Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-22 Council Meeting Agenda and ReportsCorporation of the District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL MEETING A GENDA January 22, 2002 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 100 CALL TO ORDER 200 OPENING PRA YERS Pastor Em Brake 300 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 400 ADOPTION OF MINUTES 401 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 8, 2002 and the Special Council of January 14, 2002 402 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meeting of January 8, 2002 500 DELEGATIONS 501 The New Health Issue Manual, Jean Ticehurst, Laura Wood 502 RCMP School Liaison Program, Constable Toichard 503 TransLink Fraser River Crossing p Page 1 /1 Council Meeting Agenda January 22, 2002 Council Chamber Page 2 of 6 600 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 700 CORRESPONDENCE 701 CUPE BC, Submission to the Community Charter Council Letter dated December 28, 2001 from Barry O'Neill, President, providing a copy of the submission from the BC Division of CUPE to the Community Charter Council. 800 BY-LAWS 801 Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction & Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5988-2001, 10188 - 240 Street final reading (to permit inclusion of subject property into Sewer Area "A") 802 Maple Ridge Water Service Bylaw No. 6002-2001 final reading (to update the water bylaw and establish a new rate structure) 803 RZ/42/01, 22284 Lougheed Highway, Chevron Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5992-2001 final reading (to rezone from C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) and CS-2 (Service Station Commercial) to CD-2-85 (Comprehensive Development) to permit a drive- through restaurant use on the rear portion of the site. Report to be circulated separately.) Council Meeting Agenda January 22, 2002 Council Chamber Page 3 of 6 COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 900 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 901 Minutes - January 14, 2001 The following issues were considered at an earlier 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. The Committee concurred with the staff recommendations unless otherwise noted below. Public Works and Development Services 902 RZ/01/02, 22188 Lougheed Highway - Amendment to Restrictive Covenant Staff report dated January 9, 2002 recommending that an amendment to Restrictive Covenant X133412 to add Church institutional including accessory temporary accommodation and kitchen facility to the list of uses be forwarded to Public Hearing. 903 RZ/68/01, Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5990-2001 Staff report dated December 18, 2001 recommending that the subject bylaw to make text amendments to the regulations controlling the height and mass of residential dwellings be given third reading. Two recommendations were made as follows: 903.1 That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-2001 be read a third time. 903.2 That pursuant to Option 3of the staff reportdated December 18, 2001, staff be directed to consider building height restrictions currently contained in Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as a future project. Council Meeting Agenda January 22, 2002 Council Chamber Page 4 of 6 904 Soil Conservation Act - Exemption, 12620254th Street Staff report dated October 25, 2001 recommending that an exemption to place fill at 12620254th Street for cultivation purposes be granted. The recommendation was amended to include inspection of the site by District staff as a condition of the exemption. 905 Review of Public Information Meeting and Posting of Rezoning Signs Policies Staff report dated December 3, 2001 recommending that the Development Information Meetings Policy and Development Sign Specifications Policy be adopted. 906 Excess Capacity/Extended Services Agreement, LC79/01; SD 34/97, 235 Street and Larch Avenue Staff report dated January 4, 2002 recommending that Latecomer Charges be imposed on the benefiting lands. 907 DVP/57/00, Ritchie Avenue North of 117 Avenue Staff report dated December 10, 2001 recommending that qualifying property owners be notified that the subject application to defer the requirement for street trees on an isolated undeveloped portion of the proposed subdivision will be considered at the February 12, 2002 Council Meeting. 908 RZ-20-01, 248" Street and 100th Avenue, First Reading Bylaw No. 601 2-2002 Staff report dated January 9, 2002 recommending that the subject bylaw to rezone from A-2 (Upland Agriculture) to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to enable subdivision into 4 four lots be given first reading. 909 RZ/82/99, 11518 & 11526 Burnett St., One Year Extension Staff report dated January 10, 2002 recommending that the subject application for 8 townhouse units and a parking area for a neighbouring commercial building be Council Meeting Agenda January 22, 2002 Council Chamber Page 5 of 6 Financial and Corporate Services (includinif Fire and Police) 931 Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control By-law Amendment Staff report dated December 24, 2001 recommending that By-law No. 6004-2001 to be given three readings. 932 FCM Resolutions Staff report dated January 9, 2002 recommending the adoption of two resolutions. This item was dealt with at the Special Council Meeting of January 14, 2002. 933 Provincial Government Cutbacks Staff report dated January 9, 2002 recommending the adoption of a resolution as a result of a request and a delegation regarding the proposed Provincial Government funding and program reductions. This item was dealt with at the Special Council Meeting of January 14, 2002. Comm unity Development and Recreation Service 951 Emergency Program Report Staff report dated January 7, 2002 providing information on the resources available for emergency planning with regard to cost sharing between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Other Committee Issues - Nil Correspondence - Nil 1000 STAFFREPORTS 1001 Community Heritage Commission Staff report dated January 16, 2002 recommending that Ms. Lisa Codd be appointed to the Community Heritage Commission as a Special Citizen Member. Council Meeting Agenda January 22, 2002 Council Chamber Page 6 of 6 1002 Strategic Considerations for a New British Columbia Energy Policy - Interim Report of the Task Force on Energy Policy Staff report to be circulated separately. 1098 MAYOR'SREPORT 1099 COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 1100 OTHER MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 1200 NOTICES OF MOTION 1300 ADJOURNMENT 1400 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD The purpose of the Question Period is to provide the public with an opportunity to seek clarification about an item on the agenda, with the exception of Public Hearing by-laws which have not yet reached conclusion. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. 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 andlor Chief Administrative Officer in a private meeting. The decision to televise the Question Period is subject to review. 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. If a question cannot be answered, it will be responded to at a later date at a subsequent Council Meeting. Municipal Clerk who can be contacted at (604) 463-5221. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE MINUTES January 8, 2002 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Mayor Al Hogarth Chairman R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Member K. Kirk, Recording Secretary 1. SD/45/01 LEGAL: LOCATION: OWNER: REQUIRED AGREEMENTS Lots 1,2 & 3; District Lot 402, Group 1, NWD 11553 Burnett Russell & Deborah Jansen Subdivision Servicing Agreement Restrictive Covenant - Statutory R-O-W (Storm Water Management) THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING DOCUMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO SD/45/01. CARRI R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Member y0'. w c'I / 2 /1662-86 11703 —J 3 LMS804 U- i LMS 1172 I.- N N 9 11672 0_ o 4 11669 8 5 11662 11661 7 CT N N ) N N 1 11678 I 222875 I C\ 11686 242 I \ 1161 1680 17 P 12197 ' 239 1663 I CT 11 ' ' C 1 S F,! \ aI 151! GILLEY AVE 11646 _/ 10 0 P 12197 11655 \ IN! \ 241 \d\\1841 1 F- (N CN 651 P 1553 N '- N '- N F- 651 11632 2 114 N N N 651 P12316 6 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 EP12951 I 1 1633 P16011 ' B Rem. 11621 a L P5 97 1 P12316 5 9) 10 12 p.. P14406' 2 8 A11607 i 2 9 7 I i2 13 - RP 13279 22908/10 22904/06 3 - 22790 LO a. 6 ' 22782 _ 10 11597 14 ° 16 15 A 9 1- NWS 3378 P 16473 1 1585 CO SUBJECT PROPERTY 8 '. 19 Lu 1IS75 Z P 83761 20 11567 %21 " co 2 LMP 4970 1553 1 1 LMP 30408 22 B LMP 48047 _______j__•__) 11580 -____J_----- 116 AVE ho LMS2114 Rem i 11526 P 12274 11519 1154 0 11518 LMP 12216 E 11538 LMS 1391 1 36 4 11534 it 3 00 co 1149 1 1158 to 0) 5 I— P83811 11524 1748 1 C/) 11520 11516 6 LU N.) 11471 11464 11502 N.) 11510 00 MP cr I 5406 11506 11496 The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 114 PcI. A I makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or P 71276 present status of the information shown on $ 11492 this map. j114 N DISIPICT OF PITT MEA9.OJØIL.._. Lot 2, LMP49706 I O(S IC TSTOF SCALE: 1:2,500 KEY MAP CORPORATION OF _ MAPLE RIDGE THORNHILL Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT T12 4 DATE: Jan 7 2002 FILE: SD-45-01 BY: RS J33-o/ RIKTI CANADIAN UNION OF PUBUC EMPLOYEES BRFI1SH COLUMBIA DMSION 510- 4940 Canada Way, Burnaby, British Columbia V5G 4T3 www.cupe.bc.ca Tel: 604-291-9119 Fax: 604-291-9043 December 28,2001 His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth & Council• District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney P1 Maple Ridge BC V2)( 6A9 Dear Mayor.& Council: ArkSnt gj Fax Msf I D Email 011P,oplmt to M & C U Ron lirij Fib J' Xo: ~f:nrt on1a Ioto repan Roport. (I o Stalf to Rapond Otrocily ivtth acc to M & C U Please find attached a copy of the submission from the BC Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) to the Community Charter Council. Across BC CUPE represents 25,000 men and women who work delivering municipal services. While we sometimes have disagreements with local governments we believe our members are partners with you in delivering those services where we represent your workers. We have serious concerns about the way in which the Charter is being written and about some of the directions it appears to be taking. CUPE believes the consultation process has been too closed so far and that opening the consultation after the legislation is written is too late. More concretely, we are concerned that the carefully worded language of the promise not to download leaves far too much room for costs to be pushed onto local governments. We are already seeing this happen with policing and museums. Finally, we are concerned about the promise of a more business-based model of accountability. British Columbians in our communities are customers of municipal services. In many senses your employees and many other members of our communities are partners with local governments. Above all, however, they are citizens and this implies much more than can be covered by annual reports and annual meetings. We hope you will find our submission of interest and will share some of our concerns. Yours sincerely1 President BON/LC OPEIU-1 5 ENCLOSURE (1) F:MOI%Letters\Barr)Amayorscoun.frm.doc Bariy O'Neffl, President Colleen Jordan, Secretary-Treasurer 70/ Brief to the Community Charter Committee on The Community Charter: The Future of Local Government In British Columbia CUPE Submitted by the Canadian Union of Publib Employees •BCDivisio.n December 1, 2001 Brief to the Community Charter Committee on The Community Charter: The Future of Local Government in British Columbia By the Canadian Union of Public Employees, BC Division December 1, 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) BC Division represents 25,000 workers in local governments across British Columbia delivering all aspects of local services. • CUPE has serious concerns about the consultation process that is leading to the creation of the Community Charter. Writing of legislation should follow consultation with the broad public, not precede it. • Establishment of local governments as a new "order of government" will have very different impacts on local governments. Municipalities will be affected by their size and capacity. The provincial government should assume financial responsibility for transition costs and for any litigation that may arise from a new Community Charter. • The provincial government has promised to ban "offloading," however their definition of offloading is narrow and misleading. No new service delivery should be imposed on municipalities without their consent. Reduction in provincial finding for needed local services should be included in the definition of offloading. • The Community Charter Council should oppose provisions for cutting taxes for business that would place local governments in a destructive competition with one another. • Changes in powers for local governments should not be used to impose a provincial priority of having services delivered by business rather than delivered by local governments. • The Community Charter Council should stress to the provincial government that being a citizen is not the.same as being a customer or a shareholder. 2 INTRODUCTION The BC Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) would like to comment on the development of a new Community Charter to establish the structure of local government in British Columbia. CUPE is making this submission despite the fact there has been no call for public participation. While recognizing that consultation is planned after the legislation is drafted, CUPE believes that this is too late. The place for public input on this critical issue is before the legislation is drafted and accepted by the government as a priority. CUPE BC has a critical interest in this issue. We represent 25,000 men and women who deliver municipal services in this province. Our members deliver financial and human resources services as accountants, buyers, clerks and cashiers. They design and manage the computer systems and enforce the bylaws. CUPE members are engineers, inspectors, appraisers and negotiators. We work in transit systems and in some cases manage electrical utilities. Our members work to build better communities as planners and community development officers. CUPE members keep our communities safe, clean and functioning as labourers, equipment operators and skilled trades people. Working in parks and recreation centers CUPE members make our communities better places to live. As workers in critical areas like water operations and building inspections, they ensure the safety of all our citizens. These CUPE members know what it takes to run a successful community, but they have an even bigger stake in the issue of how local governments work. CUPE members are citizens, customers of local services and taxpayers. They are partners in delivering services in our communities. It is in these roles that CUPE members, and all other British Columbians, deserve a greater say than they have been permitted in the development of a new framework for local government. CUPE supports steps being taken to build the capacity of our local governments to deliver services. We have profound concerns, however, regarding some of the directions that have been suggested for the new Community Charter. Language being used by the provincial government suggests wonderful opportunities for local governments. The community Charter Council must look beyond the surface and identif' where real problems exist. 3 Recommendations The Community Charter Council should recommend to government that a full public consultation take place on the future of local governments before a Bifi is drafted, not after. The Community Charter Council should examine ways in which new legislation could be introduced flexibly recognizing that different local governments have different levels of capacity to act as an "order of government". This might involve phasing in or offering different levels of provincial services where they are wanted or required. The Community Charter Council should recommend that no staffing cuts be made in the provincial Ministry until such time as new legislation is fully implemented and that the provincial government should provide transitional funding to municipalities to assist them in conforming with new legislation. The Community Charter Council should recommend that the provincial government assume responsibility for the cost of any litigation arising from the new Community Charter until such time as an adequate body of jurisprudence has been developed regarding its provisions. The Community Charter Council should recommend that the provincial government make stronger commitments regarding offloading. Offloading should include assignment of any new responsibilities. It should also include reductions in provincial funding for programs necessary in communities. The Community Charter Council should recommend against allowing tax concessions to encourage the establishment of new business or to head off local business layoffs. Such concessions should be the responsibility of the provincial government and should be delivered on a regional, not a local government level. The Community Charter Council should recommend any new local government legislation not be used to impose a provincial government view of how services should be delivered. Further, the Community Charter Council should recommend that the provincial government not impose the restrictions of the Agreement on Internal Trade on local government procurement. The Community Charter Council should recommend the provincial government not undermine any accountability mechanisms, including counter petitions, which permit local residents a full say in how services are delivered in their community. The Community-Charter Council should make clear to government that a local government is not a business and that the complicated relationship of residents as customers, partners but first and foremost citizens must be recognized. 4 CONSULTATION: NOBODY'S LISTENING The provincial government, as part of its New Era Document, committed itself to revising legislation controlling local govermnent in British Columbia. So far the process for this change has not been inclusive. The Community Charter Council was created by legislation to draft this new Charter. Material before the Council has been kept secret. Consultations have been held exclusively with local governments. There has been no room for the public at the table. According to the "consultation" document, the following timetable will be followed: "Timetable Regional consultations October to November 2001 Interim CCC report to Cabinet January 15, 2001 Draft Charter tabled in Legislative Assembly In white paper form February 2001 Public consultation March to Mid-June 2001 Final CCC report to Cabinet July, 2002 Introduction of Community Charter in the Legislative Assembly for enactment."t Fall Session, 2002 British Columbians should be suspicious of this process. First, the Charter Council is drawn from an extremely narrow group of people. The Charter Council represents municipal politicians, provincial politicians and provincial bureaucrats. No one sits on the Charter Council representing the needs of people receiving services from communities. There are no representatives of the people who actually work delivering services in our communities. There are no representatives of the hundred of other groups that make up our communities. This timetable specifically cuts the public out of the important early stages of discussion of the Charter. The Autumn 2001 discussions were for municipal politicians only. The public was not invited. When this issue was raised in conversations at the UBCM convention, provincial officials suggested the public might be able to "sit in the audience." Minister Nebbeling said that people could write letters, but that there was no room on the Charter Council for "special interest groups." fthe door was closed to public discussions at the early- stages, how-rnuc-h room-is there- for the public to influence decisions in 2002? As early as August, Community Charter Minister Ted • Nebbeling said the Charter Committee would seek input in several cities, however he added, "I think 95 percent of theCharter will be adopted as it's written now."2 Providing more detail, -Minister Nebbeling told the Vancouver Courier that the Charter will have only about 200 sections compared to 1,130 sections in the 1999 Local Government Act. Minister The Community Charter: A Discussion Paper, BC Minister of State for Community Charter, October 2001. Vancouver Courier, Weduesday, August 08, 2001 Nebbeling went on to tell the UBCM at their convention in September that he felt the Bill distributed in February would be very close to the final product. In short, nothing the government or the Charter Committee has done to date gives any reason to believe the public will be able to have any impact whatsoever on the Community Charter. The provincial government says it is creating a "new order of government" for all British Columbians yet it is offering no genuine input for the people of British Columbia. Municipal politicians have a critical role to play in the development of new laws governing our communities. The French political thinker Georges Clemenceau said, "War is too important to be left to the generals." In the same vein the creation of a new order of local government is too important to be managed solely by politicians and bureaucrats. It must be open to broad consultation in all its phases. Recommendation: The Community Charter Council should recommend to government that a full public consultation take place on the future of local governments before a Bill is drafted, not after. A NEW ORDER OF GOVERNMENT: WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS? The plans for a Community Charter mean a great deal more than simply giving towns and cities in British Columbia more powers. It means giving them a great deal more responsibility. And even in those cases where communities will have more opportunities, these opportunities will require work and skills that may not be available. The Community Charter discussion paper says that it will reinforce in law that municipalities are an order of government without really discussing in detail how many municipalities will have the resources to act as an order of government. As of 1997 there were at least 75 organized communities in BC with a population of less than 5,000 (see appendix A). What does it mean for a small community when the consultation paper says the Charter "will enable municipalities to become more self reliant by providing them with greater autonomy, independence, new powers and better financial and other tools for governing communities and delivering services?"3 The Consultation Paper offers local governments broad powers to determine what services to provide and how to deliver them. But it appears to offer little in the way of support to those communities in providing those services. At the UBCM provincial officials talked of how Ministry staff would have less of an overview function and would work with communities offering information on how to work under the Community Charter. The consultation paper says that the "Community Charter proposes a shift from an emphasis on giving provincial approval to The Community Charter: A Discussion Paper, BC Minister of State for Community Charter, October 2001, page 4. providing high quality advise and assistance to local governments."4 However, in the Estimates for the fiscal year ending in March 2002 the former Ministry of Municipal Affairs is shown as having 425 employees.5 Under the current government's expenditure reduction plan this Ministry, like others, will be cut by between 20 and 50 per cent.6 In other words, it is likely that the Municipal Affairs function in government may have as few as 200 full time equivalent employees by 2002. The resources will simply not be there for "high quality advice and assistance." With a new law governing municipalities, this sort of support could be particularly critical to a smaller community. The current local government act offers broad powers, however, it also stipulates in detail that certain activities may be undertaken. The new Community Charter will dramatically reduce the size of the legislation (according to Minister Nebbeling) working instead with broader powers and generalizations. Moving to broader language will open the door to ambiguities. Ambiguity, as all local governments have found, leads to legal challenges and a lack of continuity. More broadly crafted municipal legislation will lead to a greater reliance on litigation. This will lead to increased financial burdens that will be particularly difficult for small communities. There is no indication in any of the Community Charter documents that any support will be offered to communities facing litigation arising from the new Charter. And it appears there will be few people in the provincial government to provide "high quality advice and assistance" that might avoid litigation. Recommendation The Community Charter Council should examine ways in which new legislation could be introduced flexibly recognizing that different local governments have different levels of capacity to act as an "order of government". This might involve phasing in or offering different levels of provincial services where they are wanted or required. The Community Charter Council should recommend that no staffing cuts be made in the provincial Ministry until such time as new legislation is fully implemented and that the provincial government should provide transitional funding to municipalities to assist them in conforming with new legislation. The Community Charter Council should recommend that the provincial government assume responsibility for the cost of any litigation arising from the new Community Charter until such time as an adequate body of jurisprudence has been developed regarding its provisions. The Community Charter: A Discussion Paper, BC Minister of State for Community Charter, October 2001, page 16 Estimates: Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2002, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Affairs, Government of British Columbia, page 193. 6 Premier Gordon Campbell, Speech to the UBCM Annual Convention, September 2001 7 OFFLOADING - A DEFINITION SO NARROW AS TO BE MEANINGLESS Offloading has been a major issue for BC municipalities. In the past the provincial government has cut its grants to towns and cities while at the same time cutting support for other programs that local governments could not do without. Local governments had high hopes from the Liberal New Era Document, which promised to "Outlaw 'offloading' of provincial government costs onto the backs of local property taxpayers."7 This promise was outlined more clearly in a consultation document presented to the UBCM convention on September 26, 2001. Offloading was defined as: "Proposals ' To assign new duties to a municipality, or > Require a municipality to act in relation to a matter in respect of which the province previously acted To vacate a field and leave it to a municipality."8 A close examination of this promise finds it to be incredibly narrow in two important ways. First the definition of offloading by the province is the assignment of new responsibilities without required resources. The provincial government has specifically exempted from this definition a situation where the province simply cuts its own funding for a service needed locally without abandoning the field altogether. This issue was raised at the UBCM convention when Minister Nebbeling was asked about provincial cuts for funding to museums that local governments might be forced to pick up. The Minister denied this met the definition of offloading because no new responsibility had been assigned. Similar questions have been raised about police funding, particularly for rural areas and small communities. Solicitor General Rich Coleman has said the province is reviewing the current police funding formula that sees the province paying policing costs for electoral areas and communities under 5,000 population.9 On November 20 the Mayor of the Village of Belcarra wrote to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In his letter he protested any course of action that would transfer policing costs to small communities.10 The transfer of policing costs may also affect larger communities. One of the strategies being considered is the costing back to RCMP detachments of operating expenses of provincial units assisting local investigations. In one investigation the Provincial Undercover Unit and the Unsolved Homicide Unit incurred costs of more than $70,000. In future there is the possibility for as much as 90 per cent of these costs to be costed back to a municipality. Liberal Party election 2001 New Era document, page 9 8 Community Charter Consultation Phase 1: Some selected highlights of the Proposed Community Charter for initial discussion purposes, Ministry of State for Community Charter, September 26, 2001. Funding formula for policing costs in BC communities under review, CiviclnfoBC, October 31, 2001 Drew, Mayor of Belcarra, correspondence to Hon. Rich Coleman, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor Gencral, November 23, 2001. Because this is not a transfer of a new responsibility, this shifting of costs to local governments would escape the province's definition of "offloading." Policing has the potential to be a huge cost burden shifted to local governments but it is only one of many. The province is committed to cutting 20 to 50 per cent from Ministry budgets aside from health care and education. The Ministry of Children and Family Development alone spends $1 billion annually for contracted community services meeting vital needs in our communities. Thanks to previous provincial cuts local governments are already spending far more than they ever did on such services as homeless shelters, transition homes, women's shelters and other services. Some local governments are contributing to or are looking at contributing to detox services. Local governments will be forced to pick up at least a portion of these costs in the interest of protecting the quality of life in their communities. Again, this will avoid the province's definition of "offloading." There is still another aspect where the careful wording of the New Era Document has left the door open to even further offloading. The election commitment was no offloading "on the backs of property taxpayers." Community Charter discussions, however, focus heavily on new areas of revenue for local governments. For example, "The Community Charter proposes to introduce new flexibility such as the power to earn revenues from water, sewage, and sewage treatment services."1 The province could force local governments to take greater responsibility in the area of water safety to be paid for from water fees. This would not be on the backs of property taxpayers and so "offloading" promise would still not be broken. As they currently stand, Community Charter discussions on "offloading" are almost meaningless. Recommendation: The Community Charter Council should recommend that the provincial government make stronger commitments regarding offloading. Offloading should include assignment of any new responsibilities. It should also include reductions in provincial funding for programs necessary in communities. TAX EXEMPTIONS - BRINGING THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM HOME One element of proposals for the Community Charter will make it even more difficult for local governments to raise money for needed services. The Charter consultation document proposes to allow new tax exemptions to businesses to stimulate new activity or "as a hedge against threatened job loss.I2 This proposal is superficially appealing. One could imagine a local govenmient cutting taxes for a business facing possible shutdown. The proposal, however, opens 11 The Community Charter: A Discussion Paper, BC Minister of State for Community Charter, October 2001, page 14 12 The Community Charter: A Discussion Paper, BC Minister of State for Community Charter, October 2001, page 16. local governments to "cutThroat" competition. It offers business the potential to "leapfrog" among communities to get the best offer. In the past years we have seen provinces cut their taxes in a race to the bottom that would allow them to say they had the lowest tax levels. Business was the winner; services were the loser. This proposal would force local governments to go in the same direction. A municipality that gave tax relief to an enterprise to encourage it to establish itself would force surrounding municipalities to do the same. Municipalities serving primary industries would have businesses lined up for concessions that would be harder to refuse as competing districts bought in. The final result would be less money for services without any gain in competition. If everyone cuts their taxes, there is no competitive improvement for anyone. There is only a loss of revenues and a concurrent reduction in services. While we have seen some situations in the past where tax concessions have been granted, these concessions have been brokered through the provincial involvement of agencies such as the Job Protection Commission. Under the Job Protection Act property taxes may be deferred or amended under certain circumstances. This has happened in a number of communities. This is the model that should be followed, not a model of aggressive competition between communities. Recommendation The Community Charter Council should recommend against allowing tax concessions to encourage the establishment of new business or to head off local business layoffs. Such concessions should be the responsibility of the provincial government and should be delivered on a regional, not a local government level. GRANTING NEW POWERS- CUT ONLY THE ONES THE PROVINCE AGREES WITH Discussion surround the new Community Charter has been largely couched in terms of new powers and flexibility it would provide for local governments. The Charter consultation document promises to "enable municipalities to become more self reliant by providing them with greater autonomy, independence, new powers and better financial and other tools for governing communities and delivering services."13 More specifically, the consultation paper promises to provide the ability to exercise broad powers in areas such as, for example, health and well being of persons. The province has so far shown little flexibility in granting powers when such powers might be used in a way the province disapproves of. The City of Burnaby has had a longstanding proposal to use Development Cost Charges (DCC's) to fund social housing in their community. Council took the position that social housing was a 13 The Community Charter: A Discussion Paper, BC Minister of State for Community Charter, October 2001, page 4 10 vital component of a livable city and that the social housing stock was often threatened by development. Burnaby Council received support for this position from the UBCM Executive.'4 On October 7, 2001 Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services George Abbott responded to Burnaby and rejected their proposal. The Minister disagreed that DCC's were an appropriate tool to address the problem of social housing.'5 So much for autonomy even when supported by the UBCM. The Charter consultation paper makes it clear that the provincial government will not tolerate any interference with business. It says, "Clearly the question of how to deal best with the powers of regulation, prohibition and imposing requirements is an area for legislative development. The Community Charter proposes that the power to prohibit would be limited —for example, it would not apply in relation to business and business activities.­ 16 (emphasis added) At the same time, the provincial government is in the process of imposing a new procurement regime on local governments under the auspices of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AlT). Previously, local governments in BC had been exempted from these provisions, a position that had been supported by the UBCM and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). On July 18 Minister of Management Services Sandy Santori presented a submission regarding tendering of government contracts to an open Cabinet meeting. His submission called for the extension of "procurement provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AlT) to Crown corporations and municipalities, academic institutions, schools, social service agencies and health (MASSH) sectors, to reduce inter provincial trade barriers, as they are not currently subject to these provisions."7 Among other things, this would eliminate the possibility of local governments exercising local procurement choices that supported local communities. It seems apparent that the broader use of flexible powers by local governments will be permitted only so long as they mirror the provincial agenda established by the government. Recommendation The Community Charter Council should recommend any new local government legislation not be used to impose a provincial government view of how services should be delivered. Further, the Community Charter Council should recommend that the provincial government not impose the restrictions of the Agreement on Internal Trade on local government procurement. 14 McQuillan, Michael, Social DCCs hit roadblock in Victoria, Burnaby News Leader, November 14, 2001 15 George Abbott, Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, correspondence to D.P. Drummond, Mayor of Burnaby, October 9, 2001. 16 The Community Charter: A Discussion Paper, BC Minister of State for Community Charter, October 2001, page 11 17 Cabinet Submission, Open Tendering on Government Contracts, Ministry of Management Services, July 18, 2001 11 ACCOUNTABILITY: A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS While citizens have reason to be concerned about a number of issues raised by the Community Charter, changing notions of local government accountability is perhaps the most important. The consultation document states "The Community Charter Council will be considering a move to a more corporate model of accountability by ending counter-petitions and eliminating referenda for a range of issues."8 The paper continues, "By eliminating many electoral assent requirements, local governments may be able to operate more effectively and efficiently, saving both time and money. Instead of relying on voter assent to allow public input into decision making, municipalities would be accountable to its citizens through public notices, hearings, annual reports, annual meetings and performance measurement." With its focus on effectiveness and efficiency the provincial government seems to have overlooked one important aspect of local government: democracy. Local government elections in British Columbia traditionally have very low turn outs; frequently less than 35 per cent. Provisions for voter assent have served to guarantee public support exists for major projects or for major changes in the way services are delivered. The counter-petition process has been a particular target for this provincial government, which has promised to eliminate it in the Community Charter. Minister Nebbeling and his officials were emphatic on the issue at the UBCM convention in September. Speaking to a convention forum the Minister said the counter petition process had done nothing but derail good community proposals. He said referendums were not democratic when dealing with issues such as private partnerships or borrowing.'9 The question arises, however, as to just how damaging the counter-petition process has been. A number of people at the UBCM convention suggested it had, in fact, served as a useful barometer of public opinion. A survey undertaken for the former Ministry of Municipal Affairs found that in only 13 per cent of cases were counter-petitions successful. In more than two thirds of cases, no one had signed the petition.2° Perhaps as significant, the UBCM shows no resolution in their files calling for elimination of the counter petition process. Results of Counter Petition Opportunities Survey of Municipalities No One Signed 38 69% Lessthanl% 5 9% 2to5% 5 9% Morethan5% 7 130%/o 55 100% Source: Debates of the BC Legislative Assembly, Monday, May 8,2000, Afternoon Sitting, Volume 19, Number 10. 18 The Community Charter: A Discussion Paper, BC Minister of State for Community Charter, October 2001, page 18 19 Notes from the UBCM convention. 20 of the BC Legislative Assembly, Monday, May 8, 2000, Afternoon Sitting, Volume 19, Number 10. Debates 12 The Community Charter Council and all British Columbians should ask themselves why the provincial government is so determined to eliminate democratic rights from local governments. They should ask why referendums should be replaced by annual reports and annual general meetings. One reason is clear. The current provincial government believes that the counter petition process stand in the way of imposing a business driven agenda on municipalities. On May 20, 1999 the current Community Charter Minister complained in the legislation that counter petitions stood in the way of public private partnerships (P3s). He said: "In the township of Langley there was a project proposed by the council that consisted of a community facility. The community facility was to be built by a joint partnership of the council and a private partnership. That project went sideways. It went sideways for a number of reasons. First of all, the opportunity for 5 per cent of the community to demand a referendum on the project - where the wishes of 95 per cent were not being considered, as a consequent - scared off the developer."2 ' This ties in very well with comments made by Ministry officials at the UBCM convention. Brian Walisser, Executive Director Local Government Policy and Research, told a workshop that the Community Charter was moving in the direction of partnerships. He said the Local Government Act had moved only hesitatingly in that direction. In other words, the provincial government intends to use the Community Charter to strip democratic rights that might stand in the way of corporate rights. There are economic issues here that are too detailed to go into in depth. Suffice to say that public private partnerships are rarely found to deliver on their financial promises. In May 1999 Ted Nebbeling in the Legislature pointed to P3s in Nova Scotia schools as an example British Columbia should copy. On June 21, 2000 the Province of Nova Scotia issued a press release announcing that it was abandoning the use of partnerships to finance new schools. The Minister of Education said $32 million had been lost through the P3 fiasco. He said, "Too many children and communities are awaiting new schools. When you think $32 million would build three of those schools, its hard not to get angry."22 It appears that while Nova Scotia has learned its lesson, British Columbia has not. While finances are important, they are not the most important issue for our local governments. More important still is the democratic right for people to choose how their services will be delivered. For example, in polling conducted this spring 75 per cent of British Columbians indicated that they wanted their water system to be publicly owned and operated. This was not an issue of money; it was an issue of public confidence. The Community Charter process suggests British Columbians will lose the right to make those kinds of decisions in the interest of efficiency. 21 Debates of the BC Legislative Assembly, May 20, 1999, Volume 15, Number 9, page 12714. 22 Plan For School Construction, Nova Scotia Ministry of Education News Release, June 21, 2000. 13 Recommendation The Community Charter Council should recommend the provincial government not undermine any accountability mechanisms, including counter petitions, that permit local residents a full say in how services are delivered in their community. The Community Charter Council should make clear to government that a local government is not a business and that the complicated relationship of residents as customers, partners but first and foremost citizens must be recognized. CONCLUSION The Canadian Union of Public Employees has profound concerns about the Community Charter process. It appears to be less about reorganizing local government than it is about imposing a provincial agenda of privatization of services. Municipalities are not businesses. They are there to deliver needed services efficiently and effectively and in a manner that is acceptable to citizens. Just as important, the Community Charter Council should recognize the complex relationship between local governments and their residents. People in our communities relate to their local governments in some cases as customers, and in some cases almost as shareholders. As local government employees CUPE members often work as partners through programs such as City Watch which has been adopted in some communities. In all cases, however, residents are citizens. As citizens, they have rights that no amount of annual general meetings and performance measurement will ever meet. 14 Appendix A Communities in British Columbia Less than 5,000 Population Communities: I Zeballos 249 Silverton 252 Lytton 329 Slocan 345 Hazelton 358 Sayward 461 Granisle 468 Alert Bay 556 Radium Hot Springs 574 Port Clements 596 New Denver 604 Belcarra 699 Midway 702 Clinton 756 Port Edward 767 McBride 793 Greenwood 809 Sechelt Indian Government 810 Stewart 824 New Hazelton 866 Pouce Coupe 925 Tahsis 960 Anmore 1,014 Harrison Hot Springs 1,056 Masset 1,070 Taylor 1,087 Kaslo 1,107 Hudson's Hope 1,161 Montrose 1,167 Pemberton 1,173 Cache Creek 1,184 Keremeos 1,195 Salmo 1,252 Tofino 1,283 Telkwa 1,329 Fraser Lake 1,343 Port Alice 1,359 Valemount 1,371 Lions Bay 1,391 Highlands 1,522 Ucluelet 1,729 Nakusp 1,809 Lumby 1,809 'opulation (1997) Warfield 1,814 Burns Lake 1,880 Ashcroft 1,976 100 Mile House 2,017 Gold River 2,023 Fort St. James 2,130 Fruitvale 2,175 Chase 2,578 Logan Lake 2,589 Cumberland 2,725 Elkford 2,804 Invermere 2,879 Enderby 2,907 Princeton 2,964 Lillooet 2,984 Sicamous 2,986 Lake Cowichan 3,006 Chetwynd 3,054 Port McNeil! 3,085 Tumbler Ridge 3,848 Rossland 3,866 Gibsons 3,881 Sparwood 4,057 Armstrong 4,119 Golden 4,171 Houston 4,235 Grand Forks 4,267 Osoyoos 4,295 Oliver 4,498 Vanderhoof 4,672 Fort Nelson 4,734 Peachland 4,770 Duncan 4,861 Metchosin 4,922 Opciu 491 G:reps/keth/working/Brf Comm Charter Cmtee nov29 01 15 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: December 27,200 1 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction & Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5988 - 2001. Property Located at 10188 - 240 Street Purpose: To give final reading to "Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction & Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5988 - 2001". Recommendation: That Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction & Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5988 - 2001 be reconsidered and adopted. Background: Council gave the above noted by-law three readings on November 13, 2001. This By-law has now received approval from the Deputy Inspector of Municipalities and can be given final reading. Intergovernmental Issues: N/A. Environmental Implications: N/A. Citizen/Customer Implications: N/A. The owner is responsible for all costs and there will be no direct cost to the District. Through adoption of this By-law, the District can legally bill for the annual sewer rate. Interdepartmental Implications: N/A. Financial Implications: N/A. Alternatives: N/A. - Summary: Jo-Antië Appro y/ Frank Quinn, P. En ., PMP en lopment tal Concurre ce: Robert W. Robertson, AJCP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer /jh Attachment CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5988 - 2001 A By-law to extend Sewer Area "A" within the District of Maple Ridge WhEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, pursuant to Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization By-law No. 2486 - 1977, established Sewer Area "A" within the boundaries of the Municipality; AND WHEREAS, the Council has received petitions from property owners for the extension of Sewer Area "A" and deems it expedient to extend Sewer Area "A". 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 Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5988 -2001". That Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization By-law No. 2486 - 1977 as amended be further amended by adding to Section 1, the following words: "and also shall include all those portions of: Lot 36, Section 3, Township 12, Plan 39666, N.W.D. (10188 240 Street) as shown boldly marked on the map attached to the By-law and marked as Schedule "A". That the parcel noted in Paragraph 2 above, of this by-law shall bear the same charges as those properties in the original Sewer Area "A". READ a first time the 13th day of November, 2001 READ a second time the 13th day of November, 2001 READ a third time the 13th day of November, 2001 APPROVED by the Deputy Inspector of Municipalities the day of 2001. RECONSIDERED and adopted the day of 2001. MAYOR CLERK Attachment: Schedule "A" 4 I Rem 51 Ram 6 CORPORATION OF THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTY DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE INTO MAPLE RIDGE ENGINEERING SCALE: SEWER AREA A bicorporstd 12 Septcmber, 1074 DEPARTMENT N.T.S. DATE: SEPT. 2001 FILE/DWG No AREA A 0036 A Schedule 'A" to Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization Arnendinq By-law 10250 3 '02J8 N75of4 !222 5 6 7.;...... 102 AVENUE ,a213 36 10188 1J12L31415 G ff174 A B A CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6002- 2001 A By-law to establish a Water Service. The Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: PART 1 CITATION This By-law may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Water Service Bylaw No. 6002 - 2001". Maple Ridge Waterworks Regulations By-law No. 2675 - 1979 and amendments thereto is hereby repealed. Maple Ridge Waterworks Parcel Tax Bylaw No. 1099 - 1972 and amendments thereto is hereby repealed. PART 2 DEFINITIONS In this by-law, unless the context otherwise requires, the following words and terms shall have the meaning hereinafter assigned to them: Application means an Application pursuant to Part 6 Base Rate means those charges set out on Schedule "B" under the heading Base Rate Collector means the Collector of the District or his/her authorized representative. Consumer means any person, who is the registered owner of any Parcel to which water is supplied ormade available from the Waterworks, or for which a Water Service has been applied for. District means the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge. Engineer means the Municipal Engineer of the District or an authorized representative. D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 13, 2001 8:58 AM/JI 2 Fire Service means any installation that is intended solely for the purpose of providing a supply of water for fire protection purposes. Flat Rate means those charges for Water Service set out on Schedule "A". Garibaldi Water Supply Area means the portion of the District of Maple Ridge shown outlined in bold black on Schedule "E" attached to and forming part of this by-law, as amended from time to time; General Water Supply Area means the portion of the District of Maple Ridge not in the Garibaldi Water Supply Area or the Rothsay Water Supply Area. Metered Rate means those charges for Water Service set out on Schedule "B". Metered Service means a service having a meter or other flow volume measuring device attached thereto. Parcel means any lot, block or other area into which real property is subdivided, and includes strata lots as defined in the Strata Titles Act. Rothsay Water Supply Area means the portion of the District of Maple Ridge shown outlined in bold black on Schedule "F" attached to and forming part of this by-law, as amended from time to time; Service Connection means the connecting pipe between any water main and the property line of the Parcel served by the Waterworks and shall include the necessary appurtenant fittings. Water Service means the District's provision of water pursuant to this Bylaw. Waterworks means all of the District's property, works, equipment and physical facilities and components thereof for providing the Water Service. PART 3 ADMINISTRATION This Bylaw establishes the District's Water Service. This by-law shall apply to the District's Water Service and Water Works. D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PM/il 3 7. The Engineer shall administer this Bylaw except Part 11, which shall be administered by the Collector. PART 4 PROHIBITIONS 8. No person shall: damage, injure, interfere with, alter, connect to, modify, install, undertake any work in respect of, maintain, operate or turn on or off the Waterworks or any component thereof; obstruct or impede or impair free, clear and easy access to any hydrant, standpipe, valve or other fixture or appurtenance forming part of the Waterworks; cause or allow any substance including water to enter or contaminate the Waterworks; offer for sale or sell any water from the Waterworks or transport or permit to be transported by any means of conveyance water from the Waterworks from one Parcel to another within the District or from the Waterworks to outside the District; make a false statement on an Application; and use water in contravention of Schedule "D". 9. Despite Section 8(a), a person may, pursuant to Part 6 apply to the Engineer in writing for approval to undertake work in or in respect of the Waterworks and such approval may be given by the Engineer in writing subject to conditions at the discretion of the Engineer as follows: the deposit of security in the form of cash or clean unconditional and irrevocable letter of credit to guarantee that the work is carried out in conformance with all applicable laws of any authority having jurisdiction, in compliance with this ---- -bylaw,- and in conformance-- with the approval given,- all to- standards and specifications satisfactory of the Engineer; the District being entitled to -convert, -draw down and •expend the deposit to complete any work not done to repair any damage caused to the Waterworks or the property of third persons, and to pay any fees and charges (including costs of inspection) owing by the depositor in relation to the Waterworks; and the provision of plans showing the extent and timing of the works to be undertaken and the standards to which they must be carried out and completed. - D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PM/il 4 Despite this Part, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Maple Ridge Volunteer Fire Department and employees or agents of the District may in the execution of their duties operate the Waterworks or any component thereof, or undertake work in respect of the Waterworks. PART 5 CONDITIONS OF SERVICE It is a condition of approval of an Application for Water Service in the District that: the District is not liable for any damage or injury to person or property or for economic loss or other consequential damage arising directly or indirectly out of the provision of Water Service and the operation of the Waterworks, including without limiting the foregoing damage, injury, or economic or other loss from excessive or inadequate water pressure, water stoppage, sediment in or corrosion of pipes or equipment, and foreign substances in the water, or inadequate volume of water; the District gives no assurance and does not represent or warrant the quality, pressure, volume or continuance of water supply from the Waterworks; the District may reduce or discontinue in whole or in part temporarily or permanently the water supply or Water Service where it is in the public interest as determined by council to do so; the Engineer may reduce or discontinue Water Service to any Consumer who has violated any provision of this Bylaw, or any conditions imposed by or pursuant to this Bylaw; the Engineer may at any time regardless of the dates set out in Section 1 of Schedule "D", and without any notice or advice from the Commission or the GVWD, if necessary in his opinion, order into force, in whole or in part, the prohibitions and restrictions set out in Schedule "D"; every Consumer must comply with the provisions of this Bylaw, the conditions of Water Service and conditions of any approval given under this Bylaw, and all orders made pursuant to this Bylaw; all of the Waterworks including all fittings, valves, pipes, fixtures pumps, equipment and other appurtenances, situated on highways, within the District's statutory rights of way and easements, and within license areas of which the District is a licensee are the sole and exclusive property of the District; D:Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PM/il all water meters and water meter appurtenances situated on private property are the sole and exclusive property of the District; the Engineer may order any Consumer to undertake and complete within a specified time the repair and replacement of any leaking or faulty pipe, pipe fitting, meter chamber, meter support or related fixtures located on the Consumer's Parcel; and the Engineer, Collector, or any employee of the District authorized by them, may at all reasonable times enter upon any Parcel serviced by the Waterworks for the purpose of inspecting the lands and improvements and all parts of the Waterworks thereon, and for the purpose of testing, repairing, replacing, maintaining and of doing such work as necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the Waterworks including without limitation all pipes, valves, meters and appurtenances situated on the parcel. PART 6 APPLICATIONS FOR SERVICE AND FOR APPROVALS An Application for Water Service or for approval to undertake any work in respect of Waterworks, or for discontinuance of Water Service must be in the form defined by the Engineer and shall not be complete unless it is provided to the Engineer together with all advance fees and charges as required by Schedule "A", "B" and "C" and any security deposit and plans required by this Bylaw. An Application will not be processed until complete, and all Applications to discontinue service must be made a minimum of five working days prior to the proposed date of discontinuance. PART 7 SERVICE CONNECTIONS When a Water Service connection may be provided from two or more mains, the Engineer shall determine the main from which the service connection shall be made. A service connection must be of a size, type and capacity and be made of such material and have appurtenant to it such equipment and as defined by the Engineer. - D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PMIJI PART 8 CONSUMER RESPONSIBILITIES 16. A Consumer must: comply with this Bylaw, the terms and conditions of an Application for Water Service all conditions attached to on approval to do work or for discontinuance, and all orders made under this Bylaw; maintain all pipes, pipe fittings, meter chambers, meter support related fixtures situated on the Parcel served in proper working order and free from leakage and wastage; and give immediate notice to the Engineer of any failure or problem with the Water Service or the Waterworks of which the Consumer is aware. pay the Metered Rate charges or Flat Rate charges pursuant to Part 11 as applicable, and to pay all other fees and charges as provided by this Bylaw. PART 9 METERS 17. Water services to the following uses shall be metered: all non-residential uses; all services, water and service connection, 25 mm in diameter and larger; all properties with inground pools or inground sprinkler systems; and all properties greater than 0.4 hectares in area. 18. Notwithstanding Section 17, any Consumer may make application to the Engineer requesting a metered service. The Engineer may consider such applications, however the District is under no obligation to meter any service excepting those described in Section 17. 19. The cost of installing any meter on a new water service shall be borne by the Consumer. All meters and meter installations shall be of a type and specification approved by the Engineer. Meters on private property shall be installed by the Consumer and shall be subject to inspection prior to the Water Service being turned on. Meters within the District's right of ways shall be installed by the District. The cost of meter installations by the Distr-iet-shall be set out in "Schedule C" of this bylaw. D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12. 2001 4:25 PM/i! 7 20. The cost of installing any meter on an existing water service shall be borne by the District. All meters and meter installations shall be of a type and specification approved by the Engineer. All meters placed on existing water services shall be installed by the District. 21. The District shall maintain and repair all meters when rendered unserviceable through reasonable wear and tear, provided, however, that where replacement or repair of any meter is rendered necessary by the act, neglect or carelessness of the Consumer or occupant of such premises, any expense caused to the District shall be charged against and collected from the Consumer. 22. When any Consumer whose Water Service is metered shall make a complaint that his account for service has been excessive, the District will, upon written request, have the meter re-read. If the Consumer desires that the meter be tested, he shall make a deposit with the Engineer as prescribed in Schedule C and the Engineer shall arrange to have the meter tested. If the test shows an error in registering the quantity of water passing through the meter of over 5% (five percent), in favour of the District, the test deposit shall be refunded to the Consumer and the meter shall be replaced. If the test shows an accurate measurement of water, or shows an error in favour of the Consumer, the amount deposited shall be retained by the District. 23. If any meter stops, sticks or fails to indicate correctly the quantity of water which is passing or which has passed through it, the District shall be entitled to charge for such water according to; the average consumption of the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the date upon which such meter was last found to be in good order, or the consumption during the same period of the previous year, or estimation or calculation by the Engineer. PART 10 FIRE SERVICES 24. All Water Services installed for the purpose of providing fire protection shall be subject to the following provisions: such services shall be so installed at the discretion of the Engineer that water used or which could be used for other than fire purposes shall be metered; such service directly connected with an automatic sprinkling system may be connected directly to the Waterworks without having a meter installed, providing however, the Engineer may require the installation of a detector check valve; D:\Projects\Water Byiaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PM/JI 4 if, in the opinion of the Engineer, the water from any fire service could be used for other than fire-fighting, he may seal the outlets from such fire service connection, in which event such seal shall not be broken, except in case of fire. The Engineer shall have the right to enter in and upon any premise in respect of which a fire service connection has been provided for the purpose of inspecting same and sealing or resealing the same. When the seal on any fire service has been broken, in cases of fire or otherwise, the Consumer or occupant of the premise shall so report to the Engineer within 24 hours after the breaking of such seal and the Engineer shall thereupon have the same resealed; if it is found that water is being used for other than fire-fighting purposes on any fire service, the Engineer may turn off such service until a meter has been installed on the fire service; and the cost of installing each fire service connection, including the cost of the meters, gate valves, and detector check valves, shall be borne by the Consumer. PART 11 BILLING AND COLLECTION Metered services shall be charged the Metered and Base Rates identified in Schedule B. The Metered Rate and Base Rate charges must be billed quarterly by the Collector and will be due and payable within 30 days of the date of the bill. Water services not charged the Metered Rate pursuant to Section 25 shall be charged the Flat Rate as set out on Schedule "A". The Flat Rate must be billed annually by the Collector and the amount due for each year shall be payable on the same day as property taxes. Parcels of land shall be charged the parcel tax identified in Schedule "G". The parcel tax shall be collected annually by the Collector at the same time and in a like manner as all other land taxes. All water rates and other fees, charges and taxes payable under this Bylaw if not paid when due are subject to the penalties that apply to municipal taxes. Service connection charges must be paid pursuant to Schedule "C". The rates, fees and charges enumerated in Schedules "A" and "C" are required to be paid by this Bylaw and shall form a charge against the lands serviced. If such rates, fees and charges are unpaid on December 3l of the year in which they become payable, they shall be treated as taxes and transferred to the tax roll in the next succeeding year as arrears if taxes against the Parcel from which they amse D:Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PMJJI Vt The rates, fees and charges enumerated in Schedule "B" are required to be paid by this Bylaw and shall form a charge against the lands serviced. If such rates, fees and charges are unpaid on February 28 th of the following year in which they become payable, they shall be treated as taxes and transferred to the tax roll in the next succeeding year as arrears if taxes against the Parcel from which they arose. Water used for fighting fires shall not be charged for. If fire services are connected through regular distribution service and meter, the amount to be paid by the Consumer shall be determined by taking the average reading for the meter for the twelve months immediately preceding which average quantity shall be paid for at the rate fixed for such service by this by-law. No rebate, refund or credit whatsoever of any monies paid or payable for Water Service shall be made save as hereinafter provided. No prepayment for any service shall prevent the amount of any increase being charged to and collected from any service. The District shall furnish to any Consumer or rate-payer on request one copy of a statement showing the rates, fees, and charges for the time being in force for each type of service. In case of non-payment for rates or charges for thirty days after the date upon which they shall have become due and payable the District may turn off or disconnect the service in respect of which the rates or charges are due without notice. When any rates or charges remain unpaid for thirty days after the day upon which the same become due and payable, the District may sue for and recover the same in the small debts court or other court of competent jurisdiction. Power of suit contained herein shall not effect the charge against the land created by the Municipal Act nor preclude recovery of said rates or charges by any other method provided by statute. When any service has been disconnected from any premises for non-payment of rates or charges or violations of any of the provisions of this by-law, the District may, before reconnection is made to the premise, require payment of a fee as specified in Schedule "C" together with all arrears of charges owing by such Consumer under this by-law, as well as the annual Flat Rate service fee prescribed by the Schedule A hereof. PART 12 OFFENCES AND PENALTIES Every person commits an offence against this Bylaw who: (a) violates any provision of this Bylaw; D:Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PMJJI MC neglects or refrains from doing anything required to be done by this Bylaw; breaches a condition of Water Service or approval; or fails to comply with any order made under this Bylaw. Each day that a violation is permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offence. Every person who commits an offence against this Bylaw is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. PART 13 SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Bylaw is declared invalid or unenforceable, or set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction it shall be severed, and the remainder of this Bylaw shall remain in force and effect. READ a first time the day of. READ a second time the day of. READ a third time the day of. Adopted this day of , 2001. t D:Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PM/il 11 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Water Service Bylaw No. 6002 - 2001 SCHEDULE "A" Flat Rate Charges (Annual Rates) USES RATE A. Residential Per Single Family Dwelling Unit in the General Water Supply Area $221.00' Per Additional Dwelling Unit located within the structure of a single family dwelling unit $1 10.50 Per Multiple Dwelling Unit $210.00 Per Dwelling Unit in the Garibaldi Water Supply Area and the Rothsay Water Supply Area the Residential rate set from time to time in Section A(1) of this Schedule plus $357.00 per dwelling unit; Provided that commencing in the year 2015, the rate in the Rothsay Water Supply Area and in the year 2016, the rate in the Garibaldi Area shall be only the residential rate set from time to time per dwelling in Section A(1) of this Schedule B. Industrial, Commercial, Institutional (1) Per Unit $221.00 D:\Projects\Water Byaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PMJJI 12 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Water Service Bylaw No. 6002 - 2001 SCHEDULE "B" Meter Rates Water consumption charges for metered services shall be at $0.38 per m 3 A base rate will be levied per quarter in addition to consumption charge noted in paragraph (1) as follows: Connection Size Base Rate per Quarter 25 mm or less $17.00 40mm $25.00 50mm $40.00 75 mm $75.00 100 mm $105.00 150 mm $155.00 200 mm $210.00 250 mm $305.00 1. D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PM/il 13 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Water Service Bylaw No. 6002 - 2001 SCHEDULE "C" SERVICE CONNECTION CHARGES Service connection and meter installation charges shall be payable in advance and shall be charged for all water service connections in accordance with the following rates:- Connection Size (mm) Connection Charge Connection with Meter Charge 20 $1,150.00 $1,350.00 25 and larger n/a at estimated cost, pre- payment to be based on estimate. 2. Payments to be made in advance except for (d) below: Disconnecting a service at watermain (permanent) $200.00 Disconnecting a service at property line (temporary) $ 95.00 Re-connecting a service at property line No Charge Turning off/on a service during normal working hours. No Charge Turning off/on a service, third party charge outside normal working hours. $ 110.00 Turn off/on due to service break No Charge Consumer to sign work authorization before any work is done. D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12. 2001 4:25 PM/J1 14 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 1 Fire service and standby charges shall be payable annually at the following rates: Size of Service (mm) 40 50 80 100 150 200 Annual Charge ($) $ 25.00 35.00 95.00 160.00 220.00 320.00 2 Hydrant charges shall be payable for the use of hydrants, standpipes, or valves at the following rate: $50.00 per day or $200.00 per week for each hydrant, standpipe, or valve used. Security Deposit pursuant to Section 9 of Part 4 and Section 22 of Part 9 of this by-law shall be: $100.00 payable at the time authority is granted by the Engineer. Temporary water service for construction purposes may be obtained at the cost estimated by the Engineer to provide such service: The cost will be for the installation and commissioning of the service and for the purchase of water only. All costs associated with providing this water to the site shall be the consumer's responsibility. Permit fees pursuant to Part 4 of Schedule "D" of this by-law shall be calculated on the following basis: $50.00 per dwelling unit to a maximum of $250.00 per residential parcel of land; and $250.00 per parcel of land for land used for industrial, institutional or commercial purposes. - D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12. 2001 4:25 PM/J1 15 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Water Service Bylaw No. 6002 - 2001 SCHEDULE "D" WATER SHORTAGE RESPONSE PLAN PART 1 PROHIBITION Between the last Saturday of May and September 30 th in each year no person shall sprinkle or allow sprinkling except in compliance with the provisions of this bylaw: PART 2 SPRINKLING RESTRICTIONS 2. If the Commissioner of the GVWD advises the District in writing that in accordance with the WSRP a reduction in water use is necessary requiring Stage II restrictions under the WSRP, no person shall allow sprinkling except at premises; with even numbered civic addresses on Wednesdays and Saturdays between the hours of 4:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between the hours of 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM, and with odd numbered civic addresses on Thursdays and Sundays between the hours of of 4:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between the hours of 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. 3. If the Commissioner of the GVWD advises the District in writing that in accordance with the WSRP a reduction in water use is necessary requiring Stage III restrictions under the WSRP, no person shall; allow sprinkling except at premises with even numbered civic addresses on Wednesdays and Saturdays between the hours of 4:00 AM and 9:00AM and between the hours of 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM, allow sprinkling except at premises with odd numbered civic addresses on Thursdays and Sundays between the hours of of 4:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between the hours of 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM, utilize a hose to wash down or hose sidewalks or driveways or other outdoor surfaces at any time, D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12. 2001 4:25 PM/il 16 d) wash motor vehicles with a hose unless the hose is equiped with a shut off device that is spring loaded and operates using hand pressure. 4. If the Commissioner of the GVWD advises the District in writing that in accordance with the WSRP a reduction in water use is necessary requiring Stage IV restrictions under the WSRP, no person shall; sprinide or allow sprinkling at any time, utilize a hose to wash down or hose sidewalks or driveways or other outdoor surfaces at any time, at any time water or spray any trees, shrubs, flowers or vegetables (except for large gardens forming part of apartments, townhouses or other multi-dwelling premises and commercial buildings where hand watering is impractical or wash motor .vehicles with a hose unless such spraying, watering or washing is done by way of a hand held container or hose equiped with a shut off device that is spring loaded and operates using hand pressure. 5. The provisions of Sections 2 to 4 do not apply to a person who has a valid and subsisting permit issued under Section 7 or to the class of water users exempted in Section 11, and the provisions of paragraphs 3(c) and 4(b) do not apply to outdoor areas which may be required by law to be cleaned so as to comply with health and safety standards. PART 3 NOTICE 6. Sufficient notice of the restriction set out in Part 2 of this bylaw or in any change or revocation thereof shall be deemed to have been given by an announcement made on behalf of the District through a radio or television station broadcasting in the area of the District or by one publication in a newspaper not less than 72 hours prior to the commencement, change or revocation of the restrictions. PART 4 PERMITS 7. A person who has installed a new lawn, either by placing sod or turf or by seeding, or who has installed new landscaping on a substantial part of the outdoor portion of a premise may apply to the District for a permit which will entitle the permittee to sprinkle at any time during the currency of the permit. 8. The District shall issue a permit to an applicant pursuant to Section 7 upon payment to the District of a fee in an amount determined by Council. - D:\Projects\Water By1aw2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PMJJI 17 9. A permit issued under Section 7 shall be valid for a period of 21 days after the date of it's issue and shall be conspicuously displayed at the premises for which it was issued. 10. A person may apply for and obtain one subsequent permit under Section 7. PART 5 EXEMPTIONS 11. The provisions of Sections 2 to 4 inclusive shall not apply to the following class of water users which rely upon the steady supply and use of water; nursuries, farms, turf farms, tree farms, golf courses and pitch-and-putt courses provided they comply with the provisions of Section 12. 12. Golf course and pitch-and-putt operators shall be exempted under paragraph 11(b) provided their consumption of water complies with the consumption quotas established Council. D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12. 2001 4:25 PMJJI ry •u11 up HIIIIIIIHP 19 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Water Service Bylaw No. 6002 - 2001 SCHEDULE "F" D:Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12, 2001 4:25 PMJJI 20 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Water Service Bylaw No. 6002 - 2001 SCHEDULE "G" Parcel Tax (Annual Rates) USE Annual Parcel Tax For each parcel of land, that is not serviced with a municipal water service as defined in this bylaw and is fronting or partially fronting a municipal watermain: $50.00 D:\Projects\Water Bylaw\2001 Water Service Bylaw.Doc Dec 12,2001 4:25 PMJJI CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 15, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/42/01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: COUNCIL SUBJECT: Final Reading - Bylaw No. 5992-2001 (22284 Lougheed Highway) PURPOSE: Bylaw No. 5992-2001 has been considered by Council at Public Hearing and subsequently granted 2 and 3rd reading. The applicant has requested that fmal reading be granted. The proposed project is a mixed-use service station facility comprised of a gas-bar, "Town Pantry" convenience store, and "quick-serve" White Spot Triple-O drive-through restaurant. The purpose of the proposed CD-2-85 zone is to permit the proposed drive-through for the restaurant. RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5992-2001 be reconsidered and finally adopted. BACKGROUND: Location: 22284 Lougheed Highway - south-west corner of Lougheed Highway and 223rd Street. History: Council considered this rezoning application at a Public Hearing held on November 13, 2001. On November 13, 2001 Council granted 2' and 3 reading to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5992-2001 and Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 5993-2001 with the stipulation that the following conditions be addressed: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement including the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; Amendment to Schedules A" & 'H' of the Official Community Plan; Road dedication as required. The following applies to the above: 1) Approval from the Ministry of Transportation was received on November 21, 2001. -1- 803 The Rezoning Development Agreement has been executed and is in the process of being deposited at the Land Title Office as of January 22, 2002. Schedules "A" & "H' of the Official Community Plan were amended (Amending Bylaw No. 5993- 2001) on December 11,2001. Road dedication plans are in the process of being deposited at the Land Title Office as of January 22, 2002. In addition to the foregoing, Development Pennit application (DP/42/01 - controlling form and character of commercial development) and Development Variance Permit application (DVP/42/01 - relaxing off- site improvements on the North Avenue frontage), both of which are in support of the subject development, were authorized on December 11, 2001 and January 8, 2002 respectively. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: As the subject property is within 800 metres of the Haney Bypass, approval from. the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was required. A letter of approval has been received. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Chevron will be replacing the existing underground fuel storage tanks with a new double-walled tank technology which should improve monitoring so as to reduce the risk of contamination.' CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The proposed redevelopment will replace an essentially highway-oriented gas-bar with a mixed-use gas station concept that is more urban in character and will provide a better fit within the downtown core. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement was required in order to address a number of servicing deficiencies as identified by the Engineering Department. The Agreement has been executed and is in the process of being registered at the Land Title Office. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications other than costs associated with servicing requirements as noted above. ALTERNATIVES: N/A SUMMARY: Chevron is intending to introduce a mixed-use service station concept that combines a gas-bar with a "Town Pantry" convenience store and a "Triple-O White Spot" drive-through restaurant. The purpose of the 1 -2- proposed rezoning is to accommodate the drive-through component of the restaurant. The applicant has met all conditions of rezoning and is now requesting that final reading be granted. Prepare . Ross-B1ackwell, Planner d by fJ.F~ick i,MCP,MCIP nning Appj6ved by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Pubic Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer # RB/jvt -3- CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5992 - 2001 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. 5992 - 2001." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: All that portion of: Lot 1, District Lot 398, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 9388 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1258 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby rezoned to CD-2-85 (Comprehensive Development) Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of A.D. 2001. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of A.D. 2001. READ a second time the day of A.D. 2001. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 2001. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation and Highways this day of , A.D. 2001. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2001. MAYOR CLERK 3' Ir- J I ) i.. N 61 I I29 (••4 — - A 1 P6801 30 31 32 lLMP45732(Iease p 899 I B I3 35[34 4J (P 2899) p.. A '5 I. CN f LP 77916 IN ' (I) I4 l *p l ._i a, 1 118871 ii IN B V4 4 3 ' 4 I 5 6 0 P78577 SP NW2948 P 680J j_2 A 71868 /?6 pJ o. • P 2 99 31 32 /1869 630 69 6.1 cp ,.iwo 7/86 P6L1 I PcI.D 20NN 27 28 - RP 615741 P 2899 24"4I INJ I 281 9 - U. 1.281ho c1 ('1 20.1 P 25783— -- - -. hi LOUGHEED HWY. GH P2899 - •1 UJh ______________ RP 17417\ [1EPllo4o JR; EP 7 20.1 Rem 43JRem1Bf. e I' NI A E4 P68759 44 1 45 EP 81642\ o Rem A C ,44 Rem 50 — 6.1 75 P 9388 1 ZVI 22346148' ,] \22J62/64 4. Rem gg 0.521ha 57 98 P 9388 2915 .22556/5! z? 04 41 I *LMP,0226, 0.686ho •ppo79 P 5000 42 J.43 44 l ci NORTh AVE N (P 63d6' P 299 LMP 954 SOJ(IRI< AVE. I P 62478 67823 /184 22 21 J P608 1 20 J 19 242 17 18 j A ISP NW2762 I I A SP NW261 AT (P 6808j __ 1 616 15J14 A 151, P 76483J P 74121 I__ I. 1611 I "74 I A 4142 43 I LMP 39631 P 155 \ LMS 3814 44 /774645 46 4748 oI 44 11740 -c 155 60.5 45 -: EP169426 ____ 117 AVE. 6•4 — RP83!Q — L— 20.1! I____ \R ' LO Rem 32" er Rem "4 CN 351 31 30 29 28 I 27 25 1 22 21 20 I ° P 155 ,,,4 !ZLOi_ iss P 155 N: 10 5.0 / Rem — — uj — \Rem Rem! — aI pr5 204\2020 LMP 48604\, ' 16 LMP 17221 UI RP 53523J — MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 5992-2001 Map No. 1258 From: C -3(Town Centre Commercial) and CS-2(Service Station Commercial) To: CD -2 -85(Comprehensive Development) MAPLE RIDGE — Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: January 9, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZJ01/02 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: 22188 Lougheed Highway - Amendment to Restrictive Covenant PURPOSE: The Salvation Army have purchased the above noted property and acquired federal funding to relocate their existing church facility. A part of the proposed facility will be accessory temporary shelter for the homeless with counseling services and kitchen facilities. The property is currently zoned C-3 Town Centre Commercial but the regulations are constrained by a restrictive covenant that defines permitted and prohibited land uses. In order to permit the proposed facility, the land use covenant must be either amended or discharged and, as the covenant originated from a public hearing held in 1984, a public hearing process is required to facilitate either option. RECOMMENDATION: That Restrictive Covenant X133412 be forwarded to Public Hearing with "Church institutional including accessory temporary accommodation and kitchen facility" added to Section 1(a) of that covenant. BACKGROUND: The Salvation Army has recently acquired significant funding through a federal program to purchase the property located at 22188 Lougheed Highway (on the southwest corner of the Lougheed Highway and the Haney Bypass). The building has an area of approximately 14,000 ft2 on two floors and parking provision of 35 parking stalls on site. The current parking requirement for a Church Institutional use within the C-3 zone, in a building of this size, is 28 stalls. The proposed bachelor and family units require 1.0 concealed parking space per dwelling unit. While the number of spaces can be provided on site the requirement for concealed parking is currently not achieved. When the proponent implements the residential phase of the development, this requirement must either be met or application made for a development variance permit. The Salvation Army is proposing to relocate their existing church facility to this building as well as to provide the following uses: • temporary emergency beds for the homeless. To date, the maximum number of beds is 14; • drop in meal program; • 5 self contained bachelor units and 1 family unit to be located on the second floor. These are intended for temporary accommodation by a person who is in counseling and seeking permanent housing; • counseling services. All but the temporary residential units are currently ongoing in the existing facility located at 22777 Dewdney Trunk Road and will be transferred to the location on Lougheed Highway. The property is currently zoned as C-3 Town Centre Commercial but there is a restrictive covenant registered on the title which permits specific uses and restricts others. The list of permitted uses is as follows: The property is currently zoned as C-3 Town Centre Commercial but there is a restrictive covenant registered on the title which permits specific uses and restricts others. The list of permitted uses is as follows: • The retail sale of personal and office supplies including clothing, jewelry, toys, cameras, sporting goods, books, stationary and office goods; • The retail sale of goods and services in a hardware store, department store, variety store, home furnishing store, appliance store or office furnishing store; • Offices including business outlets, insurance, real estate and professional; • Personal Services including barbering, hair dressing, tailoring, shoemaking, dry-cleaning, printing and appliance repairing; • Newspaper publishing and the printing and publishing of art editions by lithography, etching and letterpress; • Apartment uses; • Education facilities including a college, trade school, business school, dance studio and music studio; • Animal beauty parlours; • Financial institutions including trust companies and mortgage companies. The list of uses that the land cannot be used for is: • Public banking facilities including banks and credit unions; • The retail sale of goods and services in a drug store; • The retail sale of groceries including meat, fish and bakery products; • Medical and dental offices; • Recreation facilities including a theater, night club, social club, fraternal lodge, billiard hail, bowling alley or recreation club; • Newspaper and related printing; • Restaurants and licensed premises including neighbourhood public houses. The covenant was originally registered on the title in 1984 as the result of issues raised at the public hearing held May 17, 1984. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MoTH) is also noted on the covenant, as it was their goal to restrict the uses on the property to commercial uses which would potentially generate lower traffic volumes. As such, they will need to consider the traffic impacts associated with the proposed uses and will also be required to agree to any proposed covenant amendment. The legal firm acting on behalf of the Salvation Army have indicated that they will be contacting the MoTH in this regard. There are two methods in which the covenant can be addressed - discharged in its entirety or amended to include the proposed use. It is being recommended that the covenant be amended in order to recognize the original concerns about this property and to afford adjacent residents some assurance about the continued limited use of the property. The following use is proposed to be added to Section 1(a) of the existing restrictive covenant: • Church institutional including accessory temporary accommodation and kitchen facility. The church use would be subject to the existing definition of church institutional contained in the Zoning Bylaw which is: Church Institutional Use means a use providing for the assembly of persons for religious purposes and includes churches, accessory nursery schools, accessory daycare and an accessory dwelling unit. 2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: As the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is also a party to the covenant, they will be required to agree to the amendment. The proponent's legal advisors have advised that they will be responsible for ensuring MoTH review. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The adjacent prOperty owners may have concerns about the proposed facility and the potential impacts on the neighbourhood. The proponents have been meeting with adjacent property owners to discuss issues and address concerns. Additionally, reference to the public hearing will allow the public an opportunity to present concerns, issues and discuss impacts. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: There are two alternatives regarding the covenant - discharge it and allow the property uses to be governed by the C-3 Town Centre Commercial zone, or do not amend or discharge. Either of these two alternatives could preclude use of the facility in the manner proposed. SUMMARY: The Salvation Army has acquired the building on the southwest corner of Lougheed Highway and the Haney Bypass in order to relocate their existing facility and expand services to the community. The existing zoning on the property is superceded by a restrictive covenant registered on title that restricts allowable land uses. It is recommended that the restrictive covenant be amended in order to accommodate the uses proposed by the Salvation Army as opposed to being discharged and that the proposed amendment be referred to public hearing. /J9,f - Approved by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer JP/jvt CO l 1 4 3 I 11887 P 7877R 08 2 I j SP NW2948 11869 A ' • '•I A r - SP NW2762SP NW261 1! (P 6808) I 1511857 P 76483 P 74121 -! CVI[ 1611841 CVII Nil VI CVI C CVI A 11861 76 <1 ,I I 17 a. C' C' I CO 22 21 20 19 P68(8 18 P 8O8 NE S 61 C\J loje 23S1 32 (0 CVI I I CVI CVI 1830 0-3 co RemA P9388 CO 1 P9388 1117681 co I- Cq A 41 42 43 LMP39631 P155 cY) C'.JLMS 3814 C'J 1 11749 1—F1 C'q F' b J 11887 111688 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 11901 ---LNES—OF119AVE III IN I— P 1251 IIIa 18 17 25 26 27 28 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 69 Cal rI I N- N- I CVI N- - , ai N- C\I I 11875 C\I I cliI cli CM 11867 1 SELKIFEAV CVII 1 Cn Rj N- i I ' I 40 39 ReJRe 1' 15 161185oL_'I 11851 1 11841 (P 11251) B P672p4 8 C 1 0 1V1 CVI CVI CVI LOUGHEED HWY H 11783 — 0 CVI () C I 3 1 'J 12 11 10 CVI 9 csl 8 CVI 7 CVI CVI 6 5 CVJ VI 4 A P68759 RS—1 P8614 11763 117 3:3 34 35 3 6 P92 8 42 43 Re k k L r —VCVI 1CVI 6 P9 48 \ 218 194 7 —I V U' V p 9427 179 1 - - 188 iV'J00 11727 195 178 - 180 'i 196 - - 77 19 — 187 11721 gg ( I, 204 -, 98 -I.97 205 206 177 181 11717 186 .17 11715 11741 942 207 176 •I p 942 200 z0 203 183 184 185 11787 421 182 11707 175 1 1705 11747 0 208 209 RIVER _T 10 16 0 231230229/228/J 223 / /_j 22173 211 ark 22174 P694 7 29177 \ Rerr I 35'-! 33 31 LO Rem \Ier Rem l Rem P155 11739 30 29 28 27 I 1341\ ___ — \RemI Rem' \617 181 \_ 11710 LMP 17221 '"'\ 11683 Ni P11527 2c' PcI. 1" I The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge I makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or I present status of the information shown on this map. UL DI R11 0 LANGLEY I, Subject Property 22188 Lougheed Hwy. CORPORATION OF WON THE DISTRICTOF MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE THORNHILL Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Jan 8 2002 FILE: BY: TM CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth, DATE: December 18, 2001 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/68/01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Third Reading- Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-2001 (Text amendment to incorporate regulations controlling height and mass of residential dwellings) PURPOSE: On November 13, 2001 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-200 1 was presented at Public Hearing and immediately following that meeting the Bylaw was read a second time by Council. A review of the material presented at Public Hearing, by interested industry representatives, was undertaken and it is recommended that some minor modifications be made to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-200 1 prior to final consideration of the bylaw by Council. RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990 -2001 be read a third time. BACKGROUND: At the time that the Hillside Development Guidelines were adopted in 1999, Council directed staff to monitor and report back on the issues sunounding their implementation. The implementation of the Guidelines over the past few years has generated some concern. The Inspection Services staff have struggled with the implementation of guidelines that have gone unsupported by regulation and the development community have repeatedly expressed the concern that the implementation of the guidelines has made it difficult to construct walkout/daylight basement homes on hillsides. An interdepartmental review committee from Public Works and Development Services Division was established to review the Hillside Development Guidelines and to develop recommendations for their modification and/or implementation for the consideration of Council. A number of modifications to the Development Guidelines were suggested and these modifications were presented to Council in Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-2001. The modifications included: - Simplification of the calculation of grade; - Elimination of the "two storeys plus a basement" restriction; - Modification of the "Highest Building Face" guideline to alleviate its impacts on uphill sloping lots by no longer requiring the measurement to be taken from curb grade but from the base of the exterior building face; - Inclusion of a height bonus of 0.5 metres for lots with a negative slope of 10% or greater, and 1.0 metres for lots with a negative slope of 15% or greater. The benefits of including the above mentioned modifications into the Zoning Bylaw were identified as follows: - Addresses the concerns raised by the industry and staff about the complexity of the current grade calculations with little or no impact on the overall height or mass of the dwellings; 103 - Measuring height from the lesser of natural or finished grade will continue to discourage grade manipulation by the building community and help encourage the establishment of grade at the subdivision stage; - Responds to the industry's concerns that the current development guidelines are making it difficult to construct walkout/daylight basement homes on hillsides; - Assists in ensuring that future hillside home are of a similar size and bulk to those already constructed under the current guidelines; - Provides residential designers with some of the flexibility required to design homes with "craftsman" andlor "heritage" style roof lines and massing; and - Continues to limit the bulky appearance of large 3 storey building walls. Inclusion of the guidelines into zoning regulation will: - Clarif' the standard for construction in the industry, eliminating much of the confusion surrounding the implementation of the current guidelines; and - Ensure more consistent application, requiring any variance from those standards to be approved by Council through a development variance permit. Modifications suggested as a result of Public Hearing feedback As a result of feedback received from industry representatives on Zoning Amending Bylaw No. 5 990- 2001, one additional modification is suggested for inclusion in Bylaw No. 5990-2001. The modification will increase the length of the Highest Building Face exemption from 33% to 40% under Section 4 (b)(i) of Bylaw No. 5990-2001. This amendment would allow for the unimpeded construction of a two storey great room in a typical 40 foot wide home. The industry is currently concerned about the "tunnel effect" created in a homes interior by the current exemption requirement that they divide the windows in the two storey great room with a deck roof line. The review committee felt that the impact on the appearance of overall mass of increasing the Highest Building Face exemption from 33% to 40% would be minimal. It is also suggested that the definition of "basement", "storey", and "haif-storey" no longer be removed from Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-2001 as was previously suggested. These definitions are needed to support recent height restrictions included or proposed for inclusion in several Comprehensive Development zones where maximum height and storey restrictions of 2 to 2 Y2 storeys exist. With the exception of these zones, storey restrictions are not currently proposed for any other residential zone. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Although the Hillside Development Guidelines only refer to housing construction standards, the requirement that height be measured from the lesser of natural or finished grade has resulted in less grade manipulation by builders and a greater effort has been made by developers to coordinate grading at the subdivision stage. The benefit of providing for less grade manipulation is less site disturbance, which in turn raises the potential for more vegetation, native soil and runoff retention. 2 CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The suggested modifications to the Hillside Development Guidelines are a direct response to concerns raised by both the industry and district staff. Inspection Services staff have provided several comments regarding their experience with the implementation of the guidelines, as have members of the development community through the District's Biannual Builders Forum (February and October 2001), and a formal survey (June 2001). Additional feedback was also provided at the Public Hearing and in several working sessions with industry representatives following the Public Hearing. While some minor modifications to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-200 1 have been proposed as a result of the feedback received from industry representatives, it should be noted that the implementation of the regulations as proposed in this report will not address all of the industry's concerns. Following a well attended working session with industry representatives on November 20th 2001 and the review of material later submitted by those representatives, it is clear that there is a desire for an overall increase in building height, regardless of slope. In zones with current height restrictions of 9.0 metres, it has been suggested that on lots with slopes of less than 5%, heights be increased to 9.5 metres, and on lots with slope greater than 5%, height be increased to 10 metres. Given that lots with 5% slopes are fairly flat and the substantial height and mass increases that would likely result in homes built to this standard, it is evident that these additional height increases would be contrary to the main purpose of the Hillside Development Guidelines. The committee's review concluded that a number of the height issues raised by the industry could be addressed through the development variance permit process. At that time, Council could consider height increase requests on a case by case basis, where comprehensive subdivision designs could be used to illustrate the impacts of possible height increases. The committee's review also concluded that the height increases proposed by industry representatives is more appropriately addressed through a separate and more thorough review of all building heights contained in the Zoning Bylaw. Such a review would require a District-wide assessment of the impacts of height increases on existing and surrounding neighborhoods, as well as, the assistance and expertise of external design consultants. Such an assessment would be better addressed as a part of an overall Zoning Bylaw review. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: An interdepartmental committee from the Public Works and Development Services Division was established to review the current Hillside Guidelines and to develop recommendations for their modification and/or implementation for the consideration of Council. Once adopted, implementation of the regulations will be the responsibility of the License, Permits and Bylaws Department, through the building permit application approval process. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There would be some financial impact to the District should Council wish to pursue a more comprehensive review of all building heights in the Zoning Bylaw. Such an initiative would require the assistance of an external design consultant and might be better considered as a future project in 2003. IMPLEMENTATION: Building permit applications will continue to be processed using the current Hillside Development Guidelines until Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990 -2001 has been considered and adopted by Council. 3 ALTERNATIVES: Option #1: Continue to use the current Hillside Development Guidelines. Option #2: Adopt Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-2001, as attached to the memorandum dated December 18, 2001. Option #3: Adopt Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-2001, as attached to the memorandum dated December 18, 2001 and direct staff to consider building height restrictions cunently contained in Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as a future project. Option #3 is the option favoured by the interdepartmental review committee. Option #3 addresses a number of the concerns that have been raised by District staff and the industry and makes a commitment to consider those issues not addressed as part of this review in the longer term. SUMMARY: After much discussion, review and input from the industry some modification to the Hillside Development Guidelines is recommended. To ensure clarity and consistency of use, it is recommended that those modifictions be incorporated into Zoning Bylaw No. 35 10-1985. The incorporation of the Hillside Development Guidelines into the Zoning Bylaw will clarif' the regulations both for staff and the industry, and will eliminate the variation in interpretation that surrounds the implementation of current guidelines. An additional benefit of the regulation as opposed to policy guidelines is that any variance from the construction standards established by the Zoning Bylaw could be addressed through the development variance permit process. Prepared b and Environmental Services MCIP Approved by: frrank Quinn, P. Eng, PMP M: Public rks & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Office KG/jvt 4 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5990 - 2001 A By-law to further amend Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 and amendments thereto. 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. 5990 - 2001". 2. Part 2, Interpretation, is amended by: deleting the definition of Height and replacing it with the following: HEIGHT - means the greatest vertical distance from the Building Height Base Line to the topmost part of the building. adding the following definitions in correct alphabetical order: AVERAGE CURB ELELVATION- means the average of the front lot line elevation projected to the edge of road pavement minus 0.1 metres (4"). BUILDING HEIGHT BASE LINE - means: averaging the two front Datum Determination Points on the lot; and averaging the two rear Datum Determination Points on the lot; and longitudinally extending a line joining (i) and (ii); illustrated by way of the following diagram Maximum Building Height Line Front DEWs Points) at 'um - - opey Line ; DDPs Buiing Height Base Une Re DATUM DETERMINATION POINTS - means the two points on a lot created where the frontmost or rearmost wall face or the principal buildings or projections thereof intersect with the outermost sidewall faces or projections thereof measured as the lesser of Natural or Finished Grade. FINISHED GRADE - means the topography on the property after construction, including the addition of fill or removal of soil, but excludes Localized Depressions. LOCALIZED DEPRESSION - means: i) an existing depression in Natural Grade not exceeding 3 metres (9.8ft.) in width, or the lesser of 3 metres or 20% of the wall length along any building wall that it intersects; ii) a depression below Finished Grade created for the purposes of providing vehicles or pedestrian entrance to a building subject to the following conditions: only one vehicle entrance and one pedestrian entrance are permitted as Localized Depressions on a single family residential building. on any side of the building in a single family residential zone, the Localized Depression width shall not exceed the lesser of 50% of the corresponding building width or: • 6.Om (20 ft.) width for vehicle access. • 2.44m (8 ft.) wide 3.0 m2 in area for a pedestrian access. • 7.3m (24 ft.) wide for a combined vehicle and pedestrian access. iii) any combination of vehicle or pedestrian entrances and existing depressions remaining after finish grading shall not exceed 50% of the corresponding building width or length along any side of a building. NATURAL GRADE - normally existing topography or the topography established as a component of subdivision servicing on the property prior to any construction, but excludes Localized Depressions. RETAINING WALL GRADE LINE - means the line used to determine the maximum height of a retaining wall or soil deposit anywhere on the property calculated as follows: Rear or side property line: Determined by drawing a line 1.2m (4) vertically from natural grade at the rear or side property line and then in towards the property at 1.1 slope, as illustrated by Diagram A. Front or Flanking (Exterior) Side property line: Determined by drawing a line 1 :2m (4') vertically from natural grade at the front or side property line and then in towards the property at 3:4 slope as illustrated by Diagram B. Rear or side Adjacent property. property Wall Envelope ; I I.... NaWml2de Front or flanldng side property Adjacent fin Property •."—WaII Envelope or road PROPERTY Diagram B Part IV General Regulations, Section 403 is amended by adding the following as Subsection (8): . Maximum Retaining Wall Height The entire height of all retaining walls must be below the Retaining Wall Grade Line. The maximum exposed height of a retaining wall at a property line is 1.2m (4'). As illustrated by Diagram A. operty Line Grade Line 4ft. mal exposed height Fill 4 HSiteSection nished at prop. line atural Grade Diagram A The maximum exposed height of an excavated wall (a shoring wall below natural grade is 1.2m (4'). As illustrated by Diagram B. Former i..............:L ..re Grade Site Section Finished Grnde Diagram B 4 Part IV General Regulations, Section 403 is amended by adding the following as Subsection (9): a) All single family and two family residential buildings shall not exceed the Highest Building Face height of 7.0 metres. The Highest Building Face: applies to only one building elevation, the elevation which has the greatest height between the top plate and the average of the lesser of Natural or Finished Grade at its base. Attached garagelcarport Dwelling (plan view) Highest Building Face The regulation applies to all portions of the face shown in heavy line is established by drawing a series of lines 7metres (23') up from the lesser of Natural or Finished Grade along each point on the exterior building face, and then in towards the building at a 45 degree angle. A series of vertical lines at each change of ground level elevation will be required to determine the envelope over the entire elevation. The top plate of the wall must be within the measured envelope. Cross Exemption for up to 1/3 of the Length of the building face Cross Section B 7m i J Compliance with step - / Highest building face envelope 450 ne at 7ni j eroundievd SCCODfiOOT H 00 See Cross I B JJ Garagedoor Sections below j-------------------I --- 1/3 Exempt Diivewa).1 or Groundlevel finished grade) Highest building face Cross Section C Exemption for garage parapet flat building ii I ii I 1 1 I Soffit 1 I 'I I II I conforming flOfl-COflfomiiflg non-conformiiig b) Highest Building Face Exemptions: 40% of the length of the building face can be exempt from this regulation. Different parts of the building face can be exempted, provided that the sum of their lengths does not exceed 40% of the total length of the elevation. Roof eaves, decks, decorative features, and the pitched roof portion of either gable ends or dormers are exempt. Any portion of the roof structure above the top plate is exempt from this calculation. dormer ," '.... Highest building face Pitched roof portion of a dormer is exempt Upper floor 7m. Main floor Basement Ground level (lower of natural or finished grade) 5. Part IV General Regulations, Section 403 is amended by adding the following as Subsection (10): All single family and two family residential buildings shall not exceed either the maximum Height stipulated by the zone or the Highest Building Face regulation in Section 403(9)a except where the average elevation of the front Datum Determination Points is below the average curb elevation so that a line joining the two average elevations inclines at a slope of 10% or greater below the horizontal, then - the allowable height of the principal building is bonused with an increase in height of 0.5 metres for a slope of 10% or greater; or 1.0 metres for a slope of 15% or greater; and - the allowable Highest Building Face is bonused with an increase in height of 0.5 metres for a slope of 15% or greater to the extent that the height of the Highest Building Face does not exceed 7.0 metres from Finished Grade; as illustrated by the following diagram. Average Curb Elevation - - - Average Front DDPs slope or greater 6.66 1 T6 eight bonus 0.5m. eg. : Ratio 1:6.66 15% slope or greater height bonus 1.0m. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 200. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 200. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 200. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 200. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation and Highways this day of , A.D. 200. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200. MAYOR CLERK CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: October 25th, 2001 and Members of Council FILE NO: SCA-EXEMP-5 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Soil Conservation Act - Exemption (12620 - 254th Street) [aiJia.J1c Janet Murphy of 12620 254' Street has made an application to the Land Reserve Commission (LRC) for an exemption to place fill at this location for cultivation purposes. The Commission has supported the exemption and a resolution from Council supporting the exemption is now required under the Soil Conservation Act. The proposed fill area is adjacent to a watercourse (tributary to Zirk Brook). The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has no objection to the proposed fill provided that a 5 meter setback is maintained along the northern perimeter with 20 native plants to be planted and sediment control is established. RECOMMENDATION: That the application for a fill permit under Permit Regulation Section 2(1)(d(i) of the Soil Conservation Act submitted by Janet Murphy for the property at 12620 254' Street be granted an exemption subject to the relevant provisions of the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. 5763-1999, the Soil Conservation Act, and the conditions listed in the Staff Report dated October 25th, 2001. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Janet Murphy Owner: Janet Murphy Legal Description: Lot 19, Section 23, Township 12, New Westminster District, LD 37, Plan 24884, Part NE1/4 OCP: Existing: Agricultural Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Surrounding Uses The site is within the Agricultural Land Reserve and is adjacent to a tributary to Zirk Brook. Surrounding land use is rural residential to the south and east, and undeveloped woodlands to the north and west. Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential/Agricultural Proposed Use of Property:Sinle Family Residential/Agricultural, Access: 254 Street Servicing: n/a Previous Applications: n/a fuy PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An application was made to the Land Reserve Commission by Janet Murphy of 12620 254th Street for an exemption to place fill at this location for cultivation purposes. Ms. Murphy plans to improve growing conditions on a portion of her property to support pasture grasses. Currently, the growth of pasture grasses is visibly impaired by a reported lack of topsoil and unfavourable drainage conditions within the proposed fill area. The proposed fill area comprises approximately 3000m2 in area to a fill depth of up to 0.30 meters, a total soil quantity of 902 m3 (-120 truck loads). The project proponent will monitor the quality of the soil to ensure that it is sufficient to support improved agricultural capability. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The site is adjacent to a watercourse identified on Schedule "E" of the Official Community Plan. However, Development Permit Area XXX policy applies only to the alteration of land related to residential, commercial, institutional and industrial development, not the deposit of soil for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the Guidelines for development established for Development Permit Area XXX do not apply. All Soil Deposit Permit applications for lands within 15 meters of the Top of Bank of watercourses are referred to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection for review and comment. The Ministry of Water, Lands and Air Protection has reviewed the proposed soil deposit plan and are supportive provided a watercourse protection area is established along the north side of the fill area at 5 meters from the Top of Bank of the watercourse. In addition, 20 native plants are to be planted within the watercourse protection area and no sediment must be permitted to enter the watercourse. Referral to Fisheries and Oceans Canada is not required as no impact to fish habitat will occur as a result of the project. Temporary barrier fencing is to be installed adjacent to the watercourse protection area (north side) and adjacent to the small drainage channel (east side) prior to any soil deposit. The fill is be graded away from the existing horse ring to prevent the leaching of wood waste to the watercourse. The Fill Plan has been reviewed with the adjacent neighbour to the south, and a small drainage swale is to be provided to the south of the fill area to convey surface water in this area towards the east drainage channel which drains north to the watercourse. All work is to be undertaken and completed in such a manner as to prevent the release of sediment to the watercourse in compliance with Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No, 5807-1999, which prohibits the fouling, obstruction or impeding of flow in a local 'drainage system'. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: Land Reserve Commission: The Commission has no objection to this fill project and have asked the District to review the exemption and confirm if they agree that the project meets the definition of an exempt work as defined in the Soil Conservation Act. -2- Based on the information provided by the applicant the proposal appears consistent with Section 2(1 )(d) of the B.C. Regulation 451/98 (Soil Conservation Act Permit Regulation) where it states: A permit is not required where the placement offill is associated with or involves the cultivation of land; and with Section 5.9(i) of Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Bylaw No. 5763-1999 where it states: A permit is not required where the deposit offill is on lands designated Agricultural Land Reserve and is associated with or involves the cultivation of land; Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and Department of Fisheries and Oceans The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has reviewed the fill plan and is supportive provided a watercourse protection area is established 5 meters from the Top of Bank of the Schedule E watercourse and planting is undertaken. Review by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not required for this project, as fish habitat will not be impacted. CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: Until Council provides a resolution supporting the Exemption granted by the Land Reserve Commission, an Exemption from Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Bylaw No. 5763-1999 will not be granted. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Not Applicable FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No fees are collected under either the Soil Conservation Act or Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. 5763-1999 when an exemption is granted. ALTERNATIVES: The applicant has obtained an Exemption under the Soil Conservation Act from the Land Reserve Commission and now requires Council to support that exemption by resolution. Without an Exemption from the District, the applicant would need to make an application for a Permit pursuant to the Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. 5763-1999. Alternatively, the applicant could pursue other drainage improvement methods, including the construction of drainage ditches and installation of tile drainage systems. -3- SUMrVIARY: Based on the information provided by the applicant and Land Reserve Commission approval, staff support the exemption of this fill request under the relevant provisions of the Soil Conservation Act and Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Bylaw No. 5763-1999 provided the following conditions are respected. • Fill Area to be established as shown on attached figure; • Compliance with all local bylaws including Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999, and other relevant statutes. • No release of sediment into the "Drainage System", to be accomplished by: - Silt fencing (keyed into ground) around the fill area (north and east sides); - Seeding of fill area as completed or other stabilization as necessary; - Grading of surface to shed water away from the existing horse ring (west side); • Access Road, 254th Street, to be kept free of silt or soil by means of wheel wash or regular road cleaning (not flushing) - as necessary; • Establishment of Setback Area (5 meters from Watercourse Top of Bank) on the north side of fill area, to be planted with 20 native plants. • Construction of a small drainage swale along the south of the Fill Area to convey surface water towards the east and the existing drainage channel. fr Jim Sheehan, E7o,tal Technician ne-Pi,MCP, MCIP Djiect& of Planntng 17e, Approved by:/Frank QuinnP.Eng., PMP I GM: Public Works & Development Services L+ ~~ qi - Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer JS/jvt -4- S -. I- 2.841 ho. S 50 1.231 ho. em 0 SK 416 ho. 630 ho. / I \ 4. 7 1024 B 4.1 RCOURSE N JBCK 2 SOUTH WALE E 11!I IIIIci 1 1T 2617 0.023 ha. c'1 12587 9 5 P 50131 1. 98.5 25 — IN 809ha. "H 124 I) ' P 78935 J / y 905 12590 o 4.110 a. I -.--j I 53047F 2.0 ho. SILT FENCING — REQUIRED ALONG NORTH AND EAST OF FILL AREA 5m. WATERCOURSE SETBACK — 20 NATIVE PLANTS REQUIRED SOUTH SWALE — REQUIRED SOUTH OF FILL AREA — TO DRAIN TO THE EAST N rrr cas SCA Fill Exemption Site SILVER VALLEY 12620 254 St. A CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ALBION MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE: 1:2500 Incorpor&.ed 12 Sept.einber, 1874 M-SIER Rrvm DRAWN BY: T.M. I DATE: DEC. 21, 2001 I FiLE: 5?0 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: December 3, 2001 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Review of the Public Information Meeting and Posting of Rezonin(Signs Policies PURPOSE: This report addresses the recommended changes to the Public Information Meeting and Posting of Rezoning Sign policies and includes a redrafting of their respective requirements to be included in the District of Maple Ridge Policy Manual. Review of the policies revealed that the two were interconnected and as such the reviews were undertaken simultaneously. RECOMMENDATION(S): That: The policy entitled "Development Information Meetings" be adopted; and Policy No. 6.19 "Posting of Rezoning Signs" be rescinded and replaced with the policy entitled "Development Sign Specifications". BACKGROUND: In order to help streamline the development approval/application process the 2001 Business Plan had identified both the Public Information Meeting process and the Posting of Rezoning Signs policy for review. Since the two items are linked through the Public Information Meeting requirement to post a sign, review of the two policies was undertaken at the same time. The review has been focused on the importance of keeping the public informed of development applications and providing the public opportunities for input. In order to ensure that the policies were relevant, as neither had been amended for nearly 10 years, a review of other municipalities policies and processes was undertaken. The following municipalities were considered as a part of this review: the City of Victoria, the City of New Westminster, the City of Richmond, the City of Port Moody, the City of Port Coquitlam, City of Victoria, the City of Parksville, the City of Delta and the District of Mission. Public Information Meeting Process The Public Information Meeting process was instituted by the District for the purpose of providing the community with information about proposed developments and allowing for feedback so that issues and concerns could be identified early in the development process. This early review of applications has ensured that Council has a complete picture of the neighbourhoods reaction to an application and how the applicant intends to address any concerns. Currently, rezoning applications that require an Official Community Plan amendment; result in a development greater than 50 units; or are deemed by the Director of Planning to warrant additional public consultation, are subject to a Public Information Meeting. The Public Information Meeting policy requires the applicant to notify the public through: Cf 0 1:50, • a mail out to all households within 50 metres from the edge of the property(s) proposed for development; and • through the posting of a sign on the subject site(s). Pronosed Chances The review of the Public Information Meeting process has revealed that the current policy is not recognized in the District's Policy Manual. A new Public Information Meeting policy, now referred to as Development Information Meeting policy, has been drafted (see Attachment 'A') for inclusion in the District of Maple Ridge Policy Manual that: • expands notification to include advertising in the local newspaper; and • describes in more detail the kind of material that should be made available to meeting attendees. To further increase awareness of the scheduling of a Development Information Meeting, it is recommended that the applicants be required to advertise the Development Information Meeting in a local newspaper. In addition to the already established methods of notification, advertisement in a local newspaper should provide added opportunity for the neighbourhood and interested members of the community outside of the designated neighbourhood of the Development Information Meeting. It should be noted this expanded notification requirement is consistent with the public information meeting process used by other Lower Mainland municipalities. In the past, there has been some confusion between the Public Information Meeting and the Public Hearing. In an attempt to reduce the confusion amongst applicants and the public it is being recommended that the name of the policy be changed to Development Information Meeting. Posting of Rezonin Signs The current policy for the posting of rezoning signs was instituted to inform the general public of the intent of a rezoning application and to indicate the property(s) involved in the application. The applicant is responsible for placing a sign on the site a minimum of 14 calendar days prior to a Public Information Meeting or, if no Public Information Meeting is required, 14 calendar days prior to a Public Hearing. The sign must include a map, with the exception of a development creating ten or fewer single family parcels where a map is not required. The sign must show the location of the property involved in the application as well as information on the application, any upcoming meetings and who to contact in order to obtain more information on the application. Pronosed Changes Following -a review of the sign posting -policies of several Lower Main-land municipalities, a number of modifications to the current policy are being recommended. In order to increase the public's awareness of development applications, it is recommended that Official Community Plan Amendment applications also require a sign to be posted on the property(s) under application. In the past only those amendment applications accompanied by a rezoning application were required to post a sign on site. To facilitate this change, the name of the policy would be amended to read "Development Sign Specifications". A copy of the draft policy has been provided at the end of this report for review (see attachment 'B'). In the interest of ensuring that the public has adequate opportunity to consider an application, seek information and provide comment, the policy has been amended to require that sign(s) be placed on the site a minimum of 21 calendar days following a development application being received by the Planning 2 Department. The sign would be on the site shortly after the application is made, regardless of when the proposal goes to Public Hearing or a Public Information Meeting. This would ensure that the public notified of development proposals at an early stage, providing them with a longer period of time in which to provide comments. It is also recommended that the revised policy contain the following points: • A specific time frame for removal of the sign. The applicant would be required to remove the sign within 30 days of completion of the Public Hearing; • The inclusion of a map on every development sign, rather than just those creating more than ten single family parcels; • A standard size for development signs (8 feet x 4 feet) be used, in order to accommodate the inclusion of a site map on every development sign. The previous policy allowed for signs of 4 feet x 4 feet to be posted for applications creating 10 or less single family lots; • The removal of the District logo from the sign in an effort to stress that, although the sign is a municipal requirement, it is the property and responsibility of the developer. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: Increased notification times will ensure an increased level of awareness of Development Information Meetings and development applications, and provide a neighbourhood with a longer period of time to seek information and provide feedback. In an effort to ensure that local sign companies receive appropriate notification regarding the proposed changes to the District's sign posting policy, it is recommended that the Development Sign Specification Policy become effective 2 weeks following the approval of the policy by Council. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimal financial implications on the development community can be expected from amending the Public Information Meeting and Posting of Rezoning Signs policies. Based on the estimate of a local sign company the price increase associated with a modified 8 ft. x 8ft. development sign is approximately $25 dollars, and the additional newspaper advertising will cost between $150 and $250 for advertisement in two consecutive issues of a local newspaper ALTERNATIVES: The alternative to the proposed revision of the Public Information Meeting and Posting of Rezoning Signs policy is to continue with past practice. 3 11 SUMMARY: During the 2001 Business Planning process, the Planning Department was asked to review its policies for Public Information Meetings and the Posting of Rezoning Signs as part of an initiative to streamline the development approval/application process, increase the relevancy of the policies and to improve the procedure for notification of the public. The proposed amendments to the policies would ensure that a greater number of persons are notified, that the notification is more representative of the neighbourhood and that the public has a greater chance to seek information and provide comments. Prepared byt (4 Groqk, P.g.& S(evkn Jones (Student Planner) Mauaer lf Ueve1opm(t and Environmental Services ane Approved by: / Frank Quinn, P. Eng, PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer KG/jvt 4 Attachment A CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TITLE: DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION MEETINGS AUTHORITY: . EFFECTIVE DATE: IMMEDIATELY POLICY NO. . SUPERSEDES: POLICY STATEMENT: That with respect to Development Information Meetings, be it resolved that the policy take effect when approved by Council. For any application involving an Official Community Plan amendment (other than a boundary adjustment for environmental or legal reasons), or for the rezoning of land to permit a significant amount of development in compliance with the Official Community Plan (any development proposing 50 or more dwelling units - or in the case of a staged' development, where the site has the potential for 50 or more dwelling units) or where in the opinion of the Director of Planning, that a smaller development could have a significant impact on the amenities or character of the surrounding area, the applicant shall be required to hold a Development Information Meeting. The meeting is the responsibility of the applicant to host and all costs related to the meeting are to be assumed by the applicant. A fee is also charged by the Municipality to cover the cost of staff time as set out in the current District of Maple Ridge Fee By-law, should a staff member attend the meeting as an observer. For such proposals, the following materials should be made available at the Public Information Meeting: Project Analysis -reconciliation of major elements of the plan - - - Neighbourhood Context That may include: - overall relationship in character and massing to the surrounding area - impact on views - relationship to adjacent buildings Site Planning That may include: - effectiveness of building locations and open spaces Printed on December 20, 2001 Page 1 of 3 Policy - parking access and provision - cross-sections or topographic information for sloping sites - inventory of site features, including plants and vegetation to be retained - preliminary grading information - extent of soft and hard landscaping d) Building Design That may include: - general massing and overall articulation - appropriateness of form to use - roofscape-form and function (screening of essential services) Comment sheets - The distribution of a comment sheet to allow the public to record any concerns or comments they might have with the project or any aspect of the project is recommended. The applicant shall be responsible for the format of the meeting and the keeping of a detai record of the meeting. After the meeting, a summary report should be submitted to Planning Department as soon as possible. The report should include the meeting record, analysis of the comment sheets, and a discussion on how the issues and concerns identii from the Development Information Meeting are to be addressed in the project. 4. Staff from the Planning Department may attend the meeting as an observer at the of the Director of Planning. The arrangement for and provision of facilities for the Development Information Meeting are the responsibility of the applicant. The meeting should be at a time that ensures adequate opportunity for the public to attend. The location of the meeting should be in close proximity to the project site and should be large enough to accommodate the anticipated turnout. Appropriate venues may include community halls, schools or churches, but do not include private homes andlor offices of applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for all notification of the Development Information Meeting. The notice shall contain the following: The application number; The location of the subject property; The purpose of the application; The date, place and time of the Development Information Meeting; An invitation to obtain information on the application from either the Planning Department or the developer/applicant with contact numbers; 1) A map showing the location of the property(s) involved in the application; The applicant should mail or otherwise deliver the notice of the meeting to all property owners and residents within 50 metres of the subject property(s) and to the Planning Department, at least 10 days in advance of the meeting date. The Planning Department will provide applicants with a list of property owners, their mailing addresses and mailing labels. 8. The notice of the Development Information Meeting must be published in at least 2 consecutive issues of a local newspaper, the last publication to appear not less than 3 and not more than 10 days before the meeting. The notice must include the civic address of the property under application, the date, time and location of the Development Information Meeting, and a contact number for the applicant and the Planning Department. Prmted on December 20, 2001 Page 2 of 3 Policy t 9. Notification signs shall be posted on the site in accordance with the District of Maple Ridge Policy regarding the Posting of Development Signs. PURPOSE: To establish a minimum standard for the hosting of a meeting by a developer to inform the public of proposed development changes in their neighbourhood and to allow for the identification of issues and concerns early on in the development process. Prmted on December 20, 2001 Page 3 of 3 Policy 0' Attachment B 11 orated 12 Septenibcr 1874 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TITLE: DEVELOPMENT SIGN SPECIFICATIONS AUTHORITY: . EFFECTIVE DATE: POLICY NO. . SUPERSEDES: 6.19 APPROVAL: POLICY STATEMENT: That with respect to the posting of development signs, be it resolved that the policy take effect when approved by Council. This policy shall apply to all Official Community Plan or Rezoning development applications. Development signs shall be placed to indicate to the general public the intent of a development application and to indicate that the property(ies) involved in an application. The developer/applicant shall be solely responsible for the preparation, placement and maintenance of the sign(s) and there shall be no cost to the municipality. Each developer/applicant involved shall receive from the municipality a letter indicating when the sign(s) must be placed. The sign(s) shall be placed on the site a minimum of 21 calendar days following a development application being received by the municipality. Failure to place the sign at the property may prevent further processing of the application. A photo of the sign on the property must be provided as part of the development application. - Notification of a Development Information Meeting must be placed on the site a minimum of 10 calendar days prior to the Development Information Meeting. Failure to place the sign at the property 10 days prior to the scheduled Development Information Meeting will invalidate the-Development Information Meeting and another meeting will be required. - Notification of a Public Hearing must be placed on the site a minimum of 10 calendar days prior to the Public Hearing. Failure to place the sign at the property 10 days prior to the scheduled Public Hearing will result in the application being withdrawn from the agenda of that Public Hearing. The sign(s) must remain on the site until the development application is approved or denied. The sign is to be removed within 30 days after the Public Hearing. The sign(s) shall be placed in a prominent location on the site. Where a site abuts more than one road, one sign for each road frontage may be required. Printed on December 20, 2001 Page 1 o12 Policy 6.19 6. The size, layout and arrangement of text on the sign(s) shall be according to the attached sketches. The overall dimensions of the sign shall be 1.2 metres (4 ft.) by 2.4 metres (8 ft.). 7. The sign text shall be subject to the approval of the municipality and shall contain the following information: The development application number; The purpose of the application; A description of development proposal (lot sizes, number of units, etc.); The date, place and time of the Development Information Meeting; The date, place and time of the Public Hearing; d) An invitation to obtain information from either the Planning Department or the developer/applicant with contact numbers. 8. The sign(s) shall contain a 0.6 metre (2 ft.) by 0.6 metre (2 ft.) map showing the location of the property involved in the application. PURPOSE: To ensure proper notification to the public of proposed development changes in their community. DEFINITIONS: Printed on December 20, 2001 Page 2 o2 Policy 6.19 All text within the blank areas must be approved by the Planning Department prior to construction of the sign. All text is helvetica, and all text colour must be black. The sign background colour is #203-2W (light beige) 2' - 0" DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION No. RZ -00 -01 (12345 120 A St.) PROPOSED Rezoning from RS-3 to RS—lb to enable the development of single family lots 0 of single family lots. SUBJECT MAP 0 Number of lots: 40 showing project Lot size: 557sq. m. - 583 sq.m. location, adjoining roads and properties c'.1 (These numbers are approx. only and may change and north arrow before final approval) DEVELOPER: SPR Development Group 604-123-4567 PNNING DEPARTMENT I i...Se.e..beiow..for..the..inf.oimoton...w.hch..shou.Id....'. 604-467-7341 8'-O" This proposal will be presented at a Development Information This proposol will be presented at a Public Hearing in Meeting in the on the Council Chambers at the Municipal Hall on _______ at pm. at pm. BACKGROUND COLOUR - OLYMPIC BLUE BACKGROUND COLOUR - TOMATO RED CORPORATION OF THE SAM P LE S I C N DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 3-3 ;u) O? CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Excess Capacity/Extended Services Agreement LC 79/01 ; SD 34/97 DATE: January 4, 2002 FILE NO: E08-016-576.1 E01-052-001.2 ATTENTION: C. 0 PURPOSE: Part 26, Division 11, of the Local Government Act provides that where a developer pays all or part of the cost of excess or extended services, the municipality shall determine the proportion of the cost of the service which constitutes excess or extended service and determine the proportion of the cost of the service to be attributed to parcels of land which the municipality considers will benefit from the service. Latecomer Agreement LC 79/01 will provide such determination for Subdivision SD 34/97. RECOMMENDATION: That with respect to the subdivision of lands involved in SD 34/97, at 235 Street and Larch Avenue, be it resolved: That the cost to provide the excess or extended services are, in whole or in part, excessive to the municipality and that the cost to provide these services shall be paid by the owners of the land being subdivided, and That Latecomer Charges be imposed for such excess or extended services on the parcels and in the amounts as set out in the memorandum of the Chief Administrative Officer dated January 4, 2002, and That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign and seal a "Latecomer Agreement" with the subdivider of the said lands. BACKGROUND: The attached map identifies the lands which are involved in the Subdivision 3 4/97 and those which will benefit from the excess or extended services. The cost breakdown for each excess or extended service is as detailed in Appendix I to this report. ',O6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT/IMPLICATIONS: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/PUBLIC RELATIONS INVOLVEMENT/IMPLICATIONS: N/A INTERDEPARTMENTAL INVOLVEMENT/IMPLICATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A SUMMARY: A developer has provided certain services in support of Subdivision SD 34/97. Some of the services benefit adjacent lands therefore, it is appropriate to impose Latecomer Charges on the benefitting lands. Latecomer Agreement LC 79/0 1 summarizes the municipality's determination of benefitting lands ost attribution and also establishes the term over which such Latecomer Charges will be plied. Prepare Jeff herban, Y.Director of Development Engineering '4 - - - ----Approvedby: jankQuinn,-P.Eng. --- ------ -- - - Public Works & Development Services Poe Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer APPENDIX I TYPE OF EXCESS OR EXTENDED SERVICE 1. ONSITE SERVICE FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY SERVICE # BENEFITT1NG COST OF COST PER BENEFIT LOTS BENEFIT LOT ATTRIBUTED BY PROPERTY EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION Road 51 $173,145.00 $3,395.00 LotA,P1anRP 15218 — 23 5 Street 3 x $3,395.00 Sanitary Sewer 51 $48,250.00 $946.00 Lot A, Plan RP 15218 - 235 Street 2 x $946.00 Water Main 51 $47,175.00 $925.00 Lot A, Plan RP 15218 - 235 Street 3 x $925.00 2. EXTENDED NOMINAL SERVICE SERVICE # BENEFITT1NG COST OF COST PER BENEFIT LOTS BENEFIT LOT ATTRIBUTED BY PROPERTY EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION Road 96 $51,840.00 $540.00 Lot 4, Plan 24142 - Larch Ave. 8 x $540.00 Lot 37, Plan 40978 4 X $540.00 Lot 1, Plan 13167 1 X $540.00 Sanitary Sewer 245 $114,170.00 $466.00 Lot2O,Plan 1105 Main - Larch 1 x $466.00 Ave.!233 St.! Lot 19, Plan 1105 132 Ave. I x $466.00 Lot A, Plan SK1O151 2 x $466.00 Lot 1, Plan 20543 1 x $466.00 Lot 2, Plan 20543 1 x $466.00 Lot 3,P1an20543 1 x $466.00 Lot 4, Plan 21716 1 x $466.00 Lot 1, Plan 58516 1 x $466.00 Lot 1, Plan 13167 1 x $466.00 Lot 37, Plan 40978 3 x $466.00 Lot 4, Plan 24142 8 x$466.00 Lot A, Plan RP 15218 2 x $466.00 Sanitary 5 $4,500.00 $900.00 Lot A, Plan SK 10151 Service 1 x $900.00 Connection Lot 1, Plan 20543 1 x $900.00 Lot 2, Plan 20543 1 x $900.00 Lot 3, Plan 20543 1 x $900.00 Lot 4, Plan 20543 1 x $900.00 A total of all of the aforementioned services for each property is as follows: Lot A, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan SK1O151, N.W.D. Lot 1, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 20543, N.W.D. Lot 2, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 20543, N.W.D. Lot 3, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 20543, N.W.D. Lot 4, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 21716, N.W.D. Lot 1, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 58516, N.W.D. Lot 1, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 13167, N.W.D. Lot 37, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 40978, N.W.D. Lot 4, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 24142, N.W.D. Lot A, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan RP15218, N.W.D. Lot 20, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 1105, N.W.D. Lot 19, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 1105, N.W.D. $1,832.00 $1,366.00 $1,366.00 $1,366.00 $1,366.00 $466.00 $1,006.00 $4,024.00 $8,048.00 $15,784.00 $466.00 $466.00 25 29 PAW \, SUBDIViSION S B 1;4 I '' t I I 1 I I I h I 41 7LJ I 42 oat - A R.,..Pd.0 C 2 r -__ ENFITTIN PRO ERTIES 's.. I :::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::: PAW /7 17 PAM PAM :•:•:•.:::•:•:•• . I II 12 03 I I SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY I .. ... ... .. .: .. I BENEFITTING PROPERTIES PRIVATE AGREEMENT BENEFITTING PROPERTIES WITH PARTIAL PRIVATE AGREEMENT 1) EXCESS CAPACITY/EXTENDED SERVICES AGREEMENT LC 79/01 SD 34/97 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE _______ ___________ SCALE: Incorporated 12 September, 1874 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT __________ _____ FILE/BYLAW: D ATE: SEPTEMBER 2001 N.T.S. L I CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: December 10, 2001 and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP/57/00 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: DVP/57/00 PURPOSE: A Development Variance Permit application has been received to waive the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw requirement to provide street trees on road fronting the isolated undeveloped portion of the proposed subdivision. The planting of the trees would be deferred until that portion of the property is developed. RECOMMENDATION: That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval of DVP/57/00 respecting property located on the east side of Ritchie Avenue north of 117 Avenue will be considered by Council at the February 12, 2002 meeting; and That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal DVP/57/00 if favourable consideration is granted. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Rycon Group Holding Inc. Owner: Rycon Group Holding Inc. Legal Description: Lot 1-22, District Lot 401 and 402, LMP50997 New Westminster District OCP: Existing: Apartment District Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Surrounding Uses N: S: E: W: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Access: Servicing: Previous Applications: PLANNING ANALYSIS: Residential Residential Residential Residential Single Family Residential Residential Hollyrood Avenue/227 Street Provided by SD/57/00 SD/57/00 and DP/57/00 - 41 A 22 lot Subdivision plan has been approved under the RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone. A requirement of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw requires that all parcels within a proposed subdivision shall be provided with services, including street trees, and that all highways within 1 767 or immediately adjacent to a proposed subdivision shall be constructed, in accordance with Schedule 44A". The 22 lot single family subdivision, developed as part of a larger development site within the Fraserview Village lands, has provided all the required services, including street trees. The Development Variance Permit will defer street tree planting on the residual parcel, as illustrated below, until those lands are developed. This approach for street tree planting is supported by the Planning Department. Experience has shown that trees planted on undeveloped, isolated frontages are subject to damage and/or vandalism. In general, it is preferable to plant street trees after site development occurs, as there is less risk of damage to the trees. Approval of this Development Variance Permit would be consistent with this objective. ( RITCHIE AVE. REQUESTED VARIANCE P01? STREET TREES GILLEY AVE. REQUIRED BY BYLAW :) _ .1 lillI.1I - 1 1 S • • • •OO - o AREA OF SUB IVISIO? INAC ANCE WITH _ (ALL SERVIC IG ARE P CEL B' Requested Variance: The requested variance is to Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No.4800-1993 Schedule "A" (Street Trees). The request to waive the requirement to install street trees is supported. The developer has entered into a Servicing Agreement to provide these works but is requesting that this agreement be amended and that Council waive the requirement to provide the street trees until the land adjacent to the constructed highway develops. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: N/A INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The Engineering Department indicated support for the Development Variance Permit through their Engineering Review at the Subdivision Stage - - - - - - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to require the applicant to provide the street trees on the residual parcel, as shown on the sketch provided in this memorandum, as a condition of the current 22 lot subdivision. SUMMARY: This request for a variance is Supportable as the ability to achieve the street trees exists when the land adjacent to the constructed 1 17 th Avenue and 227th Street develops. Pk4?/d by: Gay McMillan GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GMIjvt 3 ROYAL CRES. 10.451 ho / .881 ho I - Rem 58 I o Rem. 23 2.153 I I P 18056 EP 16567 10032 P 57408 I Rem. 6311 P 48518 42 ii 1 I N P 51655I I 18 I 19 LMS 2190 1.124 ho P 82113 I RW 51656 0.413 0 H P j769 i A RW 5165 P 87282 51 i P21553 RITCHIE ITCHIE AVE. P 63225 a. .6043 ho I E NW LOT1 183Q' I 24 SP NW2316 12 1 N N \P 7 416 EP 70 17 20 21/ 22 N I 9571 ii 2 ± 11692 /169 8 23 * N. N II 10 3 LOT /6 225.52 0460 . 8 ho a- .24 1120 a- Q- 9 4 1 MS 11699 06 5 P 64285 804 /1672 / us 1873 8 5 LMI 8 '?' REM. 41 LMP 11662 /166 9574 r 13 b2 2 1 LMS 1172 1 7 6 jo 3 31 GILLEY AVE. .4. 0 li t.32 N 0 N 0. 10 P 2155 1/6.52 I 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 EP 129 . 3 I 1 B —1 1813 I J — ...--7 - - 5 9 11 12 10 ,639 NI 2 8 0)01 \ 7 1301 U, 1l&4°3 , 22200a I \ 22782 I ,9 1 —' ji 6 14 5 15 43 19680 - P 1 1.136 ho P 19681 LMP LOT J 18 19 O' NW 2547 0.620 ho \ 20 P 70417 -O 0787 LMP 1 I 22 B r 48047 1 \ 2 P 82501 . 0.724 ho 11605 ' / 1.01 ho LN LMS 1315 2509 9046 LMP 21 78 NW 3147 LMS 618 N LMP3942 ——— Z 1 1.464 ho H2 a- in 0.732 ho. /1301 1.50 ho I' 1 NW2694 LMP 13596 CP 'I / °'-' .570 ho ,, i I )0 1.136 ho P 16373 0' 2 N a.. .683h0 P83871 <S 00 1 NW 3296 0) 3 a- 13 Li,IP /0 16 .812 ho 38 I // 116 AVE. 2 IV P 79665 11 _______ / , f P 135 / - .j'1 '& 3 / 114 LMS 1596 2 / / - ° //U 4 , I 0) /1 a- a-3.25 ho _________ LMP 1359) SILVER VALLEY A H OTT D CORPORATION OF THE ISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TTONW FRASER \E- SCALE: MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:3500 DRAWN BY: T.M. DATE: Dec. 12, 2001 FILE: DVP-57-00 FRAWN RPwER 11iiiiii1F 1!1 1 1.1uIe1I,II'f ilPIJ.IIiI1 all WFAI 1111111111 4 A fr!q; THE rErr S.' - •••-1_••_ uI CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 09, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/020/01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: First Reading Bylaw No. 6012-2002 248th St. and 100th Ave. PURPOSE: The development proposal is to rezone a portion of the property from A-2 (Upland Agricultural) to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to enable the subdivision of the property into four lots. The lot is currently split-zoned and the proposed rezoning will bring the northeastern portion of the lot zoned A-2 in line with the rest of the property. Council gave favourable consideration to the above noted application December 11, 2001. RECOMMENDATION That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6012-2002 be given First Reading. That application RZ/20/01 and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6012-2002 be referred to Public Hearing. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Damax Consultants Ltd. Owners: Harry Redmond Legal Description: Lot A, Sec. 3, Twp. 12 NWD Plan LMP 42378 OCP Existing: Urban Reserve Proposed: N/A (no change) Zoning Existing: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential & A-2 Upland Agricultural Proposed: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Surrounding Uses: North: M-2 General Industrial East: A-2 Upland Agricultural and RS-3 One Family Rural Residential -South: RS-3 One Family RuralResidential West: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single-family rural residential Access: 248 St., 100 Ave., & Jackson Road Servicing: Well WE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The lot is currently designated Urban Reserve on the Official Community Plan, which allows a minimum parcel size for subdivision of 2.0 hectares. The applicant has submitted a subdivision application for four lots and has also submitted a plan anticipating future rezoning and subdivision to the RS-lb zone. The applicant is aware that the property is still within the Urban Reserve and as such, there is no guarantee of any future re-designation. As such, staff commentary has been confined to the RS-3 application. Typically, One Family Rural Residential lots are serviced by on-site septic disposal. However, the applicant is choosing to extend the sanitary sewer connection to the property. The applicant has been made aware that the construction of the sanitary sewer does not in any way indicate approval or support of any future re- designation. Conditions to be met prior to final reading: Preliminary approval from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Water Management Branch; Inclusion of the site into Sewer Area "A"; Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement including the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Fish and Wildlife Branch has reviewed the rezoning and subdivision applications and has no concerns with the application. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: There is a watercourse bisecting the subject property identified as an intermittent creek on Schedule "E" of the Official Community Plan. Accordingly any subsequent building permits will be reviewed within the framework of Development Permit Area XXX; Watercourses Designated for Special Treatment. CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: N/A INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: In a memo dated January 3, 2002 the applicant advised that they intend to service the subdivision with the Municipal sanitafy SeWt The Engineering Department has indicated that there is capacity to do so, however, the sewer does not front the development site at this time. Accordingly, as a condition of rezoning, the developer must enter into a rezoning development agreement with the District and submit security for the offsite service extension. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A -2- SUMMARY: The subject property currently contains two zones, RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and A-2 (Upland Agricultural). The project proposes to subdivide the property into four (4) parcels not less than 2.0 hectares each. In order to facilitate the proposed subdivision and to bring the zoning on the site into congruence, the proponent has applied to rezone the A-2 (Upland Agricultural) portion to the RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). Prepared by: David Stevenson in Technician CApprov 1ic ering, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning la.~~ 102. Approvedby/ FrankQ nn GM: Public Works & Development Services Co currence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer DSfjvt -3- J §iWh1112 2r8tJh1641 2 P-I M-2 RP 6502 P 1208 N 1/2 1 Rem 31 )62831 • P34785 33 34 1 Pi,q8 P 292 29 T P 1208 P 1208 Reml6 15 A-2 P36818 30 I-, 1U6 Rem 18 P 1208 Rem 17 L' P 33808 F Rem42 43 INRES Rem PcI. 1 SK 12314 LMP4 78 LotA RS -3 -IuU I / / JP143? 14 13 12 11 10 P 12328 Rem 7 Rem A RP 14005 EED N llLv A RZ-20-01 ic A SCALE: 1:5500 KEY MAP DATE: Mar 272001 FILE: RZ20-01 BY: CB damax consi*uits ltd. 3862 w. 14th avenue, va1ouver v6r 2w9 tel. 224-6827 fax.222-9240 mzv~='-lvz -t ia-c J- UT JAVP5 9 1] 1 ,1 17 if II kc —it 4 L1 1 I - I I CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6012 - 2002 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. 6012 - 2002." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: All that portion of: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan LMP 42378 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1266 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby rezoned to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 2002. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation and Highways this day of , A.D. 2002. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2002. MAYOR CLERK P C 785 - 2.023 M. 2.024 ho. RP 8502 0.721 he LMP42377 2 P6579F 23/8 I P 29247 i I 2.4O5ho I S. I 29 I I 0.405 ho. I RP 10788 PcI. K I 4.047 ho P 1208 \ 24' GAZETTED ROAD Rem 16 (BC GAZETTE. P9. 14513. \' DECEMBER 15, 1910.) 3.107 M. SEE POS11NG PLAN LMP 5856 \I ' In PCI 1 12314 LMP 42378 <1 P 36818 \% "E!4238o / 30 \ Lot A 1.619ho. team 9.604 ha l0540 \ P1208 \ Reml7 1.880 ho. LMP 42377 190 AVE. 71189 99 72907 -- 71155 I l I l P 16340 P 33808 14 13 12 it 10 jl6340 Rem 42 2328 I I 2.405ho12.405h910405ho 04051,0 m7 ______ MAPLE PLDGE ZONE AMENDJNG Bylaw No. 6012-2002 Map No. 1266 From: A-2(Upland Agricultural) To: RS-3(One Family Rural Residential) AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:4000 I; CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 10, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/82/99 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: First Extension RZ/82/99 PURPOSE: The applicant for the above noted file has applied for an extension to this rezoning application under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is for 8 townhouse units and will permit an accessory parking area for a neighbouring commercial building under the CD-2-00 (Comprehensive Development) zone. Staff support this application for an extension. RECOMMENDATION: That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ182/99. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Wayne Bissky Owner: 403436 B.C. Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 1, Except: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP 41118 and Lot 2, Plan 12274, both of District Lot 402, Group 1, New Westminster District OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: N: S: E: W: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Access: Compact Housing (40 units per net hectare) Compact Housing (40 units per net hectare) RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) CD-2-00 (Comprehensive Development Zone) Townhouses Townhouses Townhouses Garden Apartment Vacant and Single Family Residential Townhouses 116 Avenue -1- am This development proposal, located on the southeast corner of 116 Avenue and Burnett Street, is to permit the construction of 8 townhouse units under a Comprehensive Development Zone (CD-2- 00). The Zone will also permit, as an accessory use, off street parking and regulations to govern that use for other than residents. (copy attached) A requirement of the development process will be to include the site into Development Permit Area XXI of the Official Community Plan to ensure the form and character of the development at the Building Permit stage. Council will have the opportunity to review the development proposal prior to a Building Permit being issued through a Development Permit application process. The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Bylaws 5 899-2000 and 5900-2000 - The land use report was considered on April 11, 2000; (report attached) - First Reading was granted June 27, 2000; (report attached) - Public Hearing was held September 19, 2000; (minutes attached) - Second and Third reading was granted on September 26, 2000. The following are the outstanding Council conditions to be addressed prior to consideration of final reading: Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement including the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; Amendment to Schedule "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan; Road dedication as required; Consolidation of the development site; Removal of the existing building/s; DISCUSSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and it is - - anticipated that final consideration will be applied for--within the next few months. - INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A -2- A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The Advisory Design Panel reviewed this application at their meeting of June 1, 2000. A Public Information Meeting was held on May 2, 2000. The minutes and resolution from the Advisory Design Panel Meeting and staff observations of the Public Information Meeting are included in the attached First Reading Memo. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The Engineering Department have identified that all the services required in support of the development proposal do not exist to the site. These works will include improvements on Burnett Street and the construction of a walkway on the south side of the development proposal. The applicant will enter into a Rezoning Development Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The applicant will post a refundable security for road improvements on Burnett Street prior to final reading. ALTERNATIVES: N/A SUMMARY: The applicant is anticipating completion of this rezoning in the next few months. Staff supports the request and recommends that Council grant a one year extension to RZ182/99. epared by: Gay McMillan Planning Technician by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GMJjvt -3- s7 Y 6 P 1 7 239 I 8 178 GI C' T' c1 C4 P 12197 I GILLEYAVE 116464 1l6 659 m I i (N ______ ___________ 241 (\184 2 182 181 180 NNl79 183 i P 12316 6 16 15 14 13 [ EP12951 11633 19011 B Rem. 0) 11621 04 1 5 P 12316 A 11607 M -2 RP 13279 22908110 22904/06 \ 10 CS I A 9 NWS3378 RP3713 P 16473 11585 & 8 1 P83761 1 1575 1 11567 RM—I CfD-29 P 86657 23 P 30408 1155 11580 CD-1-8 22 RS1 _ 11541 16AVE Q LMS21 14 Rem i LMP2118 11526 P A A S P 12274 -. I RF.V15 CL 2 11519 11518 22 115 11540 N en- iioi SUBJECT PROPERTIES I \\D) N) 00 • s,\ 11536 1153 4 111 11532 1 R°4 -i P83811 11525 11524 / 115 11520 114 81 11464 RM-4 17 8 11516 1471 1502 11513 11510 RS-3 / 11509 1150 11506 RI\/1_I LIMP I I I I I 12 11505 EN1 RN1 (N i T t ¼ RN RN c c RN 11496 _______ PcLA TELOSKY AVE R-1 — 11 11491 P 71276 10- i? 11487 11492 15 1110 101AGgO12 RemC C 44 11490 P30008 i EN c'i P 7104 17 11488 1432 23007 ' 7o 7 24 SP NW2885 8 06 2 1422 c2fOq LM 825 1. 23 ,,6 q DISTRICT OF L . N E C S L ER 11526 BURNETT CORPORATION OF A THE DISTRICTOF MON MAPLE RIDGE LA C DY MAPLE RIDGE SCALE: 1:2,500 HORNL Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT _____ DATE: Dec23 1999 FILE:RZ-82-99 BY: JB CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5899 - 2000 A By-law to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended and the zoning on Map "A" forming part of Maple Ridge 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. 5899 - 2000." Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 35 10-1985 as amended is hereby further amended by adding the following in Part 10 Comprehensive Development Zones in correct numeral order: "Section 1036 CD-2-00 (Comprehensive Development) This zone provides for low density townhouses and an accessory off street parking use for other than residents. 1. PRINCIPAL USES Subject to the regulations contained elsewhere in this By-law, the following uses and no others shall be permitted in the CD-2-00 zone. Apartment use Two Family Residential a One Family Residential use 2. ACCESSORY USES Accessory boarding use Accessory residential use Accessory home occupation use Accessory off street parking use 3. LOT AREA No person shall create a lot which is less than 557 m2 in area. 4. LOT DIMENSIONS No person shall create a lot which is less than 18 m in width. Page2 • Bylaw No. 5899-2000 5. SITING All buildings and structures for apartment, accessory residential and accessory off street parking use shall be sited not less than 7.5 metres from all lot lines. 6. SIZE OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES All apartment buildings shall not exceed 10.5 metres nor 2 ½ storeys in height. All buildings used for accessory residential use and/or accessory off street parking use shall not exceed 4.5 metres nor one storey in height. 7. OTHER REGULATIONS An accessory off street parking use for other than residents, shall be permitted for up to 15 spaces. an accessory off-street parking use shall be provided in accordance with all the provisions in the Maple Ridge Off Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. The number of spaces per unit shall comply with the RM-1 zone requirements. An accessory off street parking use, when not concealed, shall be bounded by a landscape screen of not less than one metre in height. An accessory off street parking use shall be sited so that the surface of such use at ground level, including a driveway for such use, is not within an arc of 3 metres in radius measured from the nearest surface of a required window. A building for apartment use shall be sited so that there will be provided a continuous 90 degree horizontal are unencumbered by buildings on the same lot of a radius not less than: 15 metres from the centre of all required windows in a living room; 10 metres from the centre of all other required windows other than a living room; 3 metres from the centre of all other windows; - these sub-sections do not apply to windows which are obscired and whichare not required. 0 Usable open space shall be provided on the lot for each unit contained in an apartment building, based on the following ratio: 45 M2 for each 3 bedroom unit. 30 m2 for each 2 bedroom unit. A common activity area or areas shall be provided on the lot on the basis of 5 m2 for each unit. This area may form part of the usable open space requirement. An apartment 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. .4 Jage3 • Bylaw No. 5899-2000 Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 1 Except: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP41 118, District Lot 402, Group 1, Plan 12274, New Westminster District And Lot 2, District Lot 402, Group 1, Plan 12274, New Westminster District and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1237 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, are hereby rezoned to CD-2-00 (Comprehensive Development). Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 2000. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 2000. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 2000. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 2000. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation and Highways this day of , A.D. 2000. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2000. MAYOR CLERK -.4 F L----- 1 Rem. I 1152 \2292 0.628 ha 1 I P 12316 5 P 1 40O/ I A 1160 1 2 2 22931 0.591 ho - I RP 1 327c 22908110 10 0.488 ha I .809 ha p159 Rem. Pt. 'A' A 9 16.2 NWS 3378 RP 3713 t P 16473 0. 55 8 P 8761 001 f Go 0.993 ho. / ,, LMP 41296(Iease P 86657 23 / 0. 4651 LMP 30408 Rem 22 1/5 5.2 11590 LMP 43731 116 AVE.c_. 46 LMP 2117 LMP 41118 00 1 21 14 Rem i LMP 2118 11526 \ PcI. A P 12274 A 21 ho 0.504 ha. 2 "5,9 12216 LMP 3 1 NWS 3409 LMS 1391 I 4 hiP 7352 1.094 ho. I 1 3 P 83811 P712C -- \_Uz t-;:;1i 6 I 116.1 1464 11502 5488 zi,9 1,g U0q8- 4[M 548 567 8? 9'? 11506 1 2 cb ___ I j149 11495 I PcI. A I 0 TELOSKY AVE. jf492 P71276 I 1206ha II j 15 13I12I11 P Rem 0008 7104 ;) 74J2 24 SP NW2885 2 /// kMI~ 25825 ____ V30 / II MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 5899-2000 Map No. 1237 From: RS-1(One Family Urban Residential) To: CD-2-00(Comprehensive Development) MAPLE RIDGE /k Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 I III 9 '61I CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: March 20, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/82/99 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: RZ/82/99 (11518 & 11526 Burnett St.) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This rezoning application proposes to construct nine town-homes and an accessory parking area for employees of a neighbouring commercial facility. Organization of the site uses is important to the success of the project and some recommendations are provided in that regard. The land use is consistent with the objectives of the OCP and is therefore supported. II RECOMMENDATION: That application RZ82199 (for property located at 11518 & 11526 Burnett St.) to rezone property described in the memorandum dated March 20, 2000 from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to CDI2/00 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: Comments from the Advisory Design Panel. A Public Information Meeting must be held. Fully dimensioned development plan including: Neighbourhood context plan; Site plan; Building elevations; Landscape concept. And that prior to final approval the following must be completed: Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement including the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; Amendment to Schedules "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan; -1- Road dedication as required; Consolidation of the development site; Removal of the existing buildings; III BACKGROUND: Applicant: Wayne Bissky Owner: 403436 B.C. Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 1, Except: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP41 118, & Lot 2, D.L. 402, Tp. 1, Plan 12274, NWD OCP: Existing: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: N,S &E: W: Compact Housing (40 units per net hectare) RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Comprehensive Development Townhouses Garden Apartment Existing Use of Property: Vacant and Single Family Residence Proposed Use of Property: Multi-family Residential Access: 116 Avenue IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Description/Context The site is 0.237 ha in size and consists of two separate parcels. It is located on the south east corner of 116 Avenue and Burnett St. There is a dedicated right of way south and east of the site. The portion on the south contains a 3 m walkway which is used by the adjacent site for pedestrian access. The lot on the north part of the site is vacant and is currently used to park vehicles in support of a commercial operation located approximately 50 m to the north and east on the south west corner of Lougheed Highway and 116 Avenue. There is a small house on the southerly lot that will be removed. The site will have to be consolidated prior to final reading. -2- Site Plan - Description The development proposal identifies 9 town-homes and an accessory parking area. The town- homes are organized into two buildings.' The larger of the two buildings contains 6 units all fronting onto Burnett Street. The small grouping of 3 units is located opposite the larger block to the south end of the site.. The parking lot is located in the northeast corner of the site, adjacent 1 16th Avenue. Vehicle access to the site is also located at this corner. The parking area is proposed to be assigned to staff parking for a commercial facility opposite the site on 1 16th Avenue. Landscape screening is provided for all edges of the parking area. The walkway to the south provides access to the new development and will be enhanced with landscaping and a decorative surface. Site Plan - Concerns Staff propose three recommendations for revisions to the development plan. A clear delineation should be provided between the commercial parking area and the residential area. This can be achieved by reducing the number of parking spaces, eliminating approximately seven stalls located in the most westerly area of the parking lot. The existing location for the play space is inadequate and conflicts with any possible pedestrian entry and front entries to two of the town-homes. Relocating the play space to the north end of the site will be possible if the parking area is reduced. This, location will provide superior visibility and surveillance for the space and provide a focal point for the site. - Relocation of the play space to the north will allow for design of a pedestrian entry to the site from the public walkway. Policy Implication: The development proposal complies with Official Community Plan policy, and in total is a relatively small residential infihl project. As such, the project does not require presentation at a Public Information Meeting. However, the parking facility planned with the site accommodates the need of an adjacent commercial development and this effectively introduces an element of commercial activity to the area. A Public Information is therefore recommended to ensure that any opportunity to integrate the use successfully is not missed. V PLANNING ANALYSIS Official Community Plan Schedule "B" The development proposal falls within the density range permitted under the Compact Housing designation. The form of the housing is consistent with expectations for this designation. Schedule "A" & "H" Schedule "A" and "H" of the Official Community Plan will be amended to include the entire site into a Development Permit Area to ensure the form and character of the development at the building permit stage. This Development Permit Area will address the unique characteristics of the proposal that include the parking area for adjacent commercial lands. The Development Permit, recognizing the relationship and proximity of adjacent uses will also regulate siting characteristics. Zoning Bylaw: In order to facilitate this development it will be necessary to zone the site under a Comprehensive Development Zone. It is proposed that this zone will be the same as the RM-1 Zone with the addition of off street parking as an accessory use. This will ensure that the parking area can only be used as a condition of the town-homes being in place. Servicing: All the services required to support the development proposal do not exist. Some of the required works involve upgrading, including a sidewalk, across the Burnett frontage and reconstruction of a walkway along the south boundary. It will be necessary for the owner to enter into a Rezoning Development Agreement with the District and post security to do the required works prior to final consideration. This agreement must be registered at the Land Title Office. It will also be necessary to dedicate road right of way along the Burnett Avenue frontage to achieve a collector standard road. Since the site is within 800 m of the Haney By-Pass, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways must approve the Zone Amending Bylaw under Section 52 of the Highway Act prior to final reading. -4- Approved VI CONCLUSION: This development application meets the objectives of the Official Community Plan and attempts to address some of the needs of a neighbouring commercial development. Some modifications to site planning for the project are recommended to ensure the project addresses neighbourhood context and objectives for multifamily development generally. It is recommended that the application be supported. \iSQ4 Prepared by: Gay McMillan nnngTechneiar. Prepared by: Moreno Rossi4QCEP Registered P anner Approved by: Jake J. Rudolph, AICP, MCIP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GMfbjc -5- Rezonlng Application RZ-82.99 SITESTATISTICS ClftA4d,.. j OjUit-. DC -I LS.t __________ Il.'U. pr kbUl nin CUi 411 is, . road dsdicstOfl — Un, I .,. 116th Street £ll nn MY 21 access a L : 20 A tehicu1ar Ij OAD.q 6 4 70..j 1 - 9' (nOR i A 19 2, I I*qfl I Lot 1 I - - 2 v I ' A - - .' 6 I ., --. 93mI. -• ... Noteiandscapeshown Is conceptual only. road'f 3 4 n'5 I-.-. •ts Refer to submitted landscape Architects plans for detail edIcatIo1 A — , -i-- ../ 20 I 8 7 Lot2 . 'O / 4 - 9 / 0- A - 8B / -I • ••---- . E I2 I t 1-i [ 5 8 BA to -.•• ,•.' tZ it t3 4 .. -nluntcipaipl-operty 1 6 • 7 / A B , 0 0 lw :i:nn •c--o a " -' 10 3m wIde walkway - - 6InIO IrIRD ' ErReD N v E SITE PLAN manicipal property \J .-.) S A-i mum I D!MING EL_i_L —/D± • IiJ_H L :DTCflEN:: •ARAoEI; • - r ----- - • 24 I!? -J iI jLi OM BEDROOM 3 sBMlJ 21 I7525ll _.:i4J Afl LI - PAMILY ROOM BEDROOM 3 <rj BcM - • 2 I. •. I . 1553.71W iI liHIJ I P 1 fl íjiiI I 2.1111 ! B 4, E. 2.l V B.0 - : 4 0 4' B. *1 lip UNIT A - LOWER FLOOR UNIT A- UPPER FLOOR UNIT A- UPPER FLOOR Option I Option 2 17 17 .1 A-2 TFT 7:11 H jL I UNIT B - UPPER FLOOR 1 Ill. A-3 244 liT _ - DINING LIVING 12 41 11J :rf_ •ço I T—r K1TCHEN ARAG] JHU flit 1i11II I 114LIl I I liii a. 0< UNIT B - LOWER FLOOR riifl t,'Mr F%w .wIu,fr. p.rag 147. I4.qtl rFpl, n 44d, iOft 7.,Isl .jfl.., l441.44 MI 1h - - . - Alm 1i An mail M OLL j A alp '. - - & 7ir- - -_--,- --'---.r--.-. - --_-...,•a .. ..- 19 -1 W-;t fft` CONCEPTUAL STREETSCApE II jILI !li 11JJ:J II JIlIJIUL ci a 4o 0 4) A-6 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: May 29, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/82/99 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: First Reading Bylaw No. 5899-2000 & 59007 2000 (11526 & 11518 Burnett Street) SUMMARY: This development proposal is to permit the construction of 8 townhouses and an accessory parking area for employees of a neighbouring commercial building. Council gave favourable consideration to the above noted application April 11, 2000 with the stipulation that prior to being presented at a Public Hearing, the following would be complied with: Comments from the Advisory Design Panel. Their comments are attached. A Public Information Meeting must be held. That meeting was held, staff observations are attached. Fully dimensioned development plan showing the following: Neighbourhood Context Plan; Site Plan; building elevations; Landscape Concept Plan. The above has been received and it is recommended that 1st reading be given to the subject bylaws. It should be noted that the applicant has made several changes to the original development proposal based on staff recommendations and after receiving comments from the Public Information Meeting: - The number of townhouses has been reduced from 9 to 8; The number of commercial parking spaces has been reduced from 21 to 15; The tot lot has been moved to the north; The applicant will be providing a secure parking facility that will be accessed via a card system for authorized users only; The townhouses on the east of the site have been moved further to the north. RECOMMENDATION That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5899-2000 and Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 5900-2000 be given First Reading. Prepared by: Gay McMillan Planning Technician Approved by: Jake J. Rudolph, AICP, MCIP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GM/bjc IWM N SCALE: 1:2,500 1 MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12, September, 1874 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11526 BURNETT DATE: Dec23 1999 FILE:RZ-82-99 BY: JB DPSTPICT OF PITT MtAOOW DISTPICT OF LANGLEY KEY MAP Public Information Meeting RZ/82/99 May 2, 2000 The meeting form was a drop-in session. The applicant had provided boards with site plan, elevations and neighbourhood context plan which included shadow casting studies based on the winter and summer solstice. The development plan presented was changed to reflect staffs concerns in the land use report to Council dated March 20, 2000. The commercial parking has been reduced by six spaces. The play area has been moved to the north. The townhouse units have been reduced by one and move further north from the south property line. The concerns expressed by the residents who attended: The parking area. The parking area for the commercial component located north east of the site, causes noise late at night by the users. It was felt that there were too many spaces allocated for this and no way of regulating it. The walkway. There is a walkway on the south side of the development site which provides access via a locked gate into Telosky Village. This has a 2 m high fence on the Telosky Village side of the walkway. There was interest that some improvement be made to this and that no access be taken from it for the new development. It was felt that this was to have been a fire access for Telosky Village; there is however an alternate fire access already provided for the site. Intersection Concerns: The 116 Ave./Burnett St. intersection is of concern as 116 Avei goes from 2 lanes on the east of Burnett St. to 4 lanes on the west. This and the fact that there is parking on Burnett north of the intersection cause bad sight lines when entering the intersection. Shadow Casting The applicant provided a computer generated shadow casting study of the impact this building would have on Telosky Village and Bakerview townhouse site. The residents were concerned that incorrect information had been used and that this shadow casting was not representative of the facts. A copy of the applicants methodology for establishing the criteria used to generate this is attached. Outcome The Engineering Department are reviewing the 116 Ave/Burnett St. intersection; The applicant has offered to use a gate system on the parking area which would be accessible to residents and authorized holders of the parking spaces. These are for tenants of the commercial building. This would secure the parking area to authorized users only; The applicant is proposing to move the block of three units further north. ELD Bissky Architecture Inc. ff 604-467-8300 5/10/00 (i 2:53 PM D 1/1 Wayne Stephen Bissky ARCHITECTURE • URBAN DESIGN INC. 6- 21409 Lougheed Hwy. Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 2R8 Ph (604) 4671300 Fax (604) 467-8305 - Wednesday, May 10, 2000 Ms. G. McMillan Planning Department Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, B.C. \T2X 6A9 Re: Application: RZ/82/99 11518 & 11526 Burnett Street Dear Gay; Further to our telephone conversation earlier today I am able to provide the following information. The shadow analysis that we provided at the public information meeting we hosted last week was produced at my office utilizing a solar animation program within our main CAD program, Vectorworks. It is the latest version available through the software developer, Diehi Graphsoft Inc. of Columbia Maryland and is considered a leader in the Computer Aided Drafting field. The process involves placing the buildings to scale in two dimensional, as well as three dimensional relationship to one another. We obtained information on both Bakerview and Telosky Village from the drawings on file at the Planning Department. Our analysis allowed for an approximately 30" drop in grade from our site to the Telosky site, a total height of the Telosky Buildings of 8.08m, a fence on the retaining wall between the two properties of 1.5m, and a total height of the new proposed buildings of 7.32 in to the top of the roof. Further, we entered Maple Ridge's latitude, longitude and time zone meridian. Finally, we asked the computer to cast shadows based on the exact times of the year when the sun is at its highest as well as lowest, in order to show the two extremes. As presented at the meeting we showed early morning, noon and late afternoon and evening- shadows. If req-nested, we can project shadows for any time of day, for any date. I u-ust that this will be of assistance to you. I have sent a copy of this drawing in PDF format to your email address should you wish to review it again. Just click on the icon and it should open up right away for you. If there is anything else you require at this time, please do not hesitate to call. Wayne Bissky MAIBC @5-10-98 &3:54 TO: FROM: P@2 lulil II I, i •. : I hih1.1u1u1i!i1i1.1 1u!i.1u11J I - - • H ••I 4 T • . . •• 7- /_ / •.I{I ,: / . •' h 1:4 p Ii I, CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ADVISORY DESIGN PANEL Minutes of the meeting held at 4:30 p.m., Thursday, June 1, 2000 in Committee Room 1 at the Municipal Hall PRESENT: Ian Birtwell, UDI Representative, Vice Chair Councillor Faye Isaac, Council Liaison Wayne Bissky, MAIBC Denis Turco, MAIBC Stefanie Rogers, Arts Community Representative John Kanjer, Public Representative Timothy Bonner, Public Representative Terry Fryer, Director of Current Planner Brenda Graham, Executive Assistant REGRETS: Bjorn Lauridsen, BCSLA, CSLA Ryan Huston, MAIBC Bernie Smandych, RCMP Representative Call to Order: The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. New Business: 2.1 Terms for Panel Membership On August 31, 2000 the following terms are up: Ryan Huston - Architect Denis Turco - Architect Stefanie Rogers - Community Arts Representative Tim Bonner - Public Representative Bernie Smandych - Community Policing Representative Stefanie Rogers and Tim Bonner indicted that they are willing to serve another one-year term. Denis Turco will continue to attend until another Architect is appointed by the AIBC. Staff were asked to contact Ryan Huston and Bernie Smandych (they were not present). 2.2 Downtown Core Project Mr. Fryer noted that the remainder of the Downtown Core project, (Arts Centre, underground parking, and park) will be ready to come to the Panel in late June or early July. He indicated that most likely we will be calling on the Panel to attend a special meeting for this project. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, March 2, 2000 were approved as presented. Advisoiy Design Panel Minutes of the Meeting June 1, 2000 Page 2 Mr. Bissky was excused from the Panel to make the following presentation. 4. Projects: 4.1 RZ-82-99 • Applicant: Wayne Bissky • Proposal: 8-unit townhouse development • Location: 116th and Burnett Avenue Terry Fryer did a brief introduction to this project, explaining that it is an 8-unit townhouse project, that will incorporate a small staff parking area for the Commercial area northeast of the site. It has been to a Public Information meeting, and after this, it will go to the Council for First Reading and on to a Public Hearing. Mr. Bissky said that the site is located at the corner of 1 16th Street and Burnett, just one block off the Lougheed Highway. Currently there is an older home on the property, and there are townhouse developments to the north, east, and south. Across Burnett there is a three-storey apartment building. He went on to say this project has already has a significant amount of input from Planning Department staff and the neighbours in Telosky Village. They are proposing eight 1450-sq.ft. townhouses, plus 15 parking stalls to provide staff of the nearby Eastside Village commercial development. It represents a reasonable and fair compromise between these sometimes conflicting requirements. The townhouses are divided into one block of five units, fronting Burnett, and a smaller block of three directly behind. They will share a common driveway. Vehicular access is from 116th Street. The developer is proposing an electronically operated gate to the project, which will preclude the possibility of public using the parking lot after hours. The scale of the project has been kept down to blend in with the neighbourhood. There is private outdoor space for each townhouse. The townhouses along Burnett have been brought close to the street, and will be provided with lower picket fencing and entry gate. A 100 sq. metre children's play area is located next to the main public pedestrian entry. The package Mr. Bissky presented also included a computer-generated view of the shadowing over different seasons and times of day. The colour scheme will be burgundy and grey - with a combination of Duroid shingles, wood trim, and cedar siding. Due to the frontage on the corner, Mr. Bissky has chosen strong colours for this project. It was duly MOVED and SECONDED that the following resolution be passed: RESOLUTION: The Advisory Design Panel expressed overall support for the project, and noted that there was a very thorough consideration of site and neighbourhood issues. They also had the following comments: - ' — Advisory Design Panel Minutes of the Meeting June 1, 2000 Page 3 1. The need to resolve garbage handling - how it will be picked up if it decentralized - or could it be centralized. The Panel suggested that a pedestrian gate be provided at the street entrance near the staffparking lot. The Panel likes the way the elements are brought together to provide a very pleasing appearance. S. Adjournment: There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Date of Next Meeting: The date of the next regularly scheduled meeting is Thursday, July 6, 2000 at 4:00 p.m. in CR1 at the District of Maple Ridge Municipal Hall. bkg: 2000-06-02 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, September 19, 2000 The Minutes of the Public Hearing held in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 at 7:00 pm. PRESENT Elected Officials Appointed Staff Mayor A. Hogarth Mr. T. Fryer, Municipal Clerk Councillor C. Gordon Mrs. C. Carter, Director of Planning Councillor J. Harris Mrs. S. Belley, Acting Confidential Secretary Councillor F. Isaac Councillor L. King Councillor K. Morse Councillor C. Speirs Mayor Hogarth called the meeting to order and explained the procedure and rules of order of the Public Hearing. He advised that in accordance with the Local Government Act, no further input into Public Hearing items can be received by the Municipal Council until they are either adopted or defeated. The bylaws will be considered further at the next Council Meeting on September 26, 2000. The Mayor then called upon the Director of Planning to present the following items on the agenda: 1 a) RZ182199 - Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5899-2 000 LEGAL: Lot 1, Except: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP 41118, District Lot 402, Group 1, Plan 12274, New Westminster District and - Lot 2, District Lot 402, Group 1, Plan 12274, New Westminster District LOCATION: 11518 & 11526 Burnett Street FROM: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) TO: CD-2-00 (Comprehensive Development) Public Hearing Minutes September 19, 2000 Page 2 PURPOSE: To permit the construction of 8 townhouse units and an accessory parking area for employees of a neighbouring commercial building. ib) RZ182199— Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 5900-2000 LEGAL: Lot 1, Except: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP 41118, District Lot 402, Group 1, Plan 12274, New Westminster District and Lot 2, District Lot 402, Group 1, Plan 12274, New Westminster District LOCATION: 11518 & 11526 Burnett Street PURPOSE: To amend Schedules "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan to include the site into Development Permit Area XXI (31) to ensure the form and character of development at the building permit stage. The Director of Planning displayed an overhead map of the subject property and reiterated the purpose of the bylaws as noted above. She explained that the applicant has made changes to the plan since originally presented to Council and displayed a map identifying those changes as follows: • the number of units have been reduced by one (down from 9 to 8 units); • parking spaces have been reduced from 21 to 15; • tot lot has been moved to the upper portion of the site; • security access parking with a proposed entry gate by way of key card system; • townhouse units have been moved further north. Mr. Wayne Bissky, Architect for the project, displayed a site plan showing the proposed landscape and scheme of the development. He also referenced the above noted changes as identified by the Director of Planning stating that the proposed changes have been well received by the Advisory Design Panel. He expressed that with Telosky Village to the-south and Baker View to the east, the design fits quite well into the scheme of the area. Mr. Bissky added that neighbourhood in-fill is easier with a larger piece of property. It is more challenging to make smaller in-fill projects work in terms of a neighbourhood and community. He has tried to address everyone's concerns and believes this is a good solution to the site. Public Hearing Minutes September 19, 2000 Page3 Mr. Bissky provided an overview of the type of units proposed: • single car garage with an additional parking space; • private patio within the yard space designated to each unit; • lower floor - living room, dining room, kitchen & nook area, family room; • upstairs - bedrooms and 1.5 to 2 bathrooms; • green space on site. Mr. Bissky explained that with the loss of one unit, the others have been moved to separate the new units from the existing buildings and a 3 metre walkway. Unit entry is gained through a small front gate and a fence along the street with landscaping to Municipal standards. The Municipal Clerk advised that the Public Hearing was advertised and no correspondence had been received. Ms. Darlene Ross, 11502 Burnett Street Ms. Ross submitted a Petition with 65 names on it to the Municipal Clerk. At this point she stated that she would like the opportunity to come back to readdress any issues. She identified on the site plan where her unit was situated in relation to the proposed development. She explained that her condo will look out over the parking lot. Her complaint is the neighbourhood is too dense already with 5 condominium complexes within a one block radius of each other. She feels that the applicant is trying to cram 6 units into one residential lot. She also identified the fact that the playground has been moved adjacent to 116th Avenue, which is a busy street. Ms. Ross noted that the citizens asked that the driveway be changed instead of the playground. She is concerned that the buildings have taken away any and all light and sunlight. She commented that Telosky Village sits 4 to 5 feet below the property line, and other buildings in Telsoky Village are 3 stories high and do not block the light. She stated the buildings are too close. She added that Baker View does not shade Telosky Village, nor does Telosky Village shade Baker View. She further informed Council that Telosky Village was promised a fire lane, which is now a 10 foot walkway. She added that at one time there was a fire in the complex and there was no room for the fire trucks toturn around. - - - On the overhead map, she identified an alley and green space which has been lost. She commented that Telosky Village was never given an opportunity to purchase the property, instead a 6 unit complex is being built on one lot. Among Telsoky Village, there are 4 additional complexes which Ms. Ross identified: South Wood, Cedar Estates to the north, Stanford Place across the street, and Baker View next door. She complained that there is no playground, no open space, but a parking lot. She could see a few spaces for the doctors' parking, but stressed that Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights Li Public Hearing Minutes k September 19, 2000 Page 4 having beer bottles thrown over the fence is too much. In reference to this incident she has contacted Bylaws staff on several occasions apprising them of the situation and was informed not to call them as they were not going to do anything. When she first bought in the area, she understood that it was designated commercial and was aware that a commercial development was going in and townhouses, but was not aware that they were going to put a parking lot in across the street for the convenience of the businesses. She asked Council why they are coming into her neighbourhood? Ms. Ross added that there is a drainage problem, which she identified on the map. She stated that the Municipality put in extra drainage at Baker View. She pointed out that the sewer line ends at the bottom of the property. In closing, she stated that 6 condominiums on one lot is too much with no open space. Mr. Bill Reid, Unit #24-11502 Burnett Street Mr. Reid displayed a photograph of his unit which borders along the fence line and walkway of Telosky Village (north west corner). He advised that he has been working with Mr. Bissky and the Planning Department, all of whom have been cooperative and very helpful. He stated that he is 70 years old and bought his unit 3 years ago. When he moved in he was worried about the walkway being too noisy, however, in 3 years there has not been any noise. Mr. Reid suggested that the walkway be moved and the existing walkway be converted to green space, thus eliminating any traffic in this area. He stated that the way the plan is drawn up now is acceptable, but would like the walkway moved down. Mr. Reid is not opposed to any development, but is concerned about the parking when the development is completed. He understands that there will be 15 spaces with a controlled entrance way, however, hopes that the gate keys will not be passed around. He likes the idea of one unit being taken away as it provides him with a view. Mr. Reid expressed some concern about water flowing through the property and down into the grass area to the end of the fence. He respectfully asked that when digging in this area, if it could be looked at and corrections made to move the water. - - On the second call by the Mayor, Ms. Ross came forward stating that she gave Mr. Bissky permission to come into her home to take photographs and showed Council the view from her window. She reiterated that her unit receives very little light and that the area is far too crowded and felt that it would be better if the building was eliminated. She noted that there are no basement units in Telosky Village; you enter at ground level. The Mayor asked Ms. Ross for clarification on the number of units in her building, and Ms. Ross stated it is a 6 unit building designed for the handicapped. The unit below her looks at the fence with no sunlight, except for a little strip. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: 6k. Lt aoo / and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control By-law Amendment Purpose: This is largely a housekeeping exercise, removing outdated schedules and removing year specific references in the fee schedule for the Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control By-law. Recommendation(s): That the Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control Amending By-law 6004 - 2001 be read a first and second time and that the Rules of Order be waived and the Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control Amending By-law 6004 - 2001 be read a third time. Background: A rate increase was phased in over a three-year period ending in 1999, with a schedule for each year. The rates have remained unchanged since 1999, with schedules updated annually. Citizen/Customer Implications: The cost of licensing a dog in 2002 will remain at the same level as it has been over the last three years. Licensing a dog in Maple Ridge costs more compared to most other municipalities, unless it is done within the discount period, when the cost is similar to or less than other municipalities. Please see the below chart for a comparison. No Early Discount Early Discount Male/Female Spayed/Neutered Male/Female Spayed/Neutered Delta $40 $20 $40 $20 Mission 47.50 25.25 42.50 20.25 New Westminster 48 20 40 15 Burnaby 50 25 40 15 Richmond 50 20 46 16 Maple Ridge 58 31 42 15 Langley 1 60 1 . 40 1 40 20 Financial Implications: - With rates held constant, revenues are expected to be similar to prior years. Alternatives: Amend the annual dog license fee and/or change structure of the rates. Summary: There are no changes that impact the cost of dog licensing and no financial impact to the district. The updating to the schedule allows for a fee to be in place until rates or rate structure amendments are purposed. 73 / Prepared by: /TrevdirMompson,BBA Accountant H/Tax Supervisor Approve'by: 'ake Sorba, CGA Director of Finance 41 y1 Approved byl Paul Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, Ph. D., AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6004 - 2001 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 further 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. 6004 - 2001". That Schedules "B", "C" and "D" of Maple Ridge Dog Pound and Dog Control By-law No. 4524 - 1991 as amended, be deleted in their entirety and replaced with Schedule "B" as attached hereto and forming part of this by-law. 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 CLERK Attachment: Schedule B" tthompsonljhertzog -- 05/12/01 MAPLE RIDGE DOG POUND AND DOG CONTROL AMENDING BY-LAW NO. 6004 - 2001 SCHEDULE "B" Annual DoEr Licence Fees 1. Dog licence fees shall be as follows: Paid before March 1 of the Paid on or after March 1 of Current Calendar Year the Current Calendar Year Male or female dog $42.00 $58.00 Neutered dog $15.00 $31.00 2. An owner of a dog licensed under Section 1(a) above, may apply to the Municipality for a twenty-seven ($27.00) rebate if a Certificate of CastrationlOvariohysterectomy from a registered veterinary surgeon is provided and the claim is made in the same calendar year as the year in which the fees were paid. 3. If a person acquires or purchases a dog anytime between March 1St and July 31St and applies for a dog licence within (30) thirty days of such acquisition or purchase along with reasonable proof of the date of acquisition or purchase, the fee for such dog licence is forty-two dollars ($42.00) or fifteen dollars ($15.00) if the dog is neutered. If a person acquires or purchases a dog anytime between August 1st and December 31st and applies for a dog licence within thirty (30) days of such acquisition or purchase along with reasonable proof of the date of acquisition or purchase, the fee for such dog licence is twenty-one dollars ($21.00) or seven dollars and fifty cents ($7.50) if the dog is neutered. 4. A fee of five dollars ($5.00) will be charged for: replacing a lost dog tag; transferring a dog licence from one owner to another; transferring a dog licence from a deceased dog to a new dog if both dogs are neutered or both dogs are not neutered; or transferring a dog licence from another municipality to this one. 5. A rebate of fifty per cent (50%) of the licence fee paid shall be given to an owner who provides the Corporation with a written application during the current year and reasonable proof of the death of the licensed dog in the first six months of the year. 6. The owner of each "Seeing Eye Dog" -or "Hearing Assistance Dog" shall complete an application form with the Corporation and whereupon satisfactory proof has been provided as to the use of the dog for such purpose, no fee will be charged. tthompsonljhertzog 05/12/01 7/-O/ CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: January 7, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: SUBJECT: Emergency Program Report Purpose: Respond to a request of Council to provide information on the resources available for emergency planning with regard to cost sharing between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Recommendation(s): Receive for information Background: Under the provisions of the Emergency Program Act 1996, both Municipalities must carry out certain functions. However it is legislated that these functions (except for the power to declare a State of Emergency) may be delegated to a Joint Committee. This was the procedure adopted by the Municipalities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, and is reflected in the Municipal Bylaws, which are prepared by each Municipality. Consequently a Joint Committee was formed with representation from both Municipalities. The Committee has the requirement to train sufficient staff to operate a Joint Emergency Operation Centre. For convenience this centre was set up at the Ridge Meadows S.A.R. Headquarters. Alternate EOC's are set up within both Municipal Halls. Each Municipality is responsible to provide for their own local EOC's. Maple Ridge presently has designated the SAR building as their main EOC and Municipal Hall (Committee Room #1) as a back up site. This procedure allows for each Municipality to have the ability to operate independently depending on the location and size of the emergency. To this end training is carried out in each Municipality to prepare staff and the general public in emergency procedures. Instruction is provided through the two Fire Departments, Emergency Social Services and other local emergency providers. Courses of a more advanced nature and beyond the capability of the local instructors are arranged by the Joint Committee with the PEP Academy, these being made available to both Municipal Staffs. The Joint Committee meets monthly, with the Joint Emergency Coordinator as Chair, and alternates between the two Municipalities. The training commitment of the Joint Committee is supervised by the Deputy Fire Chief— Pitt Meadows, who is a certified instructor from the PEP Academy. Intergovernmental Issues: N/A Environmental Implications: N/A Citizen/Customer Implications: N/A I. 75-1 Interdepartmental Implications: N/A Financial Implications: The present financial arrangements are: The salary of the Joint Municipal Emergency coordinator is shared proportionately between the two Municipalities (Maple Ridge $400, Pitt Meadows $200 per month). The secretarial support for the Joint Committee is provided by Maple Ridge. The training commitment for the Joint Committee is made available by Pitt Meadows. Each Municipality provides and funds their own EOC's The Joint Committee staffing cost is covered by the represented Municipality. The Emergency Social Services support cost is covered by Maple Ridge. In 2002 the Maple Ridge Emergency Program Business Plan adopted by Council identifies a budget of $66,523. Included in this amount are 2% ($26,000) of the Departments Support Services budget and 50% of the Emergency Program Assistant salary ($22,000). In addition the District of Maple Ridge contributes $8,000 to the SAR function. The Pitt Meadows Emergency Program identifies a budget of $ 14,3 89. This includes their contribution of $8,000 to the SAR. Pitt Meadows has not included any staff salaries in their budget. It is estimated that the Pitt Meadows Deputy Fire will be spending 10% ($6,600) of his time on Emergency Preparedness. These budgets do not reflect the total dollars that are required to provide the program. The additional staff who participate in the program have their cost included within their department budgets. Alternatives: Summary: The present Emergency Program provides flexibility to allow the each Municipality to support their residents during a local sized event and provide a unified support to the residents of both municipalities 4whenquired r onse is beyond the individual municipalities resources. y Mike Davies Director of Parks & Facilities/ESS Director Mike Murray J General Ma'naer Community Development Parks & R/ecvation Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 16, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: N/A FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council SUBJECT: Community Heritage Commission Special Appointment RECOMMENDATION: That Council appoint Ms. Lisa Codd to the membership of the Community Heritage Commission as a Special Citizen Member with full voting privileges for a two-year term. BACKGROUND: At the January 10, 2002 meeting, the Commission passed a resolution directing staff to prepare a report to Council requesting a special two-year appointment for Ms. Codd. It was agreed that an additional member would help them accomplish their 2002 project goals, as outlined in their current business plan. It was acknowledged that Ms. Codd could bring a significant level of expertise to the Commission based on her educational background and role as Curator with the Langley Centennial Museum. Authority for an additional appointment to the Community Heritage Commission is included in Section 3.3 (d) of Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 5908 —2000, which states: "3.3 Membership on the Commission shall consist o Votin.' Members. d) As many other nzetnbers from persons selected by Council, nominated by citizens or organizations as Council may choose to appoint." Bylaw No. 5908 - 2000 is attached for information purposes. A resident of Whonnock, Ms. Codd is also a member of the Maple Ridge Historical Society and was presented with the Heritage Achievement Award in 1999. She received an MA in History from Simon Fraser University in 2000, and wrote her thesis on the preservation of Haney House. / -. frared by: Jim Charlebois, / Planner Sta ison, ommunity Heritage Commission Approved b. ane MCIP or of Planning /00/ ;~49 6L~- - Approved by: Erank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services (i2zg, i~, Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer Attach. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY and is a consolidation of the following: Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission By-law No. 5908-2000 Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission Amending By-law No. 5928-2000 Individual copies of any of the above by-laws can be obtained by contacting the Clerk's CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 5908 - 2000 A Bylaw to establish a Community Heritage Commission WHEREAS: The Council is authorized to establish by bylaw a community heritage commission pursuant to Part 27 of the Local Government Act; and The Council considers that it is in the public interest to establish a community heritage commission to advise the Council in respect of heritage conservation and to undertake and support activities that promote and assist in the conservation of the heritage of the District. NOW THEREFORE IN OPEN MEETING ASSEMBLED, THE COUNCIL ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: TITLE This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission Bylaw No. 5908-2000". INTERPRETATION "Commission" means the Community Heritage Commission established under Section 3. ESTABLISHMENT, COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION 3.1 There is hereby established a Community Heritage Commission known as the Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission. 3.2 The Commission shall be composed of a minimum of not less than 7 persons. 3.3 Membership on the Commission shall consist of: Voting Members: a) One member from Council; BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 2 Two members from among the persons nominated by Maple Ridge Historical Society; Four members from the Community-at-Large appointed by the Mayor and Council; As many other members from persons selected by Council, nominated by citizens or organizations as Council may choose to appoint. 5928-2000 Non-Voting Members: a) One member from among the persons nominated by the Parks and Recreation Leisure Services Citizens Advisory Committee whom shall serve as a liaison and attend when available to do so. 3.4. At the first meeting of the year, voting members will appoint a Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. The Vice-Chairperson will act in the absence of the Chairperson. 3.5 Community-at-Large Members of the Commission shall be appointed pursuant to Section 3.3 for a two year term, in the month of September to commence their term of office on January l of the following year. 3.6 Subject to Section 3.7, all members shall hold office until the later of December 31st or until their successors are appointed. Members shall be eligible for re-appointment to a maximum of three (3) successive terms. 3.7 When the membership of the commission falls below five (5) any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Commission shall be filled forthwith by the Council for the unexpired term of vacancy. Any member appointed in mid-term shall be eligible upon conclusion of the term for reappointment to a maximum of three (3) successive terms. 3.8 The Council may terminate the appointment of any member of the Commission, and Council will provide notice and the reason for such termination in writing. 3.9 The Chairperson shall advise Council immediately in writing of any member who has been absent from meetings of the Commission for three (3) consecutive meetings without prior leave of absence having been granted by the Commission. Leaves of Absence greater than three (3) consecutive meetings may, by a majority vote of the Commission, be granted when the request for the Leave of Absence is received in writing, prior to the said Leave taking place. 3.10 No member of the Commission shall 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 Commission. I BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE 4.1 The Commission is appointed for the purpose of advising the Council on heritage conservation matters and undertaking and providing support for such activities as benefit and provide for the advancement of heritage conservation in the District. DUTIES OF COMMISSION 5.1 The Commission will: advise Council on any matter referred to it by the Council; undertake and provide support for such heritage activities as directed by Council; present an annual report to Council, setting out its activities and accomplishments for the previous year, and include any financial statements which Council requires; meet not less than once per quarter, each calendar year, unless otherwise directed by Council. 5.2 The Commission may: develop and implement educational and public awareness programs related to heritage conservation in the District; support and raise funds for projects of local heritage significance; make recommendations on heritage policy and advise Council on policy issues relating to heritage property and neighbourhoods; provide information and advice to an individual or community group regarding heritage conservation and policy, upon receipt of a request from the individual or community group; establish and administer a grants in aid and financial assistance application process for organizations, institutions, or other groups requiring financial assistance to engage in activities: to conserve or relating to the conservation of heritage property or heritage resources; to gain knowledge about the community's history and heritage; to increase.public awareness,understanding and appreciation of the community's history and heritage; and necessary or desirable with respect to conservation of heritage property or heritage resources. BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 4 and to evaluate such applications received annually on or before October 3 1 of each year and recommend to Council grants and financial assistance that the Commission considers ought to be given. 6. OPERATIONS OF COMMISSION 6.1 The Commission may adopt such rules for its procedures consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Act or this Bylaw as it may deem expedient and may alter, amend or vary the same as it may be required provided that copies of such rules and procedure and variations and amendments of the rules shall forthwith be forwarded to the Municipal Clerk. 6.2 The Commission shall hold regular meetings, at such time and place within the District as it may decide, and four (4) members in office shall constitute a quorum. 6.3 The Chairperson, or any two (2) members may summon a special meeting of the Commission by giving at least four (4) days notice in writing to each member stating the purpose for which the meeting is called. 6.4 The Chairperson may appoint such committees from within the Commission as he or she may deem necessary. 6.5 All members of the Commission, including the presiding member, may vote on questions before it, and in all cases where the votes of the members present are equal for and against the question, the question shall be negatived. Any member then present who abstains from voting shall be deemed to have voted in the affirmative. 6.6 The Chairperson shall preserve order and decide all points of order which may arise, subject to an appeal to the other members present. All such appeals shall be decided without debate. 6.7 All questions before the Commission shall be decided by a majority of the members present at the meeting. 6.8 No act or other proceedings of the Commission shall be valid, unless it is authorized by resolution at a meeting of the Commission. 6.9 The minutes of the proceedings of all meetings of the Commission shall be maintained in a Minute Book and when signed by the Chairperson or member presiding shall be forwarded forthwith to the Municipal Clerk. 6.10 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except that a part of a meeting may be closed to the public where in accordance with the Municipal Act the subject matter considered falls within those classes of matters that may be considered in-camera. Before a meeting or part of a meeting is to be closed the Commission must state, by resolution, the fact that the meeting is to be closed, and the basis for such closure. IV BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 5 6.11 The Council may by resolution authorize the Commission to consider any specific matter in- camera and hereby authorizes the Commission to consider all of the following general matters in-camera: acquisition or disposition of real or personal property or any interest in them; personnel matters; or legal advice, opinions and litigation matters 6.12 A member of the Planning Department shall serve the Commission as technical advisor. 6.13 The Council shall provide the Commission with a secretary to perform such secretarial duties as are required in the conduct of the meetings of the Commission. 6.14 The Council may include in its annual budget such sums as are necessary to defray the expenses of the Commission. The Commission shall provide a detailed budget proposal to Council on or before October 1' of the year preceding the budget. 6.15 The Commission may hire staff and consultants based on its approved budget to assist in implementing the duties specified in Part 5.0. 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7.1 If a Commission member attending a meeting of the Commission considers that he or she is not entitled to participate in the discussion of a matter or to vote on a question in respect of a matter because the member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter or for any other reason, the member must declare this and state the general nature of why the:member considers this to be the case. 7.2 After making the declaration, the Commission member: must not take part in the discussion of the matter and is not entitled to vote on any question in respect of the matter; must immediately leave the meeting or that part of the meeting during which the matter is under consideration; and must not attempt in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in respect of the matter. 7.3 When the member's declaration is made: the person recording the minutes of the meeting must record the member's declaration, the reasons given for it, and times of the member's departure from the meeting room, and if applicable, the member's return; and the person presiding at the meeting must ensure that the member is not present at the meeting at the time of any vote on the matter. 8. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS Members should be careful when speaking in public or to the media and should always regard themselves as being regarded by the public as members of the Commission. BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 6 INTERPRETATION Wherever the singular or the masculine are used in the Bylaw, the same shall be construed as meaning the plural or the feminine or the body politic or corporate where the context or the parties hereto so require. TRANSITION 10.1 Despite Section 3.5 the members of the Heritage Advisory Committee appointed pursuant to Bylaw No. 42 17-1989, with terms in force at the time of the adoption of the Community Heritage Commission Bylaw No. 5908-2000, may continue to serve out the balance of their terms as Commissioners on the Community Heritage Commission. The term shall be considered a term for the purpose of any limitation on the maximum number of successive terms permitted by this Bylaw. 10.2 By-law No. 4217-1989, A Bylaw to Establish a Heritage Advisory Committee, and all amendments thereto are hereby repealed in their entirety. READ A FIRST TIME this 22nd day of August, 2000. READ A SECOND TIME this 22nd day of August, 2000. READ A THIRD TIME this 22nd day of August, 2000. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 2000. Mayor Clerk 3O ()/ 1,I&V CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: January 22, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: E15-064-006 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: SUBJECT: Interim Report of the Task Force on Energy Policy PURPOSE: To update Council and provide awareness on the Interim report of the Provincial Task Force on Energy Policy. RECOMMENDATION: That staff report titled Interim Report of the Task Force on Energy Policy be received for information. BACKGROUND: In December 2001 the District became aware that the Provincial Government had commissioned a report to develop an Energy Policy. Research shows that in August 2001, the Premier of British Columbia established a Task Force to draft an energy policy framework. A copy of the report's executive summary is attached. The report was recently raised at the GVRD's Planning and Environment Committee. It was evident from that discussion that there was little or no knowledge of the Task Forces work, report or potential impacts at the GVRD level. It is understood that the GVRD and other Municipalities are now reviewing the report. The report has been reviewed and analyzed by staff. Analysis of the report shows that the proposed policies may significantly impact Maple Ridge and it's constituents. It is understood that the guiding principles for the Task Force were: • BC requires a secure, reliable and environmentally sound supply of energy • consistent application of market forces should be applied to the energy sector • BC energy regulations should emulate market principles • The current low-cost electricity that residents enjoy is viewed as an endowment • government agencies involved in regulating energy must be efficient and accountable • the policy excludes off-shore development The Task Force's reported schedule is: • Background reports - Sept. 30, 2001 • Draft report - Nov. 30, 2001 • Consultation with selected parties - Jan 15, 2002 • Final report to Minister - Feb. 15, 2002 • Government announcement - Feb 28, 2002 It is understood that the final report has been deferred for one month. 1 /O0Q DISCUSSION: The Task Force suggests that a new energy policy focus on the following: Growth of energy business in British Columbia to ensure safe, reliable energy and to capture economic opportunities. Diversification of energy supply is critical. Competitiveness of energy prices should be determined in a competitive market environment. Industry restructuring and expansion to be developed in advance of need. In addition market participants need fair access to system components. Environmental Imperatives for energy efficiency and sound environmental policy. Government leadership for regulatmg the energy industry should be based on best practices. Involvement of community and First Nations' with respect to energy policy, particularly the application of that policy in their areas. IMPACTS OF STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS The Task Force's draft report recommends a number of strategic directions. Should these directions be implemented they may have favorable and unfavorable impacts on this District. Strategic Direction 1 A move to fully competitive markets in the electricity system: • A move to fully competitive markets increases private sector investment. • Restructuring BC Hydro into three separate and independent operating entities: generation, transmission and distribution. • The electricity transmission system must be able to accommodate new energy producers and enable them to deliver their product to market on an equitable basis. • Electricity pricing needs to move to market levels and provide market signals for investment, industry and individual consumers. Potential Imnacts Current customers can expect a significant increase in rates. The report suggest that when market prices are in effect, residential customers will need to pay 30 percent more than they pay today, commercial and industrial customers will face larger increases. A transitional mechanism would need to be developed. In addition, the District is a significant power customer and as a commercial customer, a 40 percent increase could be significant. A 40% increase in charges to the District could amount to approximately an additional $336,000 per annum. At this time, it is difficult to speculate on the effect of market forces on the increase. Currently BC Hydro participates in a number of stewardship programs associated with the current generating facility. The restructuring of BC Hydro's assets and operations and increased market competition for power development may have effect on the extent and how stewardship platforms are delivered. At present, municipalities are grappling with managing municipal rights-to protect investment in the road infrastructure as well as a potential revenue source. Competition and increased transmission access and FA distribution corridors may impact the District' current plans for utilities. A deregulated industry could reflect the current industry in the deregulated telephone and gas markets. These directions will have an effect on the District because within the District power generation (Alouette power system), transmission (transmission corridors) and distribution all occur. There may be impacts from future investments in power generation at the existing plant or the potential for increased power generation in Maple Ridge from other energy sources such as a co-generation plant. These may be significant opportunities for the District. Strategic Direction 2 Development of natural gas storage capacity in the Lower Mainland: The current lack of storage exposes lower mainland natural gas customers to the risk of price increases when demand is particularly high. It is suggested that an ongoing mechanism must be available to protect consumers from excessive price fluctuations. Potential Impacts Policy direction for natural gas storage may have the potential to impact Maple Ridge, but further research is required on this. Further dialogue with the Task Force and the Ministry will be necessary to discern the full potential impacts of this proposed direction. Strategic Direction 3 Additional considerations for coal use to improve the use of British Columbia's abundant coal resources and energy potential: A balance is required for emissions guidelines and standards, economic and environmental considerations. Potential Impacts The effect of this direction may have an impact on the future role and operation of Burrard Thermal. There may be opportunities for local use of coal for non-electricity and coal thermal generation. However, as emissions are an issue in the Kyoto agreement, this direction may have broad policy implications. Strategic Direction 4 Development of alternative energy sources for the social and economic objectives including making a range of energy options available to consumers. Potential Impacts This direction provides for private initiatives to develop alternate sources of energy including Independent Power Producers as well as for the District to explore the range of energy options that could be developed such as district heating, solar, wind and fuel cell technology. The potential impacts on Maple Ridge and indeed the GVRD are vast. 3 INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: The recommendations set out in the report may significantly impact the District depending on the final policy. These include the role of the local government with respect to: • rights-of-way management and revenues • effect on revenues and agreements with BC Hydro • local government access into service delivery of energy • potential policy directions with respect to gas storage A letter has been sent by the Mayor on behalf of Council (copy attached) to: • Energy Policy Development Task Force • Federation of Canadian Municipalities • Union of British Columbia Municipalities • Ministry of Energy & Mines • GVRD - J. Canine • ARMS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: While the report is not explicit on this, a balanced policy would need to weigh the objectives of economic benefits, affordable and reliable energy supply and environmental objectives. This important in the case of expanded coal use as an energy source. In addition, there is potential for a change in emphasis of stewardship programs. CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The recommended directions that the Task Force has outlined in this report may have significant impacts on: rights-of-way and corridors service delivery and choices for energy consumers potential for increased electricity costs Ultimately as a customer of energy (for example - pools and civic facilities and street lights), increased energy costs will "flow through' to Maple Ridge residents and customers. It would appear that the member municipalities of the GVRD, who make up the largest user of BC Hydro's service, have not been included in the discussions to date nor has the UBCM been approached. INTERDEPARTMENTALIMPLICATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The impact on the District from deregulating electricity may result in increased energy costs as well as other impacts such as rights-of way degradation and other management issues. Current grants from BC Hydro may be changed in the future. However, increased power generation and infrastructure access potential could be present financial opportunities to the District. The District currently expends $840,000 in energy costs to BC Hydro. A potential 40% annual increase would amount to $336,000. 4 SUMMARY: It would appear that these impacts have had limited discussions among GVRD member municipalities. In the attached letter, the District expresses concerns with the lack of discussion as well as the directions and implications of the directions recommended by the Task Force. Council may wish to formally acknowledge these concerns through a formal resolution. The following resolutions are suggested for consideration: That the Task Force implement a more open, transparent and inclusive consultation process so that the full impacts and benefits can be researched and accounted for on a local, regional and provincial basis. That the Task Force and Minister consider the direct economic and social impact and costs to local governments and residents as a result oft • electricity deregulation, • gas storage in the lower mainland, • right-of-way management of transmission and distribution corridors, • increased coal use on the environment, and • changing existing electricity rate endowment mechanisms that current customers currently enjoy. That the Energy Policy: • establish electricity system for residents to enjoy rates that reflect the benefits of past investments in B.C. power generation • improve or extend environmental stewardship programs, honour existing agreements between local governments and BC Hydro, and enable local government the right to control, manage and collect revenues for the use of rights of way. And that the GVRD be requested to compile and coordinate concerns of member municipalities and other input to the Task Force Prepared by: Andrew Wood, M1iIg, PEng Municipal Engineer V'd Frank Quinn, MBA, PMP, PEng General Mana er, Public Works and Development Services A- Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, Ph.D., AICP, MCLP Chief Administrative Officer 5 ____ Corporation of the District f Maple Ridge It if A DT -c' nn— Telephone (604) 463-5221 Fax (604) 467 7329 1,VLtU i_iL. JXLLI e-mail: enquiries@district.maple-ridge.bc.ca Incnrpoiated12 September, 1874 Office of the Mayor / January 15,2002 Energy Policy Development Task Force do Sage Group Ste 720 — 80 Douglas Street Victoria BC V8W I G2 Dear Sirs Re Interim Report of the Provincial Energy Task Forte I have become aware of the Interim report and would like to express on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge concerns on the draft 1ecommendations and direction as contained in the Task Force's report In particular, based on the short time we have been allowed, the following main concerns are • the impact of electricity deregulation / • the form, nature and provrncial directives on gas storage in the lower mainland • the need for clarity on right-of-way management of transmission and distribution comdors including the local government rights to control, manage and coiject revenues for the use of rights of way, • that existing agreements between local governments and BC Hydro be honored especially those with respect1to environmental stewardship • the potential to improve or extend stewardship programs • the potential impact of increased coal use on the already stressed lower mainland air-shed, • the issue of the endowment in existing generation facilities and investment, and the existing electricity rate that customers currently enjoy Iii addition, I would like to reiterate Council's general support of the 2001 UBCM Energy Forum recommendations. These reóornmendâtions (ref. Attached) 'include: • non-supp6rt for electricity deregulation by UBCM, • provincial and federal governments use of PST and GST to promote energy conservation and alternative energy sources, • energy.efficiency programs, • encouraging alternative energy sources, • rate restructuring I stabilization or rewards for peak demand management, and • a federal, provincial and local government energy strategy. "Promoting a Safe and Livable Community • for our Present and Future Citizens" 7 "B LI" kipienI 100% RecycledPoper '" Not Secondarily Bleached or De-Inked Energy Policy Development Task Force January 15, 2002 Page 2 While át this time, it would appear that the opportunity for input is limited, we request that the Task Force and Minister give serious consideration of our concerns Maple Ridge Council will shortly be dealing with this in a more formal matter. Further we would request that a more open and transparent consultation process be implemented so that the full impacts and benefits can be researched and accounted for on a local, regional and provincial bases Shouldyou have any questions or would like our full comments, please do not hesitate to call me at (604) 463-5221 cc Federation of Canadian Municipahties s/Union of British Columbia Mimcipahties Ministry of Energy & Mines GVRD - J. Canine ARMS ENERGY FORUM RECOMMENDATIONS That UBCM: Not support the removal of GST/PST on the utility bills but that the provincial and federal governments consider, using these tax revenues to promote energy conservation and alternative energy sources. Request that the 'utilities, federal and provincial governments provide funding, advice and tax incentives to all energy users who wish to undertake energy efficiency programs. 3 Advise the Provincial Government that the UBCM does not support the deregulation of electricity. Encourage the pursuit of alternative energy sources such as woodwaste, tidal, solar, district energy and geothermal as well as any other economically: and environmentally feasible alternatives. . Request that consideration be given to rate restructuring / stabilization or some method• of rewards and incentives instead of rebates to address the peaks which - presently occur. Encourage the federal and provincial governments to work in concert with local governments to develop an energy strategy that would include:. • an outline of the energy sources available • alternative energy options to be pursued • a' conservation strategy • a statement relating to domestic energy supply and relations with other international governments, • long term energy planning (ensure reliability of the systems) as well as other issues including statements around air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In August 2001, the Premier of British Columbia, thel Honourable Gordon Campbell, established a Task Force to draft an energy policy framework for British Columbia. This framework is to be based on best practices worldwide, designed specifically to meet the energy needs of British Columbians and to foster energy development in the province consistent with exemplary environmental practices. This Interim Report presents the preliminary findings and conclusions of the Task Force and is presented for public consideration and comment prior to the Task Force finalizing its recommendations to government. British Columbia is energy-rich. The sector is large and diverse, encompassing hydroelectric power, oil, gas and coal resources. There are also cutting-edge alternative technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and innovative ventures in wind, wave and solar power. There are highly developed transmission and distribution systems for delivery of energy to industry and individual consumers. In fiscal year 2000/200 1 energy production in the province was at record levels, with direct revenues of more than $3 billion flowing to government. Some 50,000 British Columbians are employed directly or indirectly in jobs related to the energy sector. Like other components of the economy, however, the energy sector is undergoing fundamental structural shifts. For most of its existence, the British Cotumbia energy sector was ,able to operate as a collection of relatively independent sub-sectors and industries focused on British Columbia. Today's economic reality is the emergence of one integrated energy market operating in a North American context. Despite the richness of its resource base, the energy sector will continue to be a major contributor to the economy and well-being of British Columbia only if it can adapt quickly and flexibly to changing circumstances. There is a need to attract private capital to increase energy supply, thereby lowering our energy costs and increasing our energy security. Growing the energy sector will increase jobs and income in British Columbia. Strategic Directions The Task Force has identified a number of key strategic directions that, if addressed as part of a comprehensive energy policy, would position British Columbia to take full advantage of its energy potential. The Task Force suggests that a new energy policy for British Columbia focus on the following: Growth: There is a compelling need to develop the energy business in British Columbia in order to ensure safe, reliable energy and to capture economic opportunities. Diversification: Diversification of energy supply is critical given the role energy plays in a modern economy. Competitiveness: Energy prices are best determined in a competitive market environment. At the same time, the long-term hydroelectric investments made on the Peace and Columbia Rivers have created an endowment that remains available to British Columbians for years to come. 1 STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR A NEW BRITISH COLUMBIA ENERGY POLICY INTERIM REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE - NOVEMBER 30, 2001 Industry Restructuring and Expansion: The energy sector needs to be restructured and infrastructure expanded in advance of need. Market participants need fair access to key components of the system and, in particular, fair transmission access. Environmental Imperative: Energy efficiency and sound environmental policy are essential elements of a modern energy policy. Government Leadership: Regulation of the energy industry should be based on best practices. Appropriate policy, research and development, consumer information and education are critical. Inter- governmental linkages must be strong. Community and First Nations' Involvement. Resource communities and First Nations have a role to play with respect to energy policy, particularly the application of that policy in their areas. Critical Action If the British Columbia energy sector is to continue to be successful in a 21 stcentury context, it must undergo fundamental change. Among the most critical elements of that change are the following: 1. A move to fully competitive markets in the electricity system: British Columbia access to expanding North American electricity markets depends upon opening the system to more competition, thereby increasing private sector investment. In the opinion of the Task Force, this requires the restructuring of BC Hydro into three separate and independent operating entities dealing respectively with generation, transmission and distribution. In particular, the electricity transmission system must be able to accommodate new energy producers and enable them to deliver their product to market on an equitable basis. Electricity pricing needs to move to market levels and thereby provide good market signals. This process must occur within a timeframe that balances the need for industry and individual consumers to adjust with the requirement to attract investment and ensure the development of new sources of supply to meet future needs. A transitional mechanism needs to be developed to ensure the adjustment process is done fairly and well. 2. Development of natural gas storage capacity in the Lower Mainland: The Lower Mainland is currently one of the only major markets in North America without such storage capacity. The lack of storage exposes natural gas customers to the risk of price increases when demand is particularly high. An ongoing mechanism must be available to protect consumers from excessive price fluctuations. 3. Additional considerations for coal use: Given the current state of emission-control technology, and the focus on continuing improvement in this area, British Columbia's abundant coal resources could be utilized as a significant component of British Columbia's energy potential. Final guidelines and standards related to emissions should be developed as soon as possible, based on an appropriate balance between economic and environmental considerations. 4. Development of alternative energy sources: The social and economic development possibilities inherent in, new alternative energy sources are enormous. British Columbia needs to provide focused leadership to build on its reputation as a leader in the development of new technologies such as the fuel cell and diversify the range of energy options available to consumers. STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR A NEW BRITISH COLUMBIA ENERGY POLICY INTERIM REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE NOVEMBER 30. 2001 Expected Outcomes A fully competitive energy market will attract private capital and bring more energy supply, thereby lowering our energy costs and increasing our energy security. Growing the energy sector will increase jobs and income in British Columbia, including income to government. Developing a diversified mix of energy sources - electricity, natural gas, coal and alternative energy - makes good business and environmental sense. ii TI 1 I I j The Task Force is confident that, with strategic planning, innovative thinking and the willingness to take action now, British Columbia's energy sector can play a leading role in the expanding North American energy market. British Columbia has the resources, the skills and the creative energy to make it happen. What is required is the commitment and corresponding action that will enable the energy sector to grow, to flourish and to contribute to the social and economic development of the province for generations to come. If the past can serve as a guide, a comprehensive energy policy can be the early-21 st.cantu,.y equivalent of the two-river policy of the latter half of the 20th century. -9 STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR A NEW BRITISH COLUMBIA ENERGY POLICY INTERIM REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE NOVEMBER 30, 2001 Council Tuesday, January 22, 2002 Courthouse . To close June 1, 2002 Was in operation since 1990 • New cases filed at the Maple Ridge Courthouse for Fiscal Year 2000/01 was: - Criminal: 2,281 - Family: 290 - Civil: 343 - Traffic and Bylaw (mostly Traffic): 2,294 • Currently, the number of Court Services Branch existing staff are 12.3 and the number of Criminal Justice Branch existing employees are 8 • Designed to be part of town centre and directly adjacent to Police Station. Closure has big impact of function of downtown. • Court employees relocated which impacts local business • Court building / prOperty owned by Province. Province pays about $50,000 per year in grant in lieu of taxes • Cases will go to Port Coquitlam which is very inconvenient and costly to citizens of Maple Ridge and our operations within the District Police must now go to court in Port Coquitlam. Council Tuesday, January 22, 2002 Alouette Corrections • Likely to close Oct 1, 2002 • Was in operation since 1964 • Has a maximum capacity to hold 151 male inmates • May be converted to women's facility in 2003-2004 • Large employer in Maple Ridge • Pays grant in lieu of about $40,000 per year. el t MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 District of Maple Ridge News Release For Immediate Release Arts Centre and Theatre Receives Federal Grant January 22, 2002 MAPLE RIDGE, BC: Mayor Al Hogarth announced today that a letter has been received from the. Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage, confirming that a grant of $826,000 has been awarded to the District from the Cultural Spaces Canada program for equipment for the new Arts Centre and Theatre. In her letter to the Mayor Minister Copps indicates "We have every reason to be proud of the partnership we have built together." The 43,000 square foot facility is presently under construction in downtown Maple Ridge and includes an art gallery, visual arts studios, a 500 seat main stage theatre and a smaller 150 seat multi-purpose studio theatre. In making the announcement Mayor Hogarth acknowledged MP Grant McNally's support of the project and the work of the Arts Centre and Theatre Fundraising Committee. "The fundraising committee chaired by Bonnie Telep has done a wonderful job of preparing proposals for consideration by senior levels of government as well as local donors and are to be commended for having raised over $1 .5M to date. This latest grant represents one more positive step toward achieving their overall goal of $2.2M. Council has every confidence that the committee will achieve its objectives and wish to thank all of the committee members for their continuing hard work on behalf of all our citizens." Ms. Telep responded by indicating that the Committee is very appreciative of the grant but noted the need to continue their work since the senior government grants which have been approved cannot be fully claimed unless $700,000 is raised locally. Several sub committees are working on this target approaching potential donors, planning fundraising events and making presentations to groups throughout the community. The grant comes from the Federal Cultural Spaces Canada Program announced last summer. One of the program's primary goals is to provide "... increased and improved access for Canadians to performing and visual arts and .. .adequate facilities which contribute to the artistic creative impulse, enhance the arts experience and add to audience enjoyment". The program acknowledges the increasingly positive role of the Arts in the economic development of communities and the important contribution made by cultural activities toward celebrating and taking full advantage of Canada's rich cultural mosaic. —30 - For more information, please contact: Mike Murray General Manager: Community Development, Parks and Recreation Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Phone (604) 463-5221 Fax (604) 467-7329 e-mail: mmurraymapleridge.org ilr CORNJRATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 15, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/42/01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: COUNCIL SUBJECT: Final Reading - Bylaw No. 5992-200 1 (22284 Lougheed Highway) PURPOSE: Bylaw No. 5992-200 1 has been considered by Council at Public Hearing and subsequently granted 2' and 3id reading. The applicant has requested that final reading be granted. The proposed project is a mixed-use service station facility comprised of a gas-bar, "Town Pantry" convenience store, and "quick-serve" White Spot Triple-O drive-through restaurant. The purpose of the proposed CD-2-85 zone is to permit the proposed drive-through for the restaurant. RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5992-2001 be reconsidered and finally adopted. BACKGROUND: Location: 22284 Lougheed Highway - south-west corner of Lougheed Highway and 223'' Street. History: Council considered this rezoning application at a Public Hearing held on November 13, 2001. On November 13, 2001 Council granted 2'' and 3Td reading to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5992-2001 and Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 5993-2001 with the stipulation that the following conditions be addressed: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement including the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; Amendment to Schedules "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan; Road dedication as required. The following applies to the above: 1) Approval from the Ministry of Transportation was received on November 21, 2001. - 1 - The Rezoning Development Agreement has been executed and is in the process of being deposited at the Land Title Office as of January 22, 2002. Schedules "A" & "H' of the Official Community Plan were amended (Amending Bylaw No. 5993- 2001) on December 11, 2001. Road dedication plans are in the process of being deposited at the Land Title Office as of January 22, 2002. In addition to the foregoing, Development Permit application (DP/42/01 - controlling form and character of commercial development) and Development Variance Permit application (DVP/42/01 - relaxing off- site improvements on the North Avenue frontage), both of which are in support of the subject development, were authorized on December 11, 2001 and January 8, 2002 respectively. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: As the subject property is within 800 metres of the Haney Bypass, approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was required. A letter of approval has been received. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Chevron will be replacing the existing underground fuel storage tanks with a new double-walled tank technology which should improve monitoring so as to reduce the risk of contamination. CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The proposed redevelopment will replace an essentially highway-oriented gas-bar with a mixed-use gas station concept that is more urban in character and will provide a better fit within the downtown core. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement was required in order to address a number of servicing deficiencies as identified by the Engineering Department. The Agreement has been executed and is in the process of being registered at the Land Title Office. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications other than costs associated with servicing requirements as noted above. ALTERNATIVES: N/A SUMMARY: Chevron is intending to introduce a mixed-use service station concept that combines a gas-bar with a "Town Pantry" convenience store and a "Triple-O White Spot" drive-through restaurant. The purpose of the 0' -2- proposed rezoning is to accommodate the drive-through component of the restaurant. The applicant has met all conditions of rezoning and is now requesting that final reading be granted. Prepare . ö-B?ackwell, Planner byY J cii MCP, MCIP of Planning App/oved by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: PubFc Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer RB/jvt -3- Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL MEETING A GENDA January 22, 2002 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.rnapleridge.org 100 CALL TO ORDER 200 OPENING PRA YERS Pastor Em Brake 300 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 400 ADOPTION OF MINUTES 401 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 8, 2002 and the Special Council of January 14, 2002 402 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meeting of January 8, 2002 500 DELEGATIONS 501 The New Health Issue Manual, Jean Ticehurst, Laura Wood 502 RCMP School Liaison Program, Constable Tolchard 503 TransLink - Fraser River Crossing Page 1 $4161 4~ IL