93
(Amenity Residential District) to create approximately nine lots not less than 371 m 2 each)
"Al Hogarth"
DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
TO: Chief Administrative Officer
Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
- Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
Dir - Community & Business
- $3en Mgr - Public Works & Development
v' Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clrk's Section
Ji\inicipal Clerk
Shirley K
- Jo-Anne H
..V Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date Mu±alclerk
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 08.02
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR -_fl
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5847-1999 be read a second and third time.
(RZ162/99 - Amendments to Secondary Suite Regulations - to establish a definition of cooking
facility; delete the minimum lot size requirements; delete the requirement for a business licence;
and to establish a regulation that states that secondary suites are not permitted on property
situated within a floodplain)
"Al Hogarth"
DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
Dir - Corporate Support
Dir - Finance
Dir - Community & Business
- Jn Mgr - Public Works & Development___________________________________________________
Dir - Current Planning
Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
/AnneH Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date Municipal
ler
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 08.03
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5879-1999 be reconsidered and
adopted.
(regulations governing inactive development applications)
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED ) DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- en Mgr - Public Works & Development
tV-' Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
- Jo-Anne H
V KarlaK
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
Date Mu tllerP
Janu ary 26, 2000 ( ______________________________________
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 08.04
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control Amending By-law No. 5873-1999 be
reconsidered and adopted.
(to reflect year 2000 deadline dates for the purchase of dog licences)
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED / DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
'- Dir - Finance
Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
- Jo-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date Mun±lCler5
ui
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.01.01
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of January 17, 2000 be received.
"Al Hogarth"
DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
Dir - Corporate Support
Dir - Finance
Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- SJi-irleyK
,,4o-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date
UAAA
MfUlerk V<
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.02.01
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR ) 4QI/(
That the Application RZ/64/99 (for property located on the North East Corner of 236 Street
and 133 Avenue) to rezone property described in the report dated January 5, 2000 from
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential Distict) and
RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) be forwarded to Public Hearing noting that the conditions
to be met prior to Public Hearing and prior to final consideration of the Zone Amending
By-law are detailed in that report and that the accompanying Official Community Plan
Amending By-law be forwarded to the same Public Hearing.
(Rock Ridge Estates - to create 33 units under the R-3 Zone and 40 townhouse units)
OWN _~? "~AlHogartV
DEFEATED DEFERRED } MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
- RCMP
- Fire Chief
Dir - Corporate Support
Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
en Mgr - Public Works & Development _____________________
- Dir - Current Planning (
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services Ckb AL_XjJ SVt[
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
Dir - Engineering Projects
Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk!sSection. -.- - --- -
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
- Jo-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26. 2000
Date Munic
CAP- I {
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.02.02
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That pursuant to Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5632-1997, that
Rezoning Application No. RZ/23/96 (property at 13819 - 232 Street) be granted a one year
extension.
(to create approximately 500 residential units using a combination of single family and multi
family forms of development)
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
- Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
ji Mgr - Public Works & Development___________________________________________________
V Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
Jo-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
MuialCl
fr< January 26, 2000
Date
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.02.03
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COTJNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal DP166/99 respecting property
located at 11995 Haney Place.
(Leisure Centre Complex expansion)
"Al Hogarth"
DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- çen Mgr - Public Works & Development
V Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
-o-Anne H
V Karla K
The above deii6n was thade at a meting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
rcJanuary 26. 2000 ______________________________________
Date Munici
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.02.04
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
7~-)
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval
of DVP/81/99 respecting property located at 20318 Dewdney Trunk Road will be considered
by Council at the February 15, 2000 meeting.
tA *-qk* 0)".U60 < svo UL uc
(to relax the rear yard setback from 6.0 metres to
bar and convenience store)
DEFEATED DEFERRED
ACTION NOTICE
TO: Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
- Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- 9en Mgr - Public Works & Developmen
Dir - Current Planning
Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
Municipal - ,.- Clerk
v' Shirley K
/0-Anne H
Karla-I' -
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date Municipal Clerk
vtqp-k tzi
.1 metres to permit the construction or a'1gas
"Al Hogarth"
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.02.05
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval
of DVPI80/99 respecting property located at 23281 Kanaka Way will be considered by
Council at the February 15, 2000 meeting.
(to waive the requirement to convert existing overhead wires on the north side of Kanaka Way to
underground facilities for a proposed 23 unit townhouse development)
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED ) DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: Chief Administrative Officer
Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- Gn Mgr - Public Works & Development___________________________________________________
.-" Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
Municipal Clerk ç
/Jo-AnneH -
." KarlaK
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation andlor such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.02.06
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Amending By-law No. 5881-2000 be read a
first and second time and that the Rules of Order be waived and that Maple Ridge Soil
Deposit Regulation By-law No. 5881-2000 be read a third time.
(an amendment to clearly define what constitutes an exempt activity with the ALR, using
provincially established criteria, and tointroduce a few housekeeping amendments into the
By-law)
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
Dir - Finance
Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
,-Dir - Current Planning
..V Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
/" Municipal Clerk
V Shirley K
/Io-Aii.ne H
'." Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000 ____________________________
Date Municipal Clerk
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.02.07.01
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5842-1999 be read a first time.
(RZ/35/99 — 23 853 Dewdney Trunk Road - to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
to CS-i (Service Commercial) to permit a gasoline bar, convenience store with a residence and a
commercial building)
"Al Hogarth"
CARRiED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- 9en Mgr - Public Works & Development ç ( / Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning - -
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
- ,--Jo-Anne H
KarlaK
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation andlor such action as may be required by your Department.
January_26,2000 tI1QJ 2_o ----
Date Municipal Clerk
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.02.07.02
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending By-law No. 5843-1999 be read a
first time.
(RZ/35/99 — 23 853 Dewdney Trunk Road - to designate as a Development Permit Area)
"Al Hogarth"
DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
- Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- 9'n Mgr - Public Works & Development
-' Dir - Current Planning
Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
,4'o-Anne H
" KarlaK
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date Municipal Clerk
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.03.01
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR 47
That the staff report dated December 14, 1999 and the letter from BC Hydro dated July 8,
1999 attached thereto requesting a refund in the amount of $235.90 with respect to waiving
the annual 1999 recycling levy on 14 properties be received; and further
That the request be denied.
"Al Hogarth"
DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
- Fire Chief
_/Dir - Corporate Support
V Dir-Finance
Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
- Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
Shirley K
V Jo-Anne H
KarlaK
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date MJ3allerk
DISTRICT OF
Agenda Item: 09.03.02
MAPLE RIDGE
Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the eight reports submitted to the Committee of the Whole Meeting of January 17,
2000 entitled, Adjustments to 1999 Collector's Roll, be received for information.
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- 7/Dir - Corporate Support
V Dir-Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
- Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
- Municipal Clerk
- Shirley K
Jo-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
- -notat-ion-and/orsuchactiowasmayb ret uited by your D tmënt. - --
January 26, 2000
Date Municipal Clerk
LI
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.03.03
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the report entitled, Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) First
Principles, dated January 12, 2000 be received for information.
"Al Hogarth"
DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
- Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
- Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services
Dir - Parks & Facilities
7rk's Section
unicipal Clerk
- Shirley K
- Jo-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. -
January 26, 2000 WAA
Date Municipal Clerk
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.03.04
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That the report entitled, Question Period, dated January 11, 2000 be received for
information.
"Al Hogarth"
CARRIED ) DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development
Dir - Current Planning
- Dir - Long Range Planning
Dir - Inspection Services
Municipal Engineer
— Dir - Development Eng.
- Dir - Engineering Operations
— Dir - Engineering Projects
- Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
jzlerk's Section
\/ Municipal Clerk
— Shirley K
— Jo-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000 --fi OR U*<~~
Date
DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 09.04.01
MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: January 25, 2000
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR
I
SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR
That Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues
Amending By-law No. 5845-1999 be read a first and second time and that the Rules of
Order be waived and Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on
Accessibility Issues Amending By-law No. 5845-1999 be read a third time.
(the By-law amendment is to bring clarity to the joint Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows structure of
the Committee)
-_ "Al Hogarth"
CARIE,) DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR
ACTION NOTICE
TO: - Chief Administrative Officer
- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial
RCMP
Fire Chief
- Dir - Corporate Support
- Dir - Finance
- Dir - Community & Business
- Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development___________________________________________________
- Dir - Current Planning
Dir - Long Range Planning
Dir - Inspection Services
- Municipal Engineer
- Dir - Development Eng.
Dir - Engineering Operations
,-Dir - Engineering Projects
/Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services
- Dir - Parks & Facilities
Clerk's Section
/MuniciPal Clerk
- Jo-Anne H
Karla K
The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for
notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department.
January 26, 2000
Date
JAN-25-00 TUE 04:19 PM Dist,Of Maple Ridge FAX NO. 467 7329 P. 01/02
I had the pleasure of installing the new executive of the Maple Ridge Chamber of
Commerce and attended the Business Excellence Awards Banquet on January 22,
2000 with a number of Councillors. Best of luck to incoming President Bart
. TbI Findlay and I look forward to maintaining the close relationship with the chamber
and exploring new opportunities.
The District of Maple Ridge was well represented at the awards banquet. Bob
Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer, was nominated for Customer Service
Excellence award and Mike Murray, General Manager of Community
Development, Parks and Recreation was nominated for Community Booster of the
Year. The fact that staff are being recognized in the community in this way,
illustrates the fine work by staff done at the Municipal Hall. The highlight of the
evening from my perspective was Diana Dalton, our Receptionist at the Hall,
winning the Customer Service Excellence award. If you have ever had to visit or
phone the District of Maple Ridge you have probably spoken to Diana and can
vouch for her friendliness and professionalism. I honestly cannot think of anyone
in Maple Ridge who is more deserving of this honour.
I would also like to congratulate everyone who was nominated for an award and
those who won. Former Councilior Betty Levens was also nominated, for
Community Booster and I was pleased to see that Carl Durksen won this honour. I
can attest to the time and effort needed to serve this community and would like to
congratulate Betty and Carl for the recognition by the Chamber.
JAN-25-00 TUE 04:19 PN DisLOf Naple Ridge, FAX NO, 47 7329 P.02/02
Page (2)
The District was also recognized for sponsorship of Home Based Business
initiatives and more work is planned in this area in the near future.
I have really come to appreciate the work of staff since the election. All staff have
displayed tremendous willingness to help, and patience with Council in providing
background information. We have an excellent base of technical knowledge in
our community that is recognized throughout the world. Bob Robertson, for
example, serves on the International City Managers Association and American
Economic Development Council Boards. He is also representing this community,
at no expense to taxpayers, at an upcoming international conference dealing with
business planning and performance measures. In my view, we are very well served
by the staff and thanks again for your extra efforts during this orientation period.
Newly elected Councillors will be attending an extensive seminar starting
tomonow that is hosted by the I.LB.C.M. and work with Advisory Committees and
the (IV.R.D. has only just begun. Most importantly, this Council continues to ask
staff for information on local issues and is starting to develop an agenda and
mandate for this term of office.
IL, tj 1)1)1
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRiCt OF MAPIE RIDGE
MAPLE Ri:i:x 11 5 Hrney Nce, Mp)e Ridp, BC V2X (,A9 CANADA
Telepbone: (604) 463-5221 Fx (604) 467-7331
lncnrporated PZ e-mail nquiries'di3trictmapIt-ridgeJ,c.ca
Is" Copies to Mayor & Council
o ,çopy to Council Reading File
L" For lnirly
o For Response by._.
ER/Copies to ;
0
Pile No: 3090-20IDVP/71/99
Dear Sir/Madani
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the Municipal Council will be considering a Development Variance Permit
at the regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber,
MimIcipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge.
The particulars of the Development Vanancó Permit we as follows:
APPLICATION NO,: DVPI7I/99
LEQAL Lot A. Section 20, Township 12, Plan LMP29025, New Westminster
istrict
LOCATION; 12791/93 228A Street
PRESENT ZONING RT-1 (Two Family Urban Residential)
PURPOSE: The applicant is requesting the foJlong variances in order to front the
pwposed residences towards 228A Street and to create the appearance of
two separate homes:
I) relaxation of the front lot line setback from 7.5 metres to 3.5 metres
and the rear lot line setback from 7.5 metres to 1.5 metres;
2) waive the requirement for both dwelling units to be conlBined within
one sfruciw&sbathg.a..conunort-roof-by alowing-the-separatiion of
- ibe buildings with an architectural feature on the second storey.
AND RJRTIIER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the Development Variance Permit and the Planning
Department report dated December 14, 1999 relative to this application will be available for inspection at
the Municipal Hall, Planning Department counter during office hours. 8:30 n.m. to 4:30 p.m. fmm
.Tamiary 1210 January 25, 2000.
-- .. wpmmoilng a Safe and LMibIe Community for our Pesent and Future Citizens'
41*
P Si 19d
Ms. Rory Lynn Caidwell
23823-120B Ave
Maple Ridge, BC V4R4X4
Ph*ie 4660136 Faic 4660137
January 25, 2000
m-'opies to Mayor & Council
;Zoor'Information
y to Council Reading File
Only
Mayor & Council c3 For Response by...
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge "Copies to .Y( 'II. 11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C.
V2X 6A9
Dear Mayor Hogarth,
Councilors: Cmig Speiis, Kathy Morse, Joisi Hams, Faye Isaac, Linda King Candace
Gordon.
Reference: Rezoning Application RZ35199 - 23853 Dewdney Trunk
Road RS-3 to CS-I -by-laws 5842 and 5843-1999
- I am writing this letter to express my concern re the above rezoning application. First,
I was most happy to see the removal of the fast food restaurant from the original
proposal. However, the gas station is still in the plan. I feel this is definitely
something we do not need in our neighborhood. It concerns me deeply at how little
thought or consideration has been given to the impact of these types of business has
on a residential area. We have a Husky Station at 240th & Dewdney, Esso at 232'
& Dewdney and another one planned for the opposite SouthWest Corner of 232u,d
Dewdney Trunk Road. Exactly how many gas stations do we need down this road?
We have 10 gas stations from Garibaldi School on Dewdney Trunk road to the
intersection of Lougheed and then another 11 back east on Lougheed for a total of
21.
I made contact with Councilor Craig Speirs the other day and expressed my
concerns re this development. I cannot believe that you or any of the other
councilors would sit back and allow this to happen in your back yard. Aug 24, 1999
at 7:00 P.M. A meeting was hdat Eagles Hall. A1an eans GrayDevelopment
-Ltd: Repèntátive, Gordon Kiassen - Architect and Bruce McLeod Municipal
Planning Dept. representative attended. An employee of the Husky station at the
corner of 240th and Dewdney Trunk stood up and spoke about an incident which had
just occurred a couple of weeks prior to this meeting at the Husky station in the
middle of the night. An attempted arson was foiled when a police officer spotted
someone trying to set fire to the gas pump. This is a residential area. People come
first in my books. I am hoping I made some wise choices when I helped vote in
some new council members. I am asking you to look long and hard at the long term
• Page2 January25, 2000
plans for this and other neighborhoods. Put yourself in our place and answer just a
couple of the questions that are on these homeowner's minds.
Safety
Noise
Property Value
Buffer ZonesWiew/Allies Vs - Cross Access
Increased Crime
Go back, speak to the people living in the homes around the new Tim Hortons, and
ask them if noise and traffic have affected them.
Falcon Oaks was built just over 2 years ago. We have 26 homes in this sub-division.
We are also surrounded by two more new subdivisions, one which has just been
completed between 238B and 237 on 1 20B which has 16 new homes and the other
North on 238B. These new subdivisions mean families with lots of children.
Aiexander Robinson School will be closing and a new one opening on the south side
of Dewdney Trunk road. As opposed as I am to this development in our
neighborhood, and regardless of what type of businesses is being looked at for
construction down this road, I feel the number one concern should be getting the
children safely across Dewdney Trunk road. If this means additional traffic lights
down the road, then maybe council should be looking at all future businesses being
built with an eye to making this part of the cost to be born by the developer. New
subdivisions are springing up everywhere and there are less and less green spaces
for children to play in. I am not opposed to progress but I am opposed to the
almighty dollar being put ahead of people and safety. I have heard the statement
twice now since that Aug 24i99 meeting at the Eagle Hall and that is how much
MONEY has been spent already planning this proposal and how it is already a done
deal. My question: What is a public heflng for If not to hear from the public and
allow them to voice their concerns prior to a decision being made. I would further
recommend that the number of houses that are advised in wring of a public hearing
be increased from the current 50M.
I am asking you to take a moment and walk a mile in our shoes before you cast your
vote. Please ask yourself if you would want this in your neighborhood?
Yours truly,
Rory CaIdwell.
23830 - 120B Ave.
Maple Ridge
BC V4R4X4
Mayor Al Hogarth
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge
V2X 6A9
CS-i - BY LAWS 5842 AND 5843-1999
Dear Mayor,
Tel Home 466 9087
'6opies to Mayor & Council
o 9opy to Council Reading File
F 11tt1M11WL4D RS-3 TO
o For Response by
Q"Copies to V COM L~4
I wanted to write to you and express my concerns about the above rezoning application,
bef'e the Council meeting on Tuesday 25th January, which by the way I will attend. (For
your information I have already written to the previous Mayor to express my feelings).
I feel I will be one of the residents that is most affected by the proposed development, as the
land backs onto my property. I and many other local residents are 100% against the
development and are prepared to fight hard for our rights.
My overwhelming concern has been the inclusion of a gas station, so close to my property. I
work in the business sector and am a great believer in planning. Before one starts the
planning process, however, you must verify and calculate the requirement. I have driven
along Dewdney Trunk Road from Garibaldi School to Lougheed Highway and turned left on
to Lougheed to measure the kilometres and count the gas stations. The journey was
measured at l5kms and I counted 21 gas stations (10 on Dewdney and 11 on Lougheed) in
this small area. This works out to be one gas station approximately every 700m. Why in
heavens name do we need another gas station?. If I return back to my planning theory, my
calculation is that there is no requirement, therefore the planning should stop. This makes
good financial sense.
To add to my information I would also say that there is a Husky gas station 200m away from
the proposed site in one direction and an ESSQ ga&staticnikmin-the. other.direction(I..attach
the list of gas stations for your information).
The other area of business I would like to bring to your attention is cost/benefit analysis, this
is where one balances the benefits of a plan with the negative impacts. If this plan is
approved the benefits I can foresee are:
• A developer will make some quick Dollars
• One extra residence will be built
• A very small increase in employment prospects
Can you think of any other benefits?
The negative impact on Maple Ridge and the local community are:
• Increased traffic movement, increased crossing into the path of oncoming traffic and
increased risk of motor vehicle accidents
• Increased risk to our children on the roads (120B Ave. will have increased traffic flow, at
present many children enjoy playing in the quiet street i.e. Street hockey)
• Increased risk of injury when the Elementary School is relocated on the opposite side of
the road. (a mixture of increased traffic movement, increased pedestrian and child
movement)
• Noise pollution and nuisance complaints
• Increased risk of fire, particularly during fuel deliveries and during natural disasters (i.e.
earthquake)
• Smell and air pollution (Benzene is a proven carcinogen)
• Increase light and impact on local environment (do you want to sit on your sun deck and
look into a gas station and its lighting system?)
• General detrimental impact on our living environment and quality of life
• Detrimental impact on the value of our homes (which we purchased without knowledge
of this development)
If we were to balance the positives against the negatives I feel sure you will agree with me
that the scales are clearly weighted to the negative side.
Would we be allowed to build this development on land in North or West Vancouver?
Similarly would other local residents accept the building of another gas station adjoining
their property, when there are already 21 in a 15 km stretch. I am sure they would not.
I believe that I have written enough at this point, I look forward to meeting you at Tuesdays
meeting and hopefully we can all come to a sensible solution.
Yours sincerely
William Meechan
Enc.
O%•
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
c) C' COUNCIL MEETING
January 25, 2000
The Minutes of the Municipal Council Meeting held on January 25, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for
the purpose of transacting regular Municipal business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor A. Hogarth Mr. R. W. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Gordon Mr. T. Wingrove, Municipal Clerk
Councillor F. Isaac Mr. M. W. Murray, General Manager of Community
Councillor J. Harris Development, Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor L. King Mr. J. R. Rudolph, General Manager of Public Works
Councillor K. Morse and Development Services
Councillor C. Speirs Mr. P. Gill, General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services
Mr. T. Fryer, Director of Current Planning
Mrs. S. M. Karasz, Confidential Secretary
Other staff as Required
Ms. K. Grout, Manager of Environmental Affairs
The meeting was filmed by Rogers Cablesystems. These Minutes are also posted on the
Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.org
01
02
03
03.01
CALL TO ORDER
OPENING PRA YERS Pastor Tony Sobcinski conducted opening prayers.
PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
Maple Ridge Town Centre Project Presentation
The following were in attendance to provide an overview and update on the above
noted project:
Mr. Grant Turnbull representing the developers, Voth Bros. Development Ltd. and P3
ITT.
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page2 I
Mr. Tom Anondale of Toby, Russell Buckwell & Partners, Architects
Mr. Mark Ankenman of Ankenman Associates Architects Inc.
Mr. Tumbull advised that there have been 40 to 45 people working on the design
process over the past ten months and they appreciate the co-operation that they have
received from the Municipal Council, staff and the community groups who have
worked very diligently with the design team.
Mr. Anondale displayed the overall plan for the Town Centre project and provided
details on the various components, including an expanded park site. He also displayed
plans and artist's renderings of the proposed new buildings, which include the office
tower and library in the first phase. The expanded Leisure Centre and construction of
the Youth Centre will follow in the next phase.
He reviewed the landscape site plan, the overall parkade plan and all the various
linkages to the buildings, underground parking, etc. as well as the access and drop-off
provisions.
Mr. Ankenman provided further details on the new library and office tower which
will include some retail space. The library will feature the latest technology, including
a self-serve book check-out. The architects have worked closely with the library staff
on the design.
Mr. Anondale referred to the sequence of construction, noting that a Development
Permit is on this evening's agenda to allow them to proceed with the expanded
Leisure Centre and Youth Centre. He displayed renderings and provided details on
the design of those two facilities and how the green space and pedestrian access will
be enhanced.
He advised that the proposed performing arts centre is in the preliminary planning
stages and the developers and architects are working with the Arts Council and user
groups on the design. It will feature 350 seats on the main floor and 150 balcony
seats. He also identified the visual arts site, art gallery, craft and painting studio,
photography studio, etc. The architects will be coming back to Council with the plans
for the Arts Centre.
He noted that the last phase will be the 100 room Hotel and restaurant component.
He further advised that the community groups are enthusiastic about the expanded
park design as it will accommodate a wider variety of civic events. The Legion has
been consulted and are pleased with the relocation of the Cenotaph to a more
significant and formal area. The Bandstand will be relocated and is being looked at
now from an acoustical and usage point of view.
Mr. Tumbull advised that this is a remarkable project for this community. One of the
key points is the synergy that will be created by the various components working
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page3
together. That is what will make it go as the economy is not there to bring in the
office building, etc. by itself.
He explained that there have been ongoing negotiations for the Hotel and it is hoped
they will be concluded soon. It is anticipated that construction on the Leisure
Centre/Youth Centre will commence shortly following approval of the Development
Permit later in this meeting.
He further noted that the office tower and library excavation work commenced
around Christmas and three contracts are being awarded to local businesses for
plumbing and heating, mechanical and framing work.
The Mayor thanked the delegation for their presentation, noting that the
improvements this Council has seen in terms of the design elements, and the
developers' willingness to bring them into fruition, has brought the project into much
more of a focus as to how it will fit together for the community. Council is pleased to
see contracts being awarded to local companies.
04 ADOPTION OF MINUTES
R/00-30 02.01
Minutes
Jan. 11/00 MOVED by Councillor Gordon
SECONDED by Councillor Morse
that the Minutes of the regular Council Meeting of January 11, 2000 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
R/00-31 02.02
Minutes
Public Hearing MOVED by Councillor Isaac
Jan. 18/00 SECONDED by Councillor Hams
that the Minutes of the Public Hearing of January 18, 2000 be received.
CARRIED
R/00-32 02.03
Minutes
Dev. Agmt. MOVED by Councillor King
Jan./99; Dec./00 SECONDED by Councillor Isaac
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page4
that the Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee meetings of
December 21, 1999 and January 7 and 12, 2000 be received.
Discussion
Councillor Harris referred to Item 1 in the Minutes of January 12, 2000 related to
SD/30/99 regarding property at 12500 and 12520 - 227 Street. He noted that
agreements were signed for two cross-access easements and asked for a further
explanation of the circumstances in which they are being used.
The Director of Current Planning displayed an overhead map of the site and
advised that the cross-access agreements are part of the overall subdivision plan
for the area.
Councillor Harris indicated that he will be seeking further information from the
Planning Department staff.
The motion CARRIED.
05 DELEGATIONS
05.01 Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge Home Show Society - Update on Activities -
Presenter: Mr. Michael I Potter
Mr. Potter advised that the 1999 Home Show featured 177 booths which were visited
by 25,000 people. It is the largest free home show in British Columbia. Maple
Ridge Community Savings contributed $6000 towards advertising and McDonalds
partnered with the Kids Zone. He thanked the many other sponsors who also made
contributions. He thanked the 100 volunteers who helped with the staging, noting
that many of the were young people who worked with local employers. The Home
Show is very proud of them and appreciates their help.
Mr. Potter also thanked Municipal staff members Brock McDonald, Mike Murray and
Mike Davies for their considerable assistance.
He advised that the Home Show will take place on May 7, 8 and 9 this year at the
Planet Ice facility at the Fairgrounds and they anticipate having 200 booths.
Additional parking will be provided. They are also looking at having bus service for
the event.
06 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
06:01 -DVP171199 --12 79 1-and 12793--228A Street
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 5
(an application to relax the front and rear lot setbacks and common wall
requirements).
RI00-33 MOVED by Councillor Gordon
DVP/71/99 SECONDED by Councillor King
that the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal Development
Variance Permit No. DVP/71199 (property at 12791 and 12793 - 228A
Street).
Discussion
The Municipal Clerk advised that a letter (fax) dated January 13, 2000 in support
of the application was received from the applicant, Yaletown Enterprises Ltd. of
642 Southborough Drive, West Vancouver.
Councillor King asked for further clarification of the duplex design. The Director
of Current Planning displayed an overhead map of the proposal and explained the
variance. The applicant is asking to separate the buildings to provide two separate
homes connected only by an architectural feature on the second storey. Staff
supports the variance on the basis the proposed units will be consistent with other
residences on the block and respects the District's infill policy.
Councillor King noted that the connection is simply artifice and calls into
question what constitutes a duplex. She would like to see Council re-visit the
duplex policy at some point.
On question from Councillor Isaac, the Director of Current Planning reviewed the
proposed variances in the setbacks which are detailed in the report.
Councillor Speirs asked if the application has been to the Advisory Design Panel.
The Director of Current Planning clarified that duplexes are not subject to review
by the panel.
Councillor Morse questione4 if tluis design. setsaprecedent. - The Director- -of-
- Current Planning indicated that the District could be faced with other similar
proposals.
Councillor Harris asked if anyone has looked at the fire fighting situation. The
Director of Current Planning advised that the units will have to meet the current
Building and Fire Code regulations.
'4
The Mayor questioned if anyone has looked at connecting the two roofs and
putting up some trellis work to achieve the same purpose.
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page6
The motion CARRIED.
07 CORRESPONDENCE Nil
08 BY-LAWS
Items 08.01 and 08.02 from the January 18, 2000 Public Hearing
08.01 RZ165199 - 11579 - 240 Street - RS-3 to CD-1-93 - Maple Ridge Zone Amending
By-law No. 5866-1999
(to create approximately nine lots not less than 371m 2 each).'
RJ00-34 MOVED by Councillor Gordon
BL 5866-1999 SECONDED by Councillor Morse
2ndl3rd reading
that Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5866-1999 be read a
second and third time.
Discussion
Councillor King questioned how it will be ensured that the multi-purpose trail will
be constructed. The Director of Current Planning displayed an overhead map of
the property and surrounding properties and explained how the trail will be
accomplished as development in the area takes place. There will be in-trust
monies taken to ensure that the trail system is completed.
The motion CARRIED.
08.02 RZ162199 - Amendments to Secondary Suite Regulations - Maple Ridge Zone
Amending By-law No. 584 7-1999
(to establish a definition of cooking facility; delete the minimum lot size
requirements; delete the requirement for a business licence; and establish a regulation
that states that secondary suites are not permitted on property situated within a
floodplain).
RI00-35 MOVED by Councilior King
BL 5847-1999 SECONDED by Councillor Isaac '
2ndl3rd reading
amend. re Suites that Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5847-1999 be read a
second and third time.
I
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page7
Discussion
Several Councillors noted that the Secondary Suites By-law can be reviewed at
regular intervals to see if it needs fine-tuning to ensure that it is as effective as
possible.
Councillor Harris stated that he has some difficulty with the removal of the
minimum lot size requirement, noting that concerns in that regard were also raised
at the Public Hearing by a citizen who is experiencing parking problems caused
by a number of suites in his neighbourhood. He questioned if the decision to
remove the lot size limitation can be revisited by Council if it is not working.
The Director of Current Planning advised that Council has the ability to revisit
and re-introduce the minimum lot size limitation in the future if necessary.
The motion CARRIED.
08.03 Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 58 79-1999
(regulations governing inactive development applications).
R/99-36 MOVED by Councillor Morse
BL 5879-1999 SECONDED by Councillor Gordon
final reading
that Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5879-1999 be
reconsidered and adopted.
CARRIED
08.04 Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control Amending By-law No. 58 73-1999
(to reflect year 2000 deadline dates for the purchase of dog licences).
R199-37 MOVED by Councillor Isaac
BL5 873-1999 SECONDED by Councillor King
final reading
that Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control Amending By-law No.
5873-1999 be reconsidered and adopted.
CARRIED
Councillor Gordon advised that there is no increase this year in the dog
licence fees.
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page8
09 COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
09.01 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
09.01.01 Minutes
Minutes of January 17, 2000
RI00-3 8 MOVED by Councillor Gordon
Minutes COW SECONDED by Councillor Harris
Jan. 17/00
that the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of January 17,
2000 be received.
CARRIED
09.02 Public Works and Development Services
09.02.01 RZ164199 - Northeast Corner of 236 Street and 133 Avenue
Reference was made to the staff report dated January 5, 200 recommending that
the subject application to permit 33 R-3 units and 40 RM-1 units be forwarded to
Public Hearing subject to the conditions specified in the report.
P199-39 MOVED by Councillor Harris
RZ/64/99 SECONDED by Councillor Isaac
to Public Hearing -
DEFERRED that application RZ/64/99 (for property located on the northeast corner of
236 Street and 133 Avenue) ) to rezone property described in the staff
report dated January 5, 1999 from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) and RM- 1 (Townhouse
Residential) be forwarded to Public Hearing, noting that the conditions to
be met prior to Public Hearing and prior to final consideration of the
Zone Amending By-law are detailed in that report and that the
accompanying Official Community Plan Amending By-law be forwarded
to the same Public Hearing.
Discussion
Councillor King spoke against the proposal based on the remarks she had made at
Committee that it is premature and that Council needs to review Silver Valley in a
more comprehensive and holistic way. She has concerns related to storm water
management, Fisheries, transportation and public consultation.
Councillor Gordon agreed with Councillor King and added that she sat on Council
when the Official Community Plan (OCP) which included Silver Valley was
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page9
adopted and she clearly remembers that Council at that time said Silver Valley
would not become another Mary Hill By-pass. She did not support the adoption
of the plan at that time as she did not feel Council had the intestinal fortitude to
apply the regulations to ensure that promise was kept.
She further noted that many things have changed in Silver Valley after the OCP
was adopted. The Provincial east-west corridor was deleted and there are
numerous problems with the creek crossings in terms of Provincial and Federal
regulations. This will make the OCP designations rather strange as the area will
end up with strips of development up and down the mountain due to lack of
connections across the creeks. People will have no way of getting around.
Council needs to spend some time and re-look at the way development is being
done in that area.
Councillor Harris stated that he does not have any quarrel with re-visiting the
Silver Valley land use guide plans and agrees that it would be timely to review all
the development areas in a general way. However, he does not have any problem
with this application carrying on through the process as it conforms to the OCP
which exists to give certainty to people who want to make plans.
Councillor Morse noted that if this application proceeds to Public Hearing,
Council may be asked questions they have no answers for as they have not yet
done the comprehensive review. There is no margin for error if the application is
not right for Silver Valley.
The Mayor advised that he shares many of the concerns that have been raised by
the Councillors. He noted, however, that this application relates to several others
that have received third reading.
Councillor King noted that this particular application is only recommended to go
to Public Hearing and she would like to have a good look at the whole area before
Council entertains it.
Councillor Speirs agreed with Couricillor King. He noted that the application has
some good points but he cannot support it at this point.
Counciior Harris stated that if Council does not allow the application to proceed
they are in effect putting an implied freeze on development in the whole Silver
Valley area. He questioned if the freeze would also apply to Albion where there
have also been some concerns.
Councillor Morse agreed that Council would be putting a freeze on development
and feels that it is important to come to a resolution on that issue right now.
Councillor Gordon stated that there is nothing to compel Council to agree to any
development if they do not agree with it; it is Council's decision. Just because the
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 10
land is designated a certain way in the OCP does not mean Council has to vote in
favour of an application; if that were the case, there would be no need for a Public
Hearing process.
She added that carrying on with business as usual in Silver Valley is not good
enough for the residents of the area and certainly is not good enough for her. She
would like to have a small amount of time to look at Silver Valley which Council
is going to do next week.
Councillor King suggested deferring the application for a month.
Councillor Isaac asked if the application meets all the policies that are in place.
The Director of Current Planning advised that it meets Schedule "B" in terms of
the overall density regulations. Council is referring more to the overall OCP
policies as they affect Silver Valley. Council wants to review those policies.
Councillor Isaac questioned how long it would take for the application to go to
Public Hearing, the Planner advised that depending on how quickly the applicant
moves, it would probably be a month or two. It still has to receive first reading
and that is the event that propels it to Public Hearing.
MOVED by Councillor Morse
SECONDED by Councillor Gordon
that RZ/64/99 be deferred for four weeks pending further discussions on
the Silver Valley Land Use Guide Plan.
CARRIED
Councillor Harris OPPOSED.
09.02.02 RZ123196 - 13819 - 232 Street - Request for One Year Extension
Reference was made to the staff report dated December 21, 1999 recommending
that a one year extension be granted to the subject application to permit 500 units
under the CD-3-98 Zone using a combination of single family residential and
multi-family residential form of development.
R/00-40 MOVED by Councillor Isaac
RZ/23/96 SECONDED by Councillor King
On Year Extension
that pursuant to Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5632-
1997, that Application RZ/23/96 (13819 - 232 Street) be granted a one
year extension.
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 11
Discussion
Councillor King stated that she will support the extension as the proposal has
already received three readings. She has always had a huge amount of difficulty
with this application in terms of its size. In addition, there are issues related to the
urban-rural interface and the creek system that she does not feel have been
adequately addressed.
Councillor Gordon stated that she has fundamentally disagreed with this proposal
all along and she will not vote in favour of the extension. The most disturbing
issue to her with respect to the size of the proposal is that there is no provision for
it to keep coming back to the public for input during any of its built-out stages. It
could take 10 years for the development to be completed and the neighbourhood
would not have any further say during that time.
Councillor Speirs agreed with Councillor Gordon that the proposal needs ongoing
public scrutiny.
The motion CARRIED. Councillors Speirs and Gordon OPPOSED.
09.02.03 DP/66199 - Maple Ridge Town Centre Project - Leisure Centre and Youth
Centre
Reference was made to the staff report dated January 11, 2000 in support of the
following recommendation:
RI00-4 1 MOVED by Councillor Isaac
DP/66/99 SECONDED by Councillor King
that the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal DP/66/99
respecting property located at. 11995 Haney Place.
Discussion
Cduncffor Gordon noted that the R.C.M.P. has expressed concern to her about the
interface between the public facilities and Haney Place Mall. They are concerned
that each component be a safe place. .
The General Manager of Public Works and Development Services advised the
safety issue was raised at the Advisory Design Panel and was addressed by the
developer in two ways. The area in question is between the Mall and the existing
Leisure Centre. With respect to the addition to the Leisure Centre and the
construction of the Youth Centre, there was a concern expressed about hidden
corners, etc. where people may be out of sight. There were two responses made
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 12
by the developer which the District supports; (1) the area will be landscaped to
avoid that problem and (2) there will be windows placed on the south side of the
Leisure Centre which will provide visibility into the area in question.
He further advised that the area will have to be monitored in terms of security
and policing. The area lends itself well to the RCMP bicycle patrol squad. The
District looks forward to co-operation with the Mall owners. There are security
cameras in the area and it is anticipated that practice will continue.
The motion CARRIED.
09.02.04 D VP181199 - 20318 Dewdney Trunk Road
Reference was made to the staff report dated January 7, 2000 in support of the
following recommendation with respect to the subject application to permit a
variance in the rear yard setback.
RI00-42 MOVED by Councillor Morse
DVP/8 1/99 SECONDED by Councillor Gordon
20318 DTR
that the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property
owners that approval of DVP/8 1/99 respecting property located at 20318
Dewdney Trunk Road will be considered by Council at the February 15,
2000 meeting.
CARRIED
The Planner advised that an additional resolution is required with respect to the
registration of a cross-access agreement. He explained that back in the 1980's
this site and another were rezoned for commercial use. There was a requirement
for cross-access easement in the event that future subdivision occurred. Future
subdivision did occur but the cross-access easement was not finalized and the
District is requesting that this be done now.
R/00-43 MOVED by Councillor King
Cross Access Agt. SECONDED by Councillor Morse
re DVP/81/99
that as a condition of issuance of DVP/81/99, the property owner be
required to register a cross-access easement agreement that facilitates
cross property traffic movements with adjoining commercial
development.
CARRIED
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 13
09.02.05 DVP/80/99-2328lKanaka Way
Reference was made to the staff report dated January 11, 2000 in support of the
following recommendation with respect to the subject application to waive the
requirement to convert existing overhead wires on the north side of Kanaka Way.
RI00-44 MOVED by Councillor Gordon
DVP/80/99 SECONDED by Councillor Isaac
23281 Kanaka Way
that the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property
owners that approval of DVP/80199 respecting property located at 23281
Kanaka Way will be considered by Council at the February 15, 2000
meeting.
CARRIED
09.02.06 Soil Deposit Regulation Amending By-law No. 5881-2000
Reference was made to the staff report dated January 5, 2000 in support of the
following recommendation contained therein:
R!00-45 MOVED by Councillor King
BL 588 1-2000 SECONDED by Councillor Harris
Soil deposit reg.
that Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Amending By-law No. 5881-
2000 be read a first and second time and rules of order be waived and
Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Amending Bylaw No. 588 1-2000
be read a third time.
CARRIED
09.02.07 RZ135199 - 23853 Dewdney Trunk Road - By-laws 5843 and 5842-1999
Reference was made to the staff report dated December 10, 1999 recommending
that the subject by-laws to permit a gasoline bar, convenience store with resident
and a commercial building be read a first time. -
Note: This item was deferred from the Council Meeting of January 11, 2000
pending consideration of additional information provided by staff.
RI00-46 MOVED by Councillor King
BL 5843-1999 SECONDED by Councillor Harris
first reading
that Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5842-1999 be read a first
time.
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 14
Discussion
Councillor Speirs advised that he has heard considerable comments from the
neighbours about the interface between the proposed development and the
residences directly to the north. He feels that Council has to look at another
cross-access agreement in some way. If the development is going to proceed, he
wants a way to provide safe access to the children going to school. It is important
to get it in place before this application is finalized.
The Mayor questioned if there is any provision for a traffic control device at this
intersection.
The Director of Current Planning displayed an overhead of the development site
and surrounding area. He explained that pedestrian signals are installed on a
warrant basis and a pedestrian signal may be warranted at the intersection as the
school develops.
At the request of Councillor King, the Director of Current Planning explained
how the proposal has been revised in terms of buffering and latidscaping to reflect
concerns that were raised regarding the impact of the development on the adjacent
residential area. He noted that the drive-through originally proposed has been
eliminated.
Councillor King asked what guarantee there is that a drive-through will not be
constructed at a later date.
The Director of Current Planning responded that there will be a Development
Permit coming back to Council for approval. The developer will have to conform
to the guidelines of the Development Permit. There is an opportunity for a
restrictive covenant to be placed on the property to prohibit a drive-through which
is something Council may wish to consider.
Councillor King questioned if any controls can be placed on the hours of
operation. The Director of Current Planning advised that in another development,
the operator volunteered to restrict his hours of operation and that can be
discussed with the operator or owner of this property. It may be premature at this
point to have that discussion as the applicant does not yet have s firm leasing
arrangement in place.
Councillor King noted that she has been particularly concerned about 24 hour
commercial operations adjacent to residential areas. She will support the
application going to Public Hearing in order to hear what the neighbourhood has
to say.
Councillor Harris expressed support for a cross-access agreement which he feels
will achieve a more effective iriterface between the commercial and residential
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000 I Pagel5
use. He will support the application carrying on to Public Hearing but would like
to see the cross-access easement concept explored more fully.
The motion CARRIED.
RJ00-47 MOVED by Councillor Harris
BL 5843-1999 SECONDED by Councillor
first reading
that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending By-law No. 5 843-
1999 be read a first time.
CARRIED
09.03 Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Police)
09.03.0 1 B. C. Hydro Recycling Levies
Reference was made to the staff report dated December 14, 1999 in support of the
following recommendation:
P100-48 MOVED by Councillor Morse
BC Hydro SECONDED by Councillor Gordon
refund denied
that the staff report dated December 14, 1999 and the letter from B C.
Hydro dated July 8, 1999 attached thereto requesting a refund in the
amount of $235.90 with respect to waiving the annual 1999 recyling levy
on 14 properties be received; and further
that the request be denied.
[l.1KW
09.03.02 Adjustments to the 1999 Collector's Roll - Reports for Information Purposes:
Reference was made to the staff reports dated January 4, 2000, December 14,
1999 and eight reports dated December 8, 1999 advising of tax adjustments as
detailed in the reports.
P100-49 MOVED by Councillor Morse
Adjust. to SECONDED by Councillor King
Collector Rolls
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 16
that the eight reports submitted to the Committee of the Whole Meeting
of January 17, 2000 entitled Adjustments to 1999 Collector's Roll be
received for information.
CARRIED
09.03.03 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisoiy Committee (LMTAC) - Endorsement of First
Principles for Treaty Negotiations
Reference was made to the report from Municipal Clerk dated January 12, 2000
in support of the following recommendation:
P100-50
LMTAC
First Principles
MOVED by Councillor Isaac
SECONDED by Councillor Gordon
that the staff report entitled Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee
First Principles dated January 12, 2000 be received for information.
Discussion
Councillor Gordon noted that she read out the First Principles at a previous
Council meeting. These are the fundamental policy statements that establish the
basis on which specific local government interests will be expressed at the treaty
negotiation tables. She is pleased to advise that the Committee has endorsed the
First Principles and looks forward to this piece of work coming to fruition.
The motion CARRIED.
09.03.04 Question Period
Reference was made to the report from Municipal Clerk dated January 25, 2000 in
support of the following recommendation
P100-51 MOVED by Councillor Isaac
Question Period SECONDED by Councillor King
that the staff report entitled Question Period dated January 11, 2000 be
received for information.
CARRIED
09.04 Community Development and Recreation Service Nil
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 17
09.04.0 1 Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues - By-law Amendment
Reference was made to the staff report dated December 20, 1999 in support of the
following recommendation:
RI00-52 MOVED by Councillor Isaac
BL 5 845-1999 SECONDED by Councillor King
three readings
that Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on
Accessibility Issues Amending By-law No. 5845-1999 be read a first and
second time and rules of order be waived and Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows
Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Amending By-
law No. 5845-1999 be read a third time.
CARRIED
09.05 Other Committee Issues Nil
10 MAYOR'S REPORTS
10.1 Chamber of Commerce Matters
Mayor Hogarth reported that he had the pleasure of installing the new executive
of the Maple Ridge Chamber of Commerce and attending the Business Excellence
Awards Banquet on January 22, 2000. He wished the incoming President, Bail
Findlay, and the new executive the best of luck.
The District of Maple Ridge was represented at the awards banquet by the
nomination of several Municipal staff members. Bob Robertson, Chief
Administrative Officer, was nominated for Customer Service Excellence. Mike
Murray, General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation
Services, was nominated for Community Booster of the Year.
The Mayor noted that the highlight of the evening from his perspective was Diana
Dalton, the Municipality's receptionist, winniug the Customer Service Excellence
Award. He commended Mrs. Dalton on her friendliness and professionalism and
stated that he honestly cannot think of anyone in Maple Ridge who is more
deserving of that honour.
He congratulated everyone who was nominated for an award and those who won.
Former Councillor Betty Levens and former Mayor Carl Durksen were nominated
for Community Booster and he was pleased to see that Carl Durksen won that
honour. He congratulated Betty and Carl.
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 18
The District was also recognized for its sponsorship of Home Based Business
initiatives and more work is planned in that area in the near future.
10.2 Update on Council and StaffActivities
Mayor Hogarth advised that he has really come to appreciate the work of staff
since the election. All the staff has displayed tremendous willingness to help and
patience with Council in providing background information. There is an excellent
base of technical knowledge in our Municipality that is recognized throughout the
world. Our Chief Administrative Officer, Bob Robertson, for example, serves on
the International City Managers Association and American Economic
Development Council Boards. He is also representing this community, at no
expense to the taxpayers, at an upcoming International conference dealing with
business planning and performance measures. Council is very well served by the
staff and appreciates their extra efforts during Council's orientation period.
Newly elected Councillors will be attending an extensive seminar starting
tomorrow that is being hosted by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities
(iJBCM). Work with Advisory Committees and the Greater Vancouver Regional
District has just begun. Most importantly, this Council continues to ask staff for
information on local issues and is starting to develop an agenda and mandate for
this term of office.
11 CO UNCILLORS' REPORTS
Councillor J. Harris
Councillor Harris noted the passing of Mr. Bob Scobie, who was a Notary Public in
Maple Ridge for many years. Mr. Scobie was a good friend to the Municipality and
served on many Committees.
He added that Council has had many meetings and discussions and is working hard.
Councillor C. Gordon
Councillor Gordon reported on her attendance at the following meetings in the social
services sector:
HIV, AIDS and Hepatitis C Meeting
There are no services for this segment of our population. The Health Region is
providing a $10,000 grant to do some research to determine a demographic health
profile of their health needs in order to do some future planning.
4)
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 19
Food Networking Meeting
The community event Food for All will take place on March 4th at the Haney Place
Mall.
A report tabled in Ottawa today shows that the 1990's have not been kind to children.
50% of the people using food banks are children and homelessness of families is an
increasing problem.
Child, Youth and Family Networking Meeting
The establishment of a Youth Suicide Prevention Protocol in this area is being
explored. Youth currently have to go outside this area for that service.
Ministry of Families and Children 's Services Meeting
Maple Ridge now has a part time Immigration Settlement worker.
CouncillorK. Morse
Councillor Morse attended a Emergency Planning Seminar and was pleased to learn
that Maple Ridge is far ahead of many other Municipalities in its emergency planing.
This is due in large part to our Search and Rescue organization.
The Advisory Design Panel will be meeting on February 3rd.
The Communities in Bloom Committee is carrying on in its bid for independence and
looking a various projects.
She will be attending her first Youth Advisory Committee meeting next Tuesday.
CouniliütF.Isiãc
Councillor Isaac attended an orientation meeting of the G.V.R.D. Labour Relations
Bureau along with Councillor Gordon.
Councillor C. Speirs
Councillor Speirs met with the Arts Council and they are working on the final details
of the new Arts Centre design.
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 20
He will be attending an Arts and Cultural policy Committee meeting shortly.
CouncillorL. King
Councillor King attended an Accessibility Committee Meeting, an E-Comm meeting
and a working lunch with B. C. Hydro.
She referred to Councillor Gordon's comments on food sources and advised that
Maple Ridge has submitted a resolution to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
with respect to labelling of genetically altered foodstuffs.
She advised that there is a new exhibit at the Arts Gallery which is now temporarily
located in Haney Plaza on Dewdney Trunk Road.
A Heritage Plaquing ceremony is scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on February 12, 2000 at
the Fraser Information (CEED) Centre.
12 OTHER MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT Nil
13 NOTICES OF MOTION Nil
14 ADJOURNMENT 9:15p.m.
15 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
The Municipal Clerk read the following rules governing the Question Period:
• Questions will be taken on any item on the Agenda with the exception of Public
Hearing by-laws which have not yet reached conclusion.
• The Question Period is limited to 15 minutes with a maximum of 2 minutes for
each question.
• The Municipal Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at
Council or staff.
• If a member of the public has a concern related to a Municipal staff member, it
should be brought to the attention of the Chief Administrative Officer in a private
meeting.
Council Meeting Minutes
• January 25, 2000
Page 21
• The decision to televise the Question Period is subject to review..
• Other opportunities to address Council may be available through the office of the
Municipal Clerk who can be contacted at 463-5221.
• . If a question cannot be answered, it will be responded to at a later date at a
subsequent Council Meeting.
Questions
15.1 Rezoning Application RZ135199 - 23853 Dewdney Trunk Road - RS-3 to CS-i
A speaker who did not identif,' himself advised that his property backs onto the
proposed development. He questioned if there is a restriction on the number of
gasoline stations per kilometer.
The Chief Administrative Officer responded that the District does not do zoning to
regulate commercial development.
Mr. Mike Stefiuk advised that his property backs onto the property in question. He
asked why it is necessary to change the zoning on this property, noting that there is a
piece of property at Dewdney Trunk Road and 240 Street which he feels is an ideal
spot for a gasoline station.
The Mayor responded that the property in question is designated for commercial
development on the Official Community Plan.
The General Manager of Public Works and Development Services added that anyone
can apply for rezoning as it is within their rights to do so.
The speaker question if the lane will continue right through.
The Mayor responded in the affirmative.
The Chief Administrative Officer advised that questions of this type are more
appropriate -for-the- Public Hearing at which time parties both for, and against the
proposal will have an opportunity to be heard at the same time.
Ms. Rory Caidwell of 23823 - 120B Avenue referred to a letter she had sent to
Council dated January 25, 2000 in opposition to the proposed development.
She questioned how many Council members had read the staff report with respect to
buffering. The Mayor advised that he can safely say that all of Council has read it.
Council Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2000
Page 22
Ms. Caidwell questioned what the distance is for sending out Public Hearing Notices,
noting that only 8 homes out of a total of 26 in her subdivision received the letter of
notification.
The Director of Current Planning confirmed that notices are sent out within a radius
of 50 metres in compliance with Municipal Act regulations.
15.2 Municipal Golf Course
Mr. Norman Morton asked Council to consider building a new Municipal Golf
Course as he feels that the existing one is inadequate.
The Mayor advised that Council can take Mr. Morton's request under advisement:
Mayor
Certified Correct
Municipal Clerk