HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-08 Council Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfPage 1
District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
May 8,2012
7:00 p.m.
Council Chamber
Note: This Agenda is also posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
The purpose of a Council meeting is to enact powers given to Council by using bylaws
or resolutions. This is the final venue for debate of issues before voting on a bylaw or
resolution.
100 CALL TO ORDER
200 MOMENT OF REFLECTION
300 INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS
400 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
500 ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES
501 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 24, 2012
502 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meetings of April 19,
23 and 27(4), 2012
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.
Council Meeting Agenda
May 8, 2012
Council Chamber
Page 2 of 6
600 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
700 DELEGATIONS
800 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
900 CORRESPONDENCE
1000 BYLAWS
Bylaws for Final Reading
1001 Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw 6922-2012
To update the 2012-2016 Financial Plan
Final reading
1002 Maple Ridge Property Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6923-2012
To establish 2012 tax rates
Final reading
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1100 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
1100 Minutes –April 30, 2012
The following issues were presented 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 1:00 p.m. on the Monday the week prior to this meeting.
Council Meeting Agenda
May 8, 2012
Council Chamber
Page 3 of 6
Public Works and Development Services
1101 Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Bylaw and Regulation
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 6838-2011 to permit hobby beekeeping be given first
reading and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing and that
Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 for the
keeping of bees be given first, second and third readings.
1102 RZ/066/07, 12355 McNutt Road, RS-3 to RS-2
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 6881-2011 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to permit future
subdivision into two lots be given second reading and be forwarded to
Public Hearing.
1103 RZ/033/08, 10366 240 Street, First Extension
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that rezoning application
RZ/033/08 to permit subdivision of approximately 9 lots under the R-3
(Special Amenity Residential District) zone be granted a one year extension.
1104 2011-043-DVP -10405, 10429, 10443, 10426, 10408 243 Street;
24290, 24280, 24273, 24283, 24289, 24297, 24305, 2431 5, 24323,
24333, 24337, 24347, 24366, 24360, 24356, 24348, 24342, 24336,
24328, 24320, 24316 104A Avenue; 24225, 24325, 24331, 24339,
24345, 24351, 24359,24365, 24371, 24377 104 Avenue
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that the Corporate Officer
be authorized to sign and seal 2012-043-DVP to vary the height of
proposed single family homes.
1105 2011-139-DVP, 12151 McNutt Road
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that 2011-139-DVP to
vary the maximum permitted size of a detached garden suite be denied.
Council Meeting Agenda
May 8, 2012
Council Chamber
Page 4 of 6
1106 Award of Contract No. ITT-EN12-31, Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain
Replacement (Laity Street to 216 Street)
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Contract No. ITT -
EN12-31, Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to
216 Street) be awarded to Tybo Contracting Ltd. and that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
1107 Award of Contract (Reference No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152),
232 Street Road Improvements (124 Avenue to 128 Avenue)
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Contract (Reference
No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152), 232 Street Road
Improvements (124 Avenue to 128 Avenue)be awarded to Keywest
Asphalt Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the
contract.
Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Police)
1131 Tax Rates Bylaws –Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District and Albion Dyking
District
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that Road 13 Dyking
District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6916-2012 be given first, second and third
readings and that Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6915-2012 be
given first, second and third readings.
1132 2013-2017 Financial Planning Guidelines
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that the 2013-2017
Financial Planning Guidelines be approved.
1133 Integrated Forensic Identification Unit –Request for Space
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that the request of the
Integrated Forensic Identification Service to establish a regional hub within
the main RCMP detachment building in Maple Ridge be supported.
Council Meeting Agenda
May 8, 2012
Council Chamber
Page 5 of 6
Community Development and Recreation Service
1151 Bid to host the BC Summer Games 2016 or 2018
Staff report dated April 30, 2012 recommending that staff prepare a bid to
host the 2016 or 2018 BC Summer Games, subject to endorsement by
School District No. 42.
Correspondence
1171
Other Committee Issues
1181
1200 STAFF REPORTS
1300 RELEASE OF ITEMS FROM CLOSED COUNCIL
1400 MAYOR’S REPORT
1500 COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
1600 OTHER MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
1700 NOTICES OF MOTION AND MATTERS FOR FUTURE MEETING
Council Meeting Agenda
May 8, 2012
Council Chamber
Page 6 of 6
1800 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
1900 ADJOURNMENT
CChheecckkeedd bbyy::________________________________
DDaattee::________________________________
QUESTION PERIOD
The purpose of the Question Period is to provide the public with an opportunity to
ask questions of Council on items that are of concern to them, 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.
Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to ask their question (a second
opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium).
Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to individual
members of Council. The total Question Period is limited to 15 minutes.
Council reserves the right to defer responding to a question in order to obtain the
information required to provide a complete and accurate response.
Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings,
delegations and community forum. The public may also make their views known to
Council by writing or via email and by attending open houses,workshops and
information meetings. Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to
have a voice in the future of this community.
For more information on these opportunities contact:
Clerk’s Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca.
Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca.
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6922-2012
A bylaw to amend Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 6883-2011
____________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS,through a public process in an open meeting the business plans and resulting financial
plan were presented;
AND WHEREAS,the public will have the opportunity to provide comments or suggestions with respect
to the financial plan;
AND WHEREAS, Council deems this to a process of public consolation under section 166 of the
Community Charter.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council for the District of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1.This Bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw No.
6922-2012”.
2.Statement 1, Statement 2 and Statement 3 attached to and forming part of Maple Ridge 2012-
2016 Financial Plan Bylaw 6883-2011 are deleted in their entirety and replaced by Statement 1,
Statement 2 and Statement 3 attached and forming part of Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Financial
Plan Amending Bylaw No.6922-2012.
READ a first time the day of , 2012.
READ a second time the day of , 2012.
READ a third time the day of , 2012.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION completed on the day of ,2012.
RECONSIDERED and adopted the day of , 2012.
________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
ATTACHMENT: Statement 1,Statement 2 and Statement 3
1001
Objectives & Policies
Property Tax Revenue is the District’s primary revenue source, and one which is heavily reliant on the
residential class. Diversification of the tax base and generation of non-tax revenue are ongoing
objectives, outlined in Financial Sustainability Policy 5.52 section 6.
Business Planning Guidelines and the Financial Plan includes a 3% general tax increase, a 1%
increase to fund replacement of existing infrastructure and in 2012 an increase of $600,000 plus
growth since 2005, to fund the Fire Department Master Plan implementation. More information can
be found in the Business Planning Guidelines 14th Edition, Financial Sustainability Plan and the
2012-2016 Financial Plan Overview Report. Specific policies discussing the tax increases are
included in the Financial Sustainability Plan and related policies which were adopted in 2004.
Property tax revenue includes property taxes collected through setting the rates noted below as well
as grants in lieu of property taxes.
Parcel Charges are largely comprised of a recycling charge, a sewer charge and on certain properties
a local area service or improvement charge. Parcel charges are a useful tool to charge all or a
subset of properties for a fixed or variable amount to support services. Unlike property taxation the
variable amount does not need to be related to property assessment value, but can be something
that more accurately reflects the cost of the service.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6922-2012
Statement 2 (continued)
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
Fees & Charges
The Business Planning Guidelines call for an increase of 5% in fees as a guideline. Actual fee
increases vary depending on the individual circumstances, the type of fee and how it is calculated.
Fees should be reviewed annually and updated if needed. Recent fee amendments include
recreation fees, development application fees, business license fees and cemetery fees. A major
amendment to the Development Costs Charges (DCC), recommended every 5 years, was completed
in 2008. Minor DCC amendments are done more frequently. Some fees are to offset the costs of
providing specific services. The utility fees are reviewed annually with a view towards using rate
stabilization practices to smooth out large fluctuations in rates, as set out in the Business Planning
Guidelines.
Borrowing Proceeds –Debt is used where it makes sense. Caution is used when considering debt as
it commits future cash flows to debt payments restricting the ability to use these funds to provide
other services. The source of the debt payments needs to be considered as does the justification for
advancing the project. More information on borrowing previously approved or proposed for 2012-
2016 can be found in the 2012-2016 Financial Plan Overview report.
Other Sources, will vary greatly year to year as it includes
-Development fees, which is the funding for capital projects from the DCC Reserve,
-Contribution from others in relation to capital,
-Interest earned on funds invested in accordance with the Investment Policy
-Grants, which are sought from various agencies, and may be leveraged with District funds.
PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE
Property Tax Revenue Distribution
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6922-2012
Statement 2 (continued)
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE
Objectives & Policies
Property taxes are the District’s largest source of revenue and are only contained by efficient
business practices. Annual business planning practices have been the mechanism for resource
allocation decisions.
The District’s Financial Sustainability Policy section 6 discusses the necessity of diversifying the tax
base. As development of employment related properties is one method of diversification, key
performance measurement in Economic Development tracks the increased investment and
development of non-residential properties.
A policy in the Financial Sustainability Plan that calls for stable tax increases and the adoption of the
annual increase early in the prior year in the Business Planning Guidelines provides citizens with a
more stable and predictable set of cost increases. In some cases costs are phased in over multiple
years to keep within the set tax increases.
Property Tax Rates
It is policy to adjust property tax rates annually to negate the impact of fluctuations in the market
values of properties. (Tax rates are negatively correlated to market changes). Property tax increases
are then applied at the same relative increase for all classes, unless legislation restricts the rates, as
with Class 2, Utility.
The Business Class and Light Industry Class properties have the same tax rate and are treated as a
composite class when setting the tax rates. This is done as the types of businesses in each class of
property are quite similar. This was achieved over a long period of time with small incremental
adjustments.
A review was done on the Major Industry Class rates and the recommendation from the Audit and
Finance Committee and Council was a reduction of 5% in 2009 and 2010 to the taxes collected to
support additional investments in the subject property and to keep rates competitive.
In reviewing the tax rates to ensure competitiveness absolute rates, tax multiples and overall tax
burden are considered. The impact that assessed values have on comparing other geographical
areas must be considered in a comparison of tax rates or multiples.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6922-2012
Statement 2 (continued)
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
Permissive Tax Exemptions
Council has set policies around the use of permissive tax exemptions. They are Council Policies 5.19
though 5.24. The policies discuss Churches, Community Halls, Heritage Sites, Homes for the Care of
Children and the Relief of the Aged, the Poor, the Disabled and the Infirm, Municipal Recreational
Services, Private Hospitals and Daycares, Private School and Youth Recreation Groups.
Revitalization Tax Exemption
The District of Maple Ridge has made significant investments in the Town Centre over the last
several years, in keeping with Council’s vision to create a vibrant and dynamic Town Centre. The
Town Centre Investment Incentives Program has been established to encourage accelerated private
sector investment in residential and commercial projects to help achieve Council’s vision.Specific
objectives of the program are to:
a.Encourage residential investment to diversify housing options, to increase density in
the Town Centre, and to provide a larger base of residents to support Commercial
activities;
b.Encourage Commercial investment to create a strong local economy and expand
employment opportunities for citizens;
c.Increase pedestrian traffic with added residential and Commercial activity, both to
support local business, and to enhance safety;
d.Encourage and support the use of environmentally sustainable building construction
methods and materials, and encourage energy efficiency and alternative
technologies.
Revitalization Tax Exemption Bylaw 6789-2011 is one element of that incentive program.The three-
year program expires at the end of 2013.
Attachment to Maple Ridge 2012-2016 Amending Financial Plan Bylaw 6922-2012
Statement 3
Capital Expenditure Disclosure
The sole purpose of this statement is to meet legislative requirements, highlighting the value of the
DCC program; no other conclusions should be drawn from the figures as the information could be
misleading. This is required under the Local Government Act s. 937(2); Capital costs attributable to
projects to be partially funded by Development Cost Charges (DCC)must be included in the financial
plan. The DCC program includes projects as far out as 2030 so the capital expenditures must be
extended to match. Certain types of projects are not planned past the five year time horizon of the
financial plan. Much less scrutiny is given to projects that are planned in years 2017 through 2030.
Projects in these years typically exceed likely funding available.
Capital Works Program for 2017 –2030
$ (‘000s)
District of Maple Ridge
TO:His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE:May 8,2012
and Members of Council
FROM:Chief Administrative Officer ATTN:Council
SUBJECT:Property Tax Rates Bylaw No.6923-2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Property Tax Rates Bylaw needs to be adopted prior to May 15.In order to do so, the bylaw was
given first through third reading at Council Workshop on April 30 and will be given final consideration
at the Council meeting on May 8.
A typographical error was made when entering the Business/Other tax rate for South Coast BC
Transportation Authority (TransLink).The Bylaw has been amended to reflect the correct rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Maple Ridge Property Tax Rates Bylaw No.6923-2012 be amended to change the South Coast
British Columbia Transportation Authority Business/Other tax rate in Schedule “B”, Row “C”from
1.5495 to 1.5485 and that Bylaw No. 6923-2012,as amended,be given final reading.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by:Trevor Thompson, BBA, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by:Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager,Corporate & Financial Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence:J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
1002
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO.6923-2012
A Bylaw to establish property tax rates for Municipal, Improvement District
and Regional District purposes for the year 2012
__________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS pursuant to provisions in the Community Charter Council must, by bylaw, establish
property tax rates;
The Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled,ENACTS AS
FOLLOWS:
1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge Property Tax Rates Bylaw No.
6923 -2012”.
2.The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for the year 2012:
(a)For all lawful general purposes of the municipality on the assessed value of land
and improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, rates appearing in
Row “A” of Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming a part hereof.
(b)For the purposes of improving fire services the assessed value of land and
improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, rates appearing in Row
“B” of Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming a part hereof.
(c)For purposes of the British Columbia Assessment Authority on the assessed
value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes,
rates appearing in Row “A” of Schedule “B” attached hereto and forming a part
hereof.
(d)For purposes of the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia on the
assessed value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district
purposes, rates appearing in Row “B” of Schedule “B” attached hereto and
forming a part hereof.
(e)For purposes of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority on
the assessed value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district
purposes, rates appearing in Row “C” of Schedule “B” attached hereto and
forming a part hereof.
(f)For purposes of the Greater Vancouver Regional District on the assessed value of
land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates
appearing in Row “D” of Schedule “B” attached hereto and forming a part
hereof.
Bylaw No. 6923 -2012
Page (2)
3.The minimum amount of taxation upon a parcel of real property shall be One Dollar
($1.00).
READ a first time the day of 2012
READ a second time the day of 2012
READ a third time the day of 2012
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the day of 2012.
_______________________________PRESIDING MEMBER
_______________________________CORPORATE OFFICER
ATTACHMENTS: SCHEDULES “A” AND “B”
1 2 4 5 6 8 9
Major Light Business/Rec/
Residential Utility Industry Industry Other Non-profit Farm
A General 3.7089 36.2833 32.9650 10.6591 10.6591 10.4940 24.4024
Municipal
B Fire Service 0.3799 3.7167 3.3768 1.0919 1.0919 1.0750 2.4997
Improvement Levy
Total 4.0888 40.0000 36.3418 11.7510 11.7510 11.5690 26.9021
1 2 4 5 6 8 9
Major Light Business/Rec/
Residential Utility Industry Industry Other Non-profit Farm
A BC 0.0599 0.5113 0.5113 0.1843 0.1843 0.0599 0.0599
Assessment
Authority
B Municipal 0.0002 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002
Finance
Authority
C South Coast 0.3244 2.7171 2.2519 1.9132 1.5485 0.3179 0.3599
BC Transportation
Authority (TransLink)
D Greater 0.0575 0.2013 0.1955 0.1955 0.1409 0.0575 0.0575
Vancouver
Regional
District
Total 0.4420 3.4304 2.9594 2.2937 1.8742 0.4355 0.4775
Schedule 'B' to Bylaw No. 6923 - 2012
Tax Rates (dollars of tax per $1,000 taxable value)
District of Maple Ridge
Schedule 'A' to Bylaw No. 6923 - 2012
Tax Rates (dollars of tax per $1,000 taxable value)
District of Maple Ridge
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: CoW
SUBJECT: First and Second Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838-2011
First, Second and Third Reading
Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the September 12, 2011 Council Workshop meeting, Council reviewed proposed zoning bylaw
amendments that recommended permitting Hobby Beekeeping in residential and institutional zones.
At the meeting, Council made the following resolutions:
That School District No. 42 be requested to provide input on the bylaws pertaining to hobby
beekeeping and that feedback be brought back to Council prior to the finalization of the
bylaw amendments.
That the Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee assemble educational material
pertaining to urban beekeeping to accompany the hobby beekeeping bylaw.
In response, the School District stated the following
The Senior Management Team has met regarding this issue and it was determined that due
to the numerous concerns regarding the health and safety of the students and staff, School
District No. 42 would not be interested in supporting this matter.
On April 2, 2012, concerns were expressed by a Ministry of Environment Conservation Officer during
a presentation to Council about the Wildlife Interface Management Strategy. These concerns
included attracting dangerous wildlife, particularly bears, to properties where beehives were present.
As a result, feedback was obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture to address these concerns.
This memo provides a recommended direction for permitting this use in residential areas. The
suggested approach is to include the amendment prior to completion of the Zoning Bylaw review. A
separate but related regulation bylaw, pertaining to the care of bees, is proposed to proceed
independently, to receive Final Reading concurrently with the Zoning Bylaw amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838-2011, to permit hobby beekeeping, be given First and
Second Reading and forwarded to Public Hearing; and
1101
2
2. That Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 for the keeping of
bees be given First, Second, and Third Reading.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
In response to a citizens request, Council referred the concept of beekeeping in urban areas to the
Agricultural Advisory Committee. The request along with detailed research materials was reviewed
and discussed by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The Committee’s review concluded that
beekeeping in urban areas is an acceptable use, and advised Council to proceed with the
preparation of the appropriate bylaws.
b) Discussion:
Literature on the issue tends to support urban beekeeping. It is noted that urban environments with
diverse plant species are particularly well suited to sustaining bee populations, which are becoming
threatened globally. Due to the perceived benefits of beekeeping, and the concerns associated with
their inclusion into denser urban settings, it is recommended that amendments be made to the
Zoning Bylaw that would maximize the benefits of beekeeping and mitigate potential conflicts this
use may have in an urban setting.
Provincial Context - Bee Act
All beekeepers in British Columbia must comply with the Bee Act. Administered by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Lands, the Bee Act promotes disease control in bees. It provides for a system of
registration of beekeepers, authorization of inspectors, and the appointment of qualified persons
(beemasters) to oversee maintaining healthy hives.
Lower Mainland Context
Urban (hobby) beekeeping has been explored and is permitted by other municipalities in the Lower
Mainland, including the City of Burnaby, the City of Vancouver, the City of North Vancouver, the
District of North Vancouver, the City of West Vancouver, and the City of New Westminster. None of
the municipalities polled have expressed any nuisance complaints with this use. The City of New
Westminster has had a bylaw in operation since 2000, and all of the municipalities that
subsequently allowed this use have adopted bylaws based on the New Westminster bylaw, as it
appears to address all potential sources of conflict while providing significant community benefits.1
Generally, the municipal bylaws share the following aspects:
Maximum of two (2) hives per property allowed
Located at the rear of the property
Hives oriented so that the front of the hive faces away from adjacent property dwellings
Locate either 2.5m above the ground or behind a solid fence or hedge a minimum of 1.83m
(6') tall
Minimum parcel sizes or siting requirements that would prohibit this use on parcels of less
than 581 meters2 (6000 feet2)
Beekeepers shall keep the hives well maintained, healthy and reasonably prevent swarming
Provide water for the needs of the apiary
1 The City of Pitt Meadows has also recently allowed beekeeping within urban areas. Their approach differs
from other municipalities in that for residential properties it is based on parcel size, not zoning.
3
The main nuisance complaint around beekeeping is generally associated with bee droppings. This
concern is kept in check by the limit of 2 hives per property. Potential conflicts from bee-human
interactions are minimized by the siting requirements as stated in these bylaws. As noted, these
bylaws are highly successful in all municipalities. It therefore appears appropriate for the District of
Maple Ridge to also consider allowing these uses in urban areas. The proposed bylaw is attached to
this report.
Community Concerns
Although no complaints were noted when municipalities were polled, some concerns around this use
have previously been raised. These concerns included attracting bears, resident concerns about bee
stings, and nuisance effects of abandoned hives. These concerns can be mitigated by the proposed
siting and care requirements as proposed in the Zoning Bylaw amendments and in the proposed
regulation bylaw pertaining to this use. It is noted that most concerns around bee stings stem from a
confusion between honey bees and hornets (wasps). Hornets or wasps are more likely to sting, and
are often a nuisance for those dining outside.
Ministry of Environment
At the April 2, 2012 Council Workshop meeting, Conservation Officer Denny Chrétien presented the
Wildlife Interface Management Strategy, an initiative of the Ministry of Environment.
Officer Chretien spoke to the goal of the Conservation Officer Service in having communities realize
the importance of dealing with human/wildlife conflict and taking ownership in helping to mitigate
negative interactions between humans and wildlife. Section 33.1 of the Wildlife Act was discussed,
which notes that it is a punishable offense to intentionally attract wildlife. Within this context, the
issue of urban beekeeping was raised, and this item was deferred pending further review.
Ministry of Agriculture
The Apiary Specialist of the Ministry of Agriculture commented on the relative risk associated with
attracting bears as a result of the placement of an apiary in an urban setting. In his professional
opinion, the primary cause of bears being attracted to human habitation is due to the availability of
food, particularly non-secured garbage. The Ministry maintains that an apiary is generally not a
primary attractant and may only be subject to bear damage as a secondary food source. It should
be noted that large scale agricultural bee keeping often occurs in areas where bears are present.
Incidents of this nature are few.
Recognizing that municipalities generally lack in-house expertise in beekeeping matters, the Ministry
provides technical and scientific support and advice to all municipalities that permit this use. The
Ministry representative also provided technical advice to the siting of hives, which included directing
the entrance of the honey bee colony towards the center of the property (i.e. away from the property
line. This will ensure that bees exiting the hive, will promptly gain height and establish flight paths
well above the required 2 meter fence/hedge.
Additional comments:
The municipality should consider permitting this use on the rooftops of commercial,
residential or public buildings.
Some high schools in other Metro Vancouver municipalities (Delta, New Westminster) have
established small apiaries as study projects for various disciplines (biology, environmental
studies, economics, etc).
4
The siting recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed bylaw. The additional
comments are included here as information. However, they may be a consideration at a later date,
should support for expanding this use be supported within the community.
Official Community Plan
The Maple Ridge Official Community Plan recognizes agriculture as being a viable contributor to local
employment, and has as an objective to promote and support forms of urban agriculture. As a part
of urban agriculture, urban beekeeping is supported by both the Official Community Plan and the
Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan. Urban beekeeping is an important part of urban agricu lture, through
pollination of urban fruiting crops. Policy 6-6 of the Official Community Plan states:
Maple Ridge will develop an Agricultural Plan that:
f) promotes urban agriculture
Agricultural Plan
Similar in intent to the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan, Goal 1 f) of the Agricultural Plan states
the following:
f) Identify and promote opportunities for development of urban agriculture
Zoning Bylaw:
Based on the May 25 2010 Council direction to develop proposed bylaw amendments in support of
urban (hobby) beekeeping, the attached bylaws establish appropriate limits, practices and locations
for this use to occur. These amendments are described below.
Part 2 Interpretation - Definitions:
Currently, beekeeping is recognized as an agricultural use and is therefore restricted to those zones
that allow agriculture, which with few exceptions2, would be Rural Residential or Agricultural zones.
A definition of this use will be described as “hobby beekeeping” in order to distinguish it from the
agricultural use. The proposed definition is as follows:
Hobby Beekeeping use means the keeping, owning, or maintaining of up to two (2) bee hives
on a residential property occupied by the beekeeper.
Part 4 General Regulations:
The General Regulations will set limits on the number of hives, and the siting requirements for this
use in urban areas. These recommended requirements may be summarized as follows:
Maximum of two (2) hives per property allowed – this limitation is the standard used by other
Lower Mainland municipalities and has proven to be successful within an urban context.
Located at the rear of the property – this requirement is also typical of other municipalities.
It serves to minimize intrusions into the bee hive area and reduce the visibility of bee hives.
Hives oriented so that the front of the hive faces away from adjacent property dwellings –
this measure helps to avoid interactions between bees and adjacent residents.
Locate either 2.5m above the ground or behind a solid fence or hedge a minimum of 2
meters tall – this measure will assist in discouraging animal intrusions and minimizing
conflicts.
2 Agricultural uses are also permitted in the RS -1 One Family Urban Residential and the RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential Zones provided the property exceeds 0.4 hectares and is within the Agricultural Land Reserve.
5
Part 6 Residential Zones:
In general, the residential zones for this proposed use are those with a minimum parcel size of 557
m2. Restricting the use to larger residential properties is intended to minimize potential conflicts.
This practice is consistent with that of other Lower Mainland municipalities.
It is recommended that this use be limited to the following residential zones:
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
RS-1a One Family Amenity Residential
RS1b One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential
RS-1c One Family Urban (Low Density) Residential
RS-1d One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential
RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential
SRS Special Urban Residential
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
It is noted that the Agricultural Zones already allow beekeeping as an Agricultural use. It is therefore
not necessary to include beekeeping as a permitted use in these zones. The RS-3 One Family Rural
Residential Zone also allows Agricultural uses, but only on properties of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) or
greater. There are over 800 legally non-conforming RS-3 zoned parcels within the District with a
parcel size of less than 0.4 hectares. To allow for beekeeping in the RS-3 Zone on these smaller
non-conforming lots, it is recommended that this use be extended to this zone.
Regulation Bylaw:
Under Section 8(3)(k) of the Community Charter, the District of Maple Ridge has the right to regulate,
prohibit, and impose the keeping of animals. In keeping with this legislation, the District’s practice
has been to adopt a separate bylaw that specifically refers to this care. As an exa mple, the siting of
kennels is established in the Zoning Bylaw, but standards for the care of dogs is regulated in the
District of Maple Ridge Kennel Regulation Bylaw No. 6036-2002. Similarly, the amendments to the
Zoning Bylaw will allow Hobby Beekeeping as a land use, but the standard of care for bee hives will
be outlined in a separate regulation bylaw, which is appended to this report. The proposed
Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 establishes standards for the care of bees, for the responsibilities
of beekeepers, and for authorizing bylaw enforcement. This regulation bylaw also establishes
penalties for failure to comply.
c) Desired Outcomes:
Introducing this use will assist in meeting the objectives of the Official Community Plan and the
Agricultural Plan in expanding the opportunities for urban agriculture within the community.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The approval process as recommended would provide opportunities for citizen input through the
required Public Hearing for zoning bylaw amendments. The Agricultural Advisory Committee has also
been involved in the review of this work, and concurs with the proposed regulation.
It is noted that at the September 12, 2011 Workshop, Council also requested that the Committee be
involved in assembling educational materials about this use for the benefit of the community. This
process will occur once Bylaw No. 6838-2011 is given First Reading. The materials will be available
at the Planning front counter and on the District website.
6
Next Steps / Alternatives:
The general concept of urban beekeeping has been before Council previously. The recommended
approach is to introduce this use as a separate bylaw prior to the Zoning Bylaw review receiving Final
Reading. However, Council may chose instead to direct this use to be simply included as part of the
review.
As the proposed Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011 does not require a Public
Hearing, it is recommended to be forwarded to First, Second, and Third Reading. The Regulation
Bylaw can then be given Final Reading concurrently with the Zoning Bylaw amendment.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the considerations and recommended direction as outlined in this report, it is
recommended that the amendments as described in this report be as a separate bylaw prior to
completion of the Zoning Bylaw review. It is also recommended that the attached regulation bylaw
be given First Reading.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Diana Hall
Planner II
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Proposed Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838 - 2011
Appendix B – Proposed Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw No. 6839-2011
7
Appendix A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6838 - 2011
A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
___________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw 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:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6838 – 2011”
2. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 – 1985 is hereby amended as follows:
a) PART 2 INTERPRETATION, is amended by the addition of the following definition in correct
alphabetical order:
“Hobby Beekeeping use means the keeping, owning, or maintaining of up to two (2) bee
hives on a residential property occupied by the beekeeper or as an educational use in an
institutional setting”.
b) PART 4, GENERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 402 REGULATIONS FOR PERMITTED
USES OF LAND, BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES is amended by the addition of the following
subsection in correct numerical order:
“(12) Hobby Beekeeping Use
Where permitted a Hobby Beekeeping use is subject to the following provisions:
a) A maximum of two (2) hives per property shall be permitted;
b) Bee Hives for a Hobby Beekeeper use shall be located to the rear of the principal
building on the lot;
c) Hives must:
(i) be raised a minimum of 2.5 metres above grade; or
(ii) be behind a solid fence or hedge a minimum of 2.0 metres in height located
parallel to an adjacent property line and extending a minimum of 6.0 metres
horizontally beyond the hive in either direction.
(iii) be oriented with the hive entrance facing towards the centre of the property.
c) PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 601, Subsection A. PERMITTED USES OF LAND,
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES is amended by the addition of the following after Detached
Garden Suite Use
“Hobby Beekeeping Use RS-1 RS-1a RS-1b RS-1c RS-1d RS-2 RS-3 SRS”
(subject to Section 402)
READ a first time the day of 2012
8
READ a second time the day of 2012
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of 2012
READ a third time the day of 2012
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of 2012
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
9
Appendix B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6839-2011
A Bylaw to regulate Hobby Beekeeping
___________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS under the provisions Section 8(3)(k) of the Community Charter, Council may, by
bylaw regulate, prohibit or impose requirements in relation to animals.
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 the “Maple Ridge Hobby Beekeeping Regulation Bylaw
No. 6839-2011”.
Definitions
“Apiary” means a place where bees or beehives or beekeeping equipment is kept for the purpose of
Hobby Beekeeping;
“Bee” means the insect Apis mellifera;
“Hive” means beehive equipment inhabited by live bees;
“Hobby Beekeeping” use means the keeping, owning, or maintaining of up to two (2) bee hives on a
residential property occupied by the beekeeper or as an educational use in an institutional setting.
Registration of Apiaries
A person must not keep bees as a Hobby Beekeeper except in an Apiary registered under the Bee
Act, RSBC 1996, Chapter 29 and amendments thereto.
Responsibility
a) Hobby Beekeepers shall deter other animals and protect hives from disturbance by animals
by a suitable method of prevention, including but not limited to adequate fencing or hedging
or motion sensored high-pitched deterrent devices.;
b) Hives shall be located so that the entrance to the hives face away from adjacent property
dwellings.
c) Every Hobby Beekeeper and every person who allows, permits or establishes the keeping of
bees on their property has the duty to maintain, or to take reasonable precautions to prevent
swarming or aggressive behaviour by the bees, and if the bees do swarm or show signs of
aggressive behaviour, to ensure that the bees are requeened.
10
Provision of Water
Every Hobby Beekeeper and every person who allows, permits or establishes the keeping of bees
shall ensure that the bees have sufficient water available on the property upon which the Apiary is
located to provide for the needs of the bees.
Enforcement
A Public Health Officer, Bylaw Enforcement Officer, Property Use Inspector, Member of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, or other municipal employee, or agent, duly authorized by Council to
enforce municipal bylaws may enter upon any property to inspect and determine whether the
requirements of this bylaw are being me.
Offences and Penalties
Any person who contravenes this bylaw is liable upon summary conviction to a maximum fine of
$10,000.00 and the cost of prosecution. Every day during which there is a contravention of this
bylaw shall constitute a separate offence.
READ a first time the day of 2012
READ a second time the day of 2012
READ a third time the day of 2012
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of 2012
_________________________________ ______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/066/07
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6881-2011
12355 McNutt Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property, 12355 McNutt Road, from RS-3
(One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) for the purpose of future
subdivision into two lots.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6881-2011 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public
Hearing; and
2. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading:
i. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
ii. Removal of the existing buildings encroaching on proposed properties; and
iii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether
there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Richard Slobodian
Owner: Zygmunt Kozbial
Legal Description: Lot 6, Section 20, Township 15, NWD Plan 12094
OCP:
Existing: Suburban Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
1102
- 2 -
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Suburban Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Suburban Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Suburban Residential
West: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation: Suburban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 2.39 ha (5.91 acres)
Access: McNutt Road
Servicing requirement: Rural standard
Companion Applications: SD/066/07 and DP/101/10
b) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) for the purpose of future subdivision into two lots. The
subject property has some steep slopes greater than 25% grade, most of which are located on the
western side of the property. Originally, a three-lot subdivision layout was proposed for this property;
however, access to the third lot on the western side of the property from 272 Street could not be
proven out. Therefore, the applicant revised the application to the current two lot subdivision layout.
A Geotechnical Report and Landslide Assessment, Environmental Assessment, Tree Assessment,
and Septic Feasibility Report were provided in support of this application. Results of these
assessments are summarized in the Environmental Implications section below.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The proposed rezoning to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) is in accordance with the
subject property’s designation as Suburban Residential in the Official Community Plan. The
Suburban Residential designation permits single detached and duplex housing in areas
located outside of the Urban Area Boundary that may have water service but which are not
connected to the Municipal sanitary sewer system.
Zoning Bylaw:
The RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone requires a minimum lot area of 0.40 ha (1
acre), a minimum lot width of 36 m and a minimum lot depth of 60 m. The two proposed
single family lots comply with the above requirements of the Zoning Bylaw as follows:
the area for Lot 1 is proposed to be 1.99 ha (5 acres), and the area for Lot 2 is
proposed to be 0.40 ha (1 acre);
the lot width for Lot 1 is proposed to be approximately 36 m, and the lot width for
Lot 2 is proposed to be approximately 49.9 m; and
- 3 -
the lot depth for Lot 1 is proposed to be approximately 240 m; and the lot depth for
Lot 2 is proposed to be approximately 87 m.
The existing house on Lot 2 meets the required setbacks of the zone. The existing garage on
Lot 1 will be removed.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the Official Community Plan, a Natural Features Development
Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity for all lands with an
average natural slope of greater than 15% to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration
and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from
hazardous conditions.
d) Environmental Implications:
A geotechnical report and landslide assessment was prepared by Davies Geotechnical Inc. on the
subject property to review geotechnical conditions to assess the suitability of the site for the
proposed development. The report concludes that the site is safe for the use intended. A
Geotechnical Restrictive Covenant is required as a condition for Final Reading.
Additionally, an environmental assessment was prepared and determined that no watercourses or
other ecologically sensitive areas were observed on the subject property. A tree assessment was also
prepared with the goal of preserving as many of the existing trees as possible at the subdivision
stage. The reports note that the vegetation on the western portion of the property is comprised of a
mixed deciduous and coniferous forest interspersed with more open areas. The vegetation on the
eastern side of the property is comprised of a mix of native and non-native domestic species,
primarily with grasses, blackberry, thimbleberry and small alder saplings. One roadside ditch was
observed adjacent to the east property line that was conveying flows south along the west side of
McNutt Road. Cooper Creek was observed on the adjacent property on the east side of McNutt
Road.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has indicated that there are no deficient services which could be
provided by a Rezoning Servicing Agreement. Additional comments from the Engineering
Department will be addressed at the Subdivision stage.
Fire Department:
The Fire Department has noted that the driveway must not have a grade greater than 18%. The
grades for the driveways are proposed to be no greater than 5%.
Parks Department:
The Parks Department has advised that there is a road shoulder trail on McNutt Road that can
be maintained in the road Right-of-Way as a gravel shoulder.
- 4 -
CONCLUSION:
Based on the review of supporting information regarding the proposed rezoning and subdivision
applications, it is recommended that Second Reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw
No. 6881-2011.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden
Planning Technician
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP
Director of Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Zone Amending Bylaw 6881-2011
Appendix C – Proposed Subdivision Plan
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE : Apr 25, 2012 FILE: RZ/066/07 BY: PC
12355 MCNUTT ROAD
CORPOR ATION OFTHE DIST RIC T OFMAPLE R IDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1
2
4
1
0
12310
12366
12414
12293
12313
12485
12470
12240
12231
12251 12250
12375
12462
12295
12383
12278 12273
12355
12357
12294 1240612433 McNUTT RD.272 ST.LMP 6073
LMP 20047
1
BCP 38378
28
31
Rem 32
7
P 12094
BCP 38378
29
LMP 15210
Rem A
6
11
LMP 109238
6
9
PARK
PARK
P 34391
LMP 20047
EP 32859
7
BCP 253 18
LMP 6073
PARK
10
BCP 253 18
30
3
LMP 20049
2 3
!(
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
SCALE 1:2,000
APPENDIX A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6881-2011
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
___________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw 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:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6881-2011."
2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 6 Section 20 Township 15 New Westminster District Plan 12094
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1551 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RS-2 (One Family Suburban
Residential).
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 13th day of December, A.D. 2011.
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX B
1
2
4
1
0
12310
12366
12414
12261
12293
12313
12485
12266
12470
12240
12231
12251 12250
12375
12462
12295
12383
12278 12273
12355
12357
12294 1240612433 McNUTT RD.272 ST.LMP 6073
LMP 20047
1
BCP 38378
28
31
36
LMP 10923Rem 32
7
P 12094
BCP 38378
LMP 6073
LMP 15210
29
Rem A
6
11
BCP 41305
P 12094
Rem 15
LMP 109238
6
9
PARK
PARK 1
8
P 34391
LMP 20047
EP 32859
7
BCP 25318
2
LMP 6073
PARK
10
BCP 25318
9
P 57415
30
3
LMP 20049
2 3
41306
LMP 20048
BCP
41307
LMP 19808
BCP 25319
BCP
BCPLMP 6074LMP
LMP 20050
LMP 43621 BCP 10211LMP 10924
LMP 20048 LMP 20048BCP 25320BCP 25319
10924LMP 6080LMP 6069B
C
P
2
5
3
2
1
41308
B C P 1 5 52 6BCP
McNUTT RD.´
SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No.Map No. From:
To:
6881-20111551RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
APPENDIX C
- 1 -
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/033/08
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Rezoning – First Extension
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6621-2008
10366 240 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
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 to permit a
subdivision of approximately 9 lots under the R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone, and a
remnant lot to be developed under a separate application, which required coordination with the
applicant on adjacent lands to the east of the subject site.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ/033/08 and that the following
conditions be addressed prior to consideration of final reading:
i. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses
the suitability of the site for the proposed development;
ii. A Statutory Right-of-Way plan and Agreement must be registered at the Land Title
Office for the construction of a sanitary sewer;
iii. Road dedication, as required;
iv. Consolidation of the remnant lot with the development site to the east, application
RZ/063/09, to prevent creating a non-conforming lot;
v. Removal of the existing building/s;
vi. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act,
the applicant will provide a Site Profile for the subject property.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: H.Y. Engineering Ltd.
Owner: Gurinderjeet S. & Toor & Sukhjinder K. Toor
1103
- 2 -
Legal Description: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, Plan 13554
OCP:
Existing: Medium Density Residential
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Single family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation Medium Density Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
West: Use: Multi Family Residential
Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 6475 m2 (1.60 acres)
Access: Proposed 240A Street and proposed rear lane
Servicing: Full urban servicing will be provided
Accompanying Applications: SD/033/08 and RZ/SD/DP/063/09
This application is to permit the western portion of the subject lot to be rezoned to R-3 (Special
Amenity Residential District), to enable the land to be subdivided into approximately 9 single family
lots and a remainder. The remainder is subject to a separate application RZ/SD/DP/063/09 on
adjacent lands for a townhouse development.
The following dates outline Council’s consideration of the application and Bylaw 6621-2008:
- First Reading was granted November 23, 2010
- The Second Reading report (see attached) was considered by CoW on March 21, 2011;
- Second Reading was granted on March 22, 2011;
- Public Hearing was held April 19, 2011;
- Third Reading was granted on April 26, 2011.
- 3 -
Application Progress:
The applicant has completed most of the terms and conditions to be met prior to final reading of the
Zone Amending Bylaw. The applicant has not been able to move forward due to a change in
ownership of the property the east (RZ/SD/DP/063/09). That application has a townhouse
component for the proposed remnant lot that will in conjunction with properties to the east be
developed. However, with a recent change in ownership to the east property, the two owners have
not yet been able to co-ordinate that aspect of their designs, which has resulted in the need to
extend the rezoning application.
Alternatives:
Council may choose one of the following alternatives:
1. grant the request for extension;
2. deny the request for extension; or
3. repeal third reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied
for a one year extension. Additional time is necessary to coordinate this rezoning application with
the one on lands to the east and dealing with new owner. It is anticipated that within the next few
months final consideration will be applied for.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, MCAHP
Planning Technician
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Second Reading Report
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE : Apr 25, 2012 FILE: RZ/033/08 BY: PC
10366 240 STREET
CORPOR ATION OFTHE DIST RIC T OFMAPLE R IDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
SCALE 1:2,000
APPENDIX A
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: March 21, 2011
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/033/08
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6621-2008
10366 240 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban
Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6621-2008 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to
Public Hearing; and
2. That the following term(s) an d condition(s) be met prior to Final R eading.
i. Registration of a G eotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addr esses
the suitability of the site for the proposed development;
ii. A Statutory Right-of-Way plan and Agreement must be regi stered at the Land Title
Office for the construction of a sanitary sewer ;
iii. Road dedication, as required;
iv. Consolidation of the remnant lot with the development site to the east, application
RZ/063/09, to prevent creating a non -conforming lot;
v. Removal of the existing building/s;
vi. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management
Act, the applicant will provide a Site Profile for the subject property.
APPENDIX B
- 2 -
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: H.Y. Engineering Ltd.
Owner: Gurinderjeet S. Toor
Sukhjinder K. Toor
Legal Description: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, Plan 13554
OCP:
Existing: Medium Density Residential
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Single family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation Medium Density Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
West: Use: Multi Family Residential
Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 6475 m2 (1.60 acres)
Access: Proposed 240A Street and proposed rear lane
Servicing: Full urban servicing will be provided
Accompanying Applications: SD/033/08 and RZ/SD/DP/063/09
b) Project Description:
The subject property is in total 0.649 ha in size; however, the current application applies to the
western portion only, which totals 0.413 ha. The current application proposes to rezone the western
portion of the property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity
Residential District), to permit future subdivision into 9 single family residential lots. The eastern
portion of the site, totalling 0.236 ha, is encompassed in the rezoning application RZ/063/09,
which proposes a townhouse development under the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Zone. This
application is currently at Third Reading.
- 3 -
The subject property is bound by residential development in all directions; the adjacent property to
the south was the subject of a recent rezoning to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), under
application RZ/093/04, and was subsequently granted subdivision approval under application
SD/075/07. The current application is a continuation of that subdivision and is proposed to closely
match the lot areas and dimensions of those approved lots.
The applicant proposes to extend 240A Street and the rear access lane provided by the southerly
development, to provide access to all proposed new lots. The subdivision to the south has yet to be
developed, therefore, the current application can provide necessary services only when the south
development commences.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan :
The subject property is located within the Albion urban area and is therefore subject to the policies
set out in the Albion Area Plan. The proposed rezoning to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
is in accordance with the subject property’s designation as “Medium Density Residential” in the
Albion Area Plan.
Zoning Bylaw:
The R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone requires a minimum lot area of 213 m2; a
minimum lot width, with lane access of 7.9 m and a minimum lot depth of 27 m. The 9 proposed
single family lots comply with the above requirements of the Zoning Bylaw as follows;
Areas range from 274 m² to 315 m²
Lots widths range from 9.14 m to 10.5 m
Lot depths are all 30 m
Development Permit:
Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the Official Community Plan, an Intensive Residential Development
Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal provides emphasis on high standards
in aesthetics and quality of the built environment, while protecting important qualities of the natural
environment.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and has provided the following comments:
1. There are no services to be provided by this rezoning application; Servicing Agreements are
in place for the development to the south (RZ/093/04 and SD/075/07). The timing of
construction of services for this proposed rezoning and subdivision application will be
dependant upon the construction of the southern services.
2. DCC Bylaw No.6462-2007 includes a highway item for road works on 240 Street. This will
be reviewed at the subdivision stage after receipt of the servicing design.
- 4 -
3. At the subdivision stage, there might be Latecomer Charges payable to the development to
the south (SD/075/07).
4. Three metres wide road dedication is required across the property frontage.
5. A Development Variance Permit will be required to support retaining the above ground utility
company plant that fronts this property along the east side of 240 Street.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the subdivision is completed
they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. In the case of this project it is estimated
that there will be additional trees added to the street tree inventory. The Manager of Parks & Open
Space has advised that there is maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree which will affect
their operating budget.
CONCLUSION:
This proposal conforms to the Albion Area Plan of the OCP and is working with neighbouring lands
and applications to develop in a logical pattern, it is therefore recommended that Second
Reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6732-2010, and that application
RZ/033/08 be forwarded to Public Hearing.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Michelle Bast
Planning Technician
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Jane Pickering, MCP, MCIP
Director of Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Zone Amending Bylaw 6621-2008
Appendix C – Site Plan
Appendix D – Building Elevation Plans
Appendix E – Landscape Plans
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE : Apr 25, 2012 FILE: RZ/033/08 BY: PC
10366 240 STREET
CORPOR ATION OFTHE DIST RIC T OFMAPLE R IDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
SCALE 1:2,000
APPENDIX A
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6621-2008
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
___________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw 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:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6621-2008."
2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot “A”, Section 3, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 13554
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1443 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential
District)
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 23rd day of November, A.D. 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING held the 19th day of April, A.D. 2011.
READ a second time the 22nd day of March, A.D. 2011.
READ a third time the 26th day of April, A.D. 2011.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200 .
_____________________________ ____________________________
MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX B
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-043-DVP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit
10405, 10429, 10443, 10426, 10408 243 Street;
24290, 24280, 24273, 24283, 24289, 24297, 24305, 24315, 24323,
24333, 24337, 24347, 24366, 24360, 24356, 24348, 24342, 24336,
24328, 24320, 24316 104A Avenue;
24225, 24325, 24331, 24339, 24345, 24351, 24359, 24365, 24371,
24377 104 Avenue.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Development Variance Permit application has been received in support of subdivision application
SD/084/10. The application is for a 36 lot subdivision consisting of 35 R-1 (Residential District) lots
and one RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) lot. The purpose of the Development Variance Permit
is to vary the height of proposed single family homes from 9 to 11 metres.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-043-DVP respecting property located
at 10405,10429, 10443, 10426, 10408 243 Street; 24290, 24280, 24273, 24283, 24289,
24297, 24305, 24315, 24323, 24333, 24337, 24347, 24366, 24360, 24356, 24348, 24342,
24336, 24328, 24320, 24316 104A Avenue; 24225, 24325, 24331, 24339, 24345, 24351,
24359, 24365, 24371, 24377 104 Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context
Applicant: Damax Consultants Ltd.
Owner: Silver Valley Projects Ltd.
Legal Description: Lots: 1-36, Section: 10, Township: 12, Plan:
BCP49334
OCP :
Existing: Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
Existing: R-1 (Residential District), RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential)
1104
- 2 -
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Conservation
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Conservation
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS1-b (One Family (Medium Density) Residential)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
East: Use: Conservation
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Conservation
West: Use: Conservation
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Conservation
Existing Use of Property: Vacant, Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 1.75 HA. (4.32 acres)
Access: 104 and 104A Avenue, 243 Street
Servicing: Urban Standard
Lot Size: 371 – 1440 m2
Previous Applications: SD/084/10, VP/084/10, RZ/041/06,
SD/041/06, DP/041/06, VP/041/06.
Requested Variance: Variance to the maximum height from 9 to 11
metres on all proposed lots.
b) Project Description:
The applicant has recently rezoned and subdivided a portion of the former parent parcel to allow for
thirty-five R-1 (Residential District) lots no less than 371m² in size and one RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) lot no less than 668m² in size. The applicant is proposing a variance to the maximum
height permissible in the R-1 (Residential District), from 9 metres to 11 metres to allow for more
esthetically pleasing roof lines and steeper roof pitches. This building height request is normally
requested when the rezoning and subdivision applications are processed. The variance requested is
in keeping with past practice and is supportable.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The subject sites are designated Medium Density Residential in the Albion Area Plan and the existing
R-1 (Residential District) zoning complies with this designation.
Zoning Bylaw:
The lots are in compliance with the minimum zoning requirements for the R-1 (Residential District)
zone. A development variance permit has previously been granted for reduced rear yard setbacks
- 3 -
from 8 metres to 6 metres on proposed lots 1-15. The building height variance from 9 to 11 metres
is the only requested variance under this application.
d) Alternatives:
If the height variance request is not permitted, the applicant would be required to revise their single
family home design to comply with the maximum height allowed in the R-1 (Residential District) zone.
The roof pitches of the homes would likely be reduced.
CONCLUSION:
The development variance request for building height will allow for a more esthetically pleasing roof
lines and steeper roof pitches. The height relaxation is consistent with similar single family home
developments in the Albion area. Therefore, it is recommended that Development Variance Permit
2012- 043- VP be approved.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden
Planning Technician
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
AB/dp
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE : Apr 25, 2012 FILE: 2012-043-VP BY: PC
LOTS 1 - 36, PLAN BCP49334
CORPOR ATION OFTHE DIST RIC T OFMAPLE R IDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT2418924188242002420824218105372429010355103591040824305103362431524298103312433624337243561
0
5
1
2
103 90
1
0
5
1
0
103 29
103 45
103 7624382
103 26
103 5810511 243702437824385241952421610375104 43 242972431610352 243091034324342 2434524362103 37
103 65
103 02
103 66 243882419024192242202420724225243282433124394
2420124206242251052524280104 05 1051610333
10339
1032424320 24333243471032824339243601
0
5
1
4
243512436524371103 32 2438624386
24183242132423024232105312
4
2
8
310528
10345 243022430324312243222433210319
10325
1033724321 10346
103 13
103 21 2437710513242192422610321
10327 2431524325243331032224351 103 05
1
0
5
0
8
10504
103 18
103 4224384 24395241962420224212242222423824273 24289104 29
10349
10330
10342
10348 24323243272435224339243422434810334 24345243592
4
3
6
6
2439224375242092424010522104 26
103 03
10347
10340
10350
1
0
5
0
6
103 50242B ST.243 ST.243 ST.103A AVE.244 ST.
104A AVE.
103 A AVE.
2
4
4
S
T.
B A K E R P L A C E
105 AVE.243 A ST.244 ST.104 AVE.
27
14 13
34
BCP 34932
8BCP 49334
B
C
P 8153
BCP 349313
40
29
22
20
21
Rem.
17
1
34
B C P 5 9 8
136
BCP 598
PARK
6
30
15
105
106
1
1
14
115
31
BCP 1369818
19
10
8
3
135 134
5
P 66684
15
10
36
33
11
7
37
27
149
39
20
24
27
19
16
20
2
119
14
4
BCP 136984
19
BCP 35192
28
9
9
113
6
36
114
34
31
25
22
11 12
28
14
150
25BC P 815318
18
15
21
118
13
11
6
132
7
P 41519
5
3
3
4
5
35
24
33
148
19
15
BCP 349322
16
35
26
18
8
BCP 49334
6
8
10
10
BCP 48970
BCP40268641 BCP 13698
PARK
9
7
5
BCP 35192
BCP 438
32
4
107
BCP 3493
23
11
PARK
38
13
30 33
117
E 133' B
P 31591
133
29
17 16
31
12
38
2
7
1
32
29
30
9
26
12
21
BCP 49334
23
26
28
15
17
23
17
32
116
12
10
P 8852\\
\\\\
\\
\\\\
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
´
SCALE 1:2,000
APPENDIX A
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-139-DVP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW
SUBJECT: Variance Permit
12151 McNutt Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the April 10, 2012 Council meeting, Council gave consideration to an application to vary the
maximum permitted size (Gross Floor Area) of a Detached Garden Suite. The subject site is zoned
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential which permits a Detached Garden Suite of not less than 37m2
and not more than 90m2 or 10% of the lot area. The applicant is requesting a variance of 21 m2
(226 ft2) to permit the construction of a 111 m2 (1,195 ft2) Detached Garden Suite.
During the Council meeting, it was noted that there was concern with the size o f the proposed
Detached Garden Suite and the application was deferred to the May 14, 2012 Committee of the
Whole meeting. Staff were directed to meet with the applicant to discuss options for providing an
accessory residential use on the property.
On April 17, 2012, staff met with the applicant to discuss options and on April 19, 2012 was advised
that they wished to proceed without alterations to the size of the proposed Detached Garden Suite.
The following memorandum provides a summary of the options discussed.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Development Variance Permit application 2011-139-DVP respecting property at 12151
McNutt Road be denied.
DISCUSSION:
On April 17, 2012, staff met with the applicant for the Development Variance Permit. The followin g
options were discussed.
Reduce the size of the Detached Garden Suite - It was discussed that there was concern with
the size of the proposed Detached Garden Suite noting that 111 m2 (1,195 ft2) was considered
to be a house, as opposed to a cottage. Staff shared some examples of house layouts showing
3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms being accommodated in 93 m2 (1,000 ft2) (see Appendix A).
While these floor plans would likely require a variance, the variances would be for approximately
3 m2 gross floor area and would be considered minor.
The applicant was concerned that this space would be too cramped for her daughter, noting that
she has moved from a much larger house and was not accustomed to living in a small space.
She also noted that there is no family room in the house, so the bedrooms need to be large
enough to accommodate the children’s belongings.
1105
- 2 -
Detached Temporary Residential Use - The Zoning Bylaw provides for a mobile home (certified
under Z240 of the Canadian Standards Association) to be placed on lots 0.4 ha (1 acre) or
greater. These mobile homes range in size and single wide units with 3 bedrooms and 2
bathrooms appear to be readily available (see Appendix B). One of the requirements for a
Temporary Residential Use is that a Restrictive Covenant gets registered that requires that the
mobile home be removed when the relative no longer resides on the property.
The applicant explained that they had looked into this option and noted that these units are
more expensive than building a house.
Attached Temporary Residential Use - Under this option, a Temporary Residential Use could be
attached to the house. The Zoning Bylaw would limit the size to 40% of the gross floor area of
the house, which in this case would be 90m2 (969ft2). However, in circumstances like this, a
creative layout could provide for some of the rooms to be considered to be part of the main
house. For example, a family room, laundry room, or storage room could be situated in the main
house but be used by the residents of the Temporary Residential Use.
The applicant did not support this noting that her daughter needs her own separate space, and
that they thought it would be difficult to sell the house in the future using this scenario.
Parents moving into the Detached Garden Suite and the daughter moving into the house -
Building Department staff have advised that there have been situations where the Detached
Garden Suite was deemed to be too small for the relative, and the solution was that the parents
moved into the Detached Garden Suite and the children moved into the original home.
The applicant advised that a Detached Garden Suite is too small for their needs, noting that they
are not ready to downsize at this time.
Leave Detached Garden Suite application as is. The last option that was discussed was leaving
the application as it is.
The applicant was reminded that there were concerns with the size of the proposed Detached
Garden Suite and that Council had deferred the application to explore whether a suitable option
existed.
On April 19, 2012, the applicants advised that they wish to continue with the variance application as
originally submitted. They did offer to voluntarily place a covenant on the property restricting the use
to a relative. While a voluntary covenant will address concerns regarding the use of the unit it may
create an enforcement problem for Bylaw Staff, as these covenants are difficult to enforce. Issues
pertaining to the unit being oversized, and precedent setting would still remain.
- 3 -
ALTERNATIVES:
Council has the following options with respect to the proposed variance:
1) Deny the variance application
2) Approve the variance application
3) Approve the variance and withhold issuance of the Development Variance Permit pending
receipt of a copy of a Restrictive Covenant registered on Title to the property, restricting the
use of the Detached Garden Suite to a relative.
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed Detached Garden Suite exceeds the size permitted in the Zoning Bylaw and is
considered by some to be a house, rather than a detached cottage, as originally envisioned in the
Bylaw. Because this property is over 0.4 hectares in size, there is the option of placing a Temporary
Residential Use in the form of a single wide trailer on the property which can provide 3 bedrooms
and 2 bathrooms, which is a need identified by the applicant. The benefit of this approach is that
the unit is to be removed when the relative is no longer residing in it.
The applicant has volunteered to place a Restrictive Covenant on the property which will advise
future property owners that the use is limited to that of a relative. However, these covenants are
very difficult to enforce, and the approval would still set a precedent in the District.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
/cc
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Small House Layouts
Appendix B – Single Wide Mobile Home Layouts
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: E03-010-079
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Award of Contract No. ITT-EN12-31
Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to 216 Street)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement Project from Laity Street to 216 Street is in the
District’s approved Capital Program. The existing asbestos cement watermain is 40 years old and
has been identified for replacement having experienced breaks in the past years. The project will
also upgrade the watermain to a larger diameter pipe thereby increasing the reliability and capacity
of the water system.
The project was tendered in 2011 but cancelled due to insufficient funding. Additional funds were
included in the 2012 adopted Financial Plan and the project was re-tendered in March 2012.
Tenders closed on March 27, 2012 with eight (8) bids received. The lowest compliant bid of
$540,480.37 excluding taxes was submitted by Tybo Contracting Ltd. The consultant, Aplin & Martin
Consultants Ltd., has analyzed the tenders and recommend that the contract be awarded to Tybo
Contracting Ltd.
Included in the tender price is approximately $11,500 for works related to the Fibre Optics Program
which will be funded separately.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Contract ITT-EN12-31, Dewdney Trunk Road Watermain Replacement (Laity Street to 216
Street), be awarded to Tybo Contracting Ltd. in the amount of $540,480.37 plus applicable taxes;
and
THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The existing 200mm diameter asbestos cement watermain on Dewdney Trunk Road from
Laity Street to 216 Street was installed in 1970 and has experienced breaks over the years.
The project was scheduled in the Capital Program to replace and upgrade this section of
watermain along Dewdney Trunk Road. The work includes installation of approximately
700m of 300mm diameter watermain, replacement of water service connections as
necessary, and installation of new hydrants. The existing watermain will be abandoned but
retained for potential future use as a fibre optics conduit.
1106
Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. was engaged in 2010 to complete detailed design and
tendering for the watermain replacement. The project was originally tendered in May 2011
but the tender was cancelled as the total project cost exceeded the budget. Additional
funding of $400,000 for the project was budgeted and approved by Council in the 2012
Capital Budget. The tender drawings and documents were updated in the new year and the
project was re-tendered on February 28, 2012. The supply of pipe was ordered separately in
advance by the District in March 2012 to capture the discounted pipe price offered from our
pipe supplier Canada Pipe.
Tender results
Tenders closed on March 27, 2012 with eight tenders opened in public as listed below from
lowest to highest price.
Tender Price (excluding taxes)
Tybo Contracting Ltd. $540,480.37
Ponte Bros. Contracting Ltd. $585,480.37
Marv's Excavating Ltd. $586,627.64
Pedre Contractors Ltd. $688,325.00
Targa Contracting Ltd. $692,368.00
J. Cote & Son Excavating Ltd. $719,570.00
Mission Contractors Ltd. $723,794.81
Triahn Enterprises Ltd. $740,686.00
Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. has analyzed all tenders and recommend that Tybo
Contracting Ltd. be awarded the contract. Staff has also checked and reviewed the tenders
and concur with the recommendation.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to award the contract and
complete the watermain replacement on Dewdney Trunk Road.
c) Strategic Alignment:
One of the key strategies in the Corporate Strategic Plan is to manage existing infrastructure.
The Dewdney Trunk Road watermain is a feeder main that is a critical component of the
water network. Replacement and upgrading of the aging watermain will ensure reliability and
provide capacity for future years.
d) Citizens/Customer Implications:
An Open House was held on January 18, 2011 to present the detailed design drawings and
construction schedule. The estimated construction duration is approximately 8 weeks
starting in late May 2012. It is anticipated that traffic through the work zone will be reduced
to single lane in each direction. However, during the rush hours, a total of three lanes will be
maintained to accommodate the higher traffic volume through the work zone.
Some of the fronting properties may be impacted during water service connection
installations but will be notified in advance of the work. Any disturbed areas will be restored
to previous conditions or better. Every effort will be made to minimize impact to residents
fronting the watermain installation on Dewdney Trunk Road.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Operations Department has provided input during the design stage. Tie-ins to the live
water system will be completed by the Operations Department. A District staff inspector will
provide inspection services during construction.
The Information Services Department has requested that the abandoned watermain pipe be
preserved as a conduit for future fiber optics use. This will require installing a concrete
access chamber and a short section of conduit at a total cost of approximately $11,500. This
is included in the tender price and funded through the Fibre Optics Program.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The watermain project is funded under LTC 2300 and LTC 8581, with a total budget of
$809,500. The $11,500 for works associated with the Fibre Optics Program, which are
included in the construction costs, is funded under LTC 1556. The projected expenditures
are within budget.
Current miscellaneous expenditures $ 18,146
Aplin & Martin Consultant fees $ 64,109
Construction cost (low bid) $540,480
Pipe supply cost (Canada Pipe) $ 63,710
Projected tie-in costs $ 83,938
Taxes $ 13,482
Contingency (4%) $ 21,619
Total Projected Project Cost $805,484
CONCLUSIONS:
The tender price of $540,480.37 excluding taxes, by Tybo Contracting Ltd. for the Dewdney Trunk
Road Watermain Replacement Project from Laity Street to 216 Street is the lowest tendered price.
Council approval to award the work to Tybo Contracting Ltd. is recommended.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Richard Wong, PEng.
Manager of Design & Construction
_______________________________________________
Financial review by: Trevor Thompson, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
_______________________________________________
Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
General Manager: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: EO2-010-152
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Award of Contract (Reference No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152)
232 Street Road Improvements (124 Avenue to 128 Avenue)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 232 Street Road Improvements from 124 Avenue to 128 Avenue are included in the 2011
Capital Works Program. 232 Street is an important link in the District’s transportation system,
providing access to several areas including the adjacent neighbourhood, the Silver Valley community,
Maple Ridge Park, UBC Research Forest and Golden Ears Provincial Park. Trans Link has
acknowledged the importance of this arterial roadway by including it in the region’s Major Road
Network.
The road improvements include northbound roadway widening to accommodate two travel lanes,
installation of concrete sidewalk on the east side, northbound and southbound bicycle lanes, asphalt
paving and streetlights on the east side. The drainage improvements were completed in 2011.
The 232 Street Road Improvements Project was tendered on March 6, 2012 and closed on March
27, 2012. Thirteen tenders were received. The lowest compliant bid was submitted by Keywest
Asphalt Ltd. at $728,044.00 (excluding taxes).
Council approval to award the contract is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Contract (Reference No. ITT-EN12-09; Project No. E02-010-152) 232 Street Road
Improvements (124 Avenue to 128 Avenue), be awarded to Keywest Asphalt Ltd. in the amount of
$728,044.00 plus applicable taxes; and
THAT the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
As the areas served by this arterial roadway have developed over the past several years, the
District has made steady progress upgrading 232 Street to an urban arterial roadway. In
2008, the east side of 232 Street was upgraded from the roundabout at 132 Avenue south
to the South Alouette River Bridge. The following year, the section between the South
Alouette Bridge and 128 Avenue was upgraded.
1107
The current 232 Street Road Improvements from 124 Avenue to 128 Avenue (see Appendix
1) was approved as part of the 2011 Capital Program. The project will be completed in two
phases. Drainage improvements were completed during the Fisheries window in 2011, and
roadway enhancements will be constructed starting May 2012.
The road improvements include northbound roadway widening to accommodate two travel
lanes, installation of concrete sidewalk on the east side, northbound and southbound bicycle
lanes, asphalt paving and streetlights on the east side. Also included as part of this project is
the installation of fibre optic conduits along 232 Street for the Information Services
Department.
To accommodate the 232 Street improvements, the District must acquire a 1.5m-2.0m strip
of property along the frontages of 9 properties and obtain permission for temporary
construction access at two locations along 232 Street. All agreements related to these
property needs have been finalized. Legal documents are currently being prepared and will
be registered. There will be no impact on the construction.
Tender results
Thirteen tenders were received and opened in public. These are listed below from lowest to
highest price, excluding taxes.
Tendered Price
Keywest Asphalt Ltd. $728,044.00
Tybo Contracting Ltd. $728,468.31
Marv's Excavating Ltd. $734,489.00
Targa Contracting Ltd. $750,036.00
Tag Construction Ltd. $757,405.00
Triahn Entreprises Ltd. $762,726.00
B & B Contracting Ltd. $767,625.00
Jack Cewe Ltd. $773,380.00
LaFarge Canada Inc. cob Columbia Bitulithic $779,977.00
Wilco Civil Inc. $789,124.00
Mission Contractors Ltd. $818,421.77
Imperial Paving Ltd. $832,091.00
J. Cote & Son Excavating Ltd. $919,570.00
Staff has reviewed the tenders and the lowest compliant bid was $728,044.00, from
Keywest Asphalt Ltd. Staff also performed a background check on the capacity of Keywest
Asphalt Ltd to complete the project. Although this is the first time the District will be working
with Keywest, bonding is in place to assure completion of the project.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome of this report is to obtain Council approval to award the contract and
proceed with the road improvements.
c) Strategic Alignment:
The project supports the following key strategies identified in the District’s Strategic Plan:
Maintain and enhance a multi-modal transportation system within Maple Ridge to
provide citizens with safe, efficient alternatives for the movement of individuals and
goods
Promote alternative modes of travel (pedestrian, bike, public transit) to reduce
reliance on the automobile
d) Citizens/Customer Implications:
The project will improve safety and mobility for all users. An Open House was held on
December 7, 2010 and there were no major issues raised.
Arrangements for the acquisition of a 1.5m to 2.0m strip of property fronting 9 lots on the
east side of 232 Street have been finalized and land title registrations are currently
underway.
Construction of road improvements will commence soon after the project is awarded. The
contractor will work to minimize the impact of construction on traffic, residents, and
businesses in the neighbourhood. The road is expected to remain open to traffic throughout
the construction. Project information will be communicated to residents by letter. Project
information will also be posted on the District’s website and on Facebook.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The roadway improvements support the OCP vision developed by the Planning Department.
The Operations Department has provided input on the design from an operations and
maintenance perspective.
The Clerks Department assists in the acquisition of the lands for the road improvements.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The approved 2011 Capital Budget provides sufficient funds under LTC 2216 to complete
the road improvements. The funding and projected and actual expenditures are as follows:
Actual Expenditures for work completed (2011)
Drainage Improvements
Consultants Fee
Land Acquisition Costs
Utilities Relocations
Miscellaneous Internal Charges
$477,235.00
26,944.00
33,450.00
32,133.00
5,000.00
Projected Expenditures (2012)
Keywest Asphalt
Inspections
Contingency (10%)
$728,044.00
6,000.00
73,000.00
Total Project Cost $1,385,766.00
Total Funding Available $1,550,000.00
The total funding available includes a $617,500 TransLink contribution.
CONCLUSIONS:
The tender price of $728,044.00 excluding HST, by Keywest Asphalt Ltd. for the 232 Street Road
Improvements from 124 Avenue to 128 Avenue project is the lowest tendered price. Council
approval to award the work to Keywest Asphalt Ltd. is recommended.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Maria Guerra, PEng.
Senior Project Engineer
_______________________________________________
Financial review by: Trevor Thompson, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
_______________________________________________
Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
General Manager: Public Works & Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
MG/mi
Appendix 1
Project Location
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: Tax Rate Bylaws - Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District and Albion Dyking District
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Levies are collected from property owners within the Road 13 and Albion Dyking Districts to maintain
the dykes and equipment. Bylaws have been prepared for the collection of these levies in. No increases
are proposed from the rates levied in 2011.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Road 13 Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6916-2012; be given first, second and third readings
and that. Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 6915-2012 be given first, second and third
readings.
DISCUSSION:
No funds have been allocated in the Capital Works budget for these dykes. All works must be funded
through the Dyking Districts. Provincial grants can be applied for but these generally require that the
recipient pay 33% of all costs. The Provincial Dyking Authority has requested increased geotechnical
investigation for seismic design in future construction or upgrades whether funded by the Dyking
District or Grants. This may lead to increased construction costs for the resulting resilient designs.
In 2010 staff conducted a risk analysis for the two dyking districts to determine if sufficient funds are
available to ensure the continued protection of the residents and businesses within those dyking
districts. The largest single risk for both is a non-insured pump failure. The replacement cost for the
pump for the Albion Dyking District is estimated at $500,000. This Dyking District has sufficient funds
to cover half the cost of replacement and the remainder could be financed over a 20 year period. The
replacement cost for the Road 13 Dyking District pump is $2,000,000. This Dyking District does not
have sufficient reserves to cover the cost of replacement. Staff is recommending that reserves should
equal at least half of the pump value and that the reserves be built up over multiple years to reach the
required $1,000,000. Levies were increased in 2011 to assist in building that reserve.
__________________________________________ ___________________________________
Prepared by: Russ Carmichael Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
Director of Engineering Operations General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
_________________________________________ ____________________________________
Prepared by: Ceri Marlo. Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Manager of Legislative Services Chief Administrative Officer
1131
THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6916-2012
A Bylaw for imposing taxes upon lands in Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District
The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, acting on behalf of the
Trustees for Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District, enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District Tax
Rates Bylaw No. 6916--2012”.
2. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for those lands within the
boundaries of Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District:
For purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and
maintenance:
(a) a rate of $0.4799 per $1000 of assessment of land and improvements in all
categories
(b) a rate of $12.00 per acre of land with a minimum charge of $5.00.
3. If any section, subsection, clause or other part of this Bylaw is for any reason held to
be invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw.
READ a first time on the day of May, 2012.
READ a second time on the day of May, 2012.
READ a third time on the day of May, 2012.
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED on the day of May, 2012.
_______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER
_______________________________
CORPORATE OFFICER
THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6915-2012
A Bylaw for imposing taxes upon lands in the Albion Dyking District
The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, acting as Receiver for the
Albion Dyking District, enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw
No.6915 -2012”.
2. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for those lands within the
boundaries of Albion Dyking District:
For purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and
maintenance:
(a) a rate of $2.4496 per $1000 of assessment of land and improvements in all
categories
3. If any section, subsection, clause or other part of this Bylaw is for any reason held to
be invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw.
READ a first time on the day of May, 2012.
READ a second time on the day of May, 2012.
READ a third time on the day of May, 2012.
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED on the day of May, 2012.
_______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER
_______________________________
CORPORATE OFFICER
1 | P a g e
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Audit Committee and
Committee of Whole
SUBJECT: 2013 – 2017 Financial Planning Guidelines
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The District has a comprehensive business planning process that is guided by parameters for the
development of the financial plan. Our current guidelines include the tax increases that appear on
the attached Appendix 1. Essentially, the property tax increase was 4.9% and the proposed bottom
line tax increase to the average home after including user fees, amounted to 5.6% for 2012.
During last December’s business plan deliberations, Council expressed the desire to consider
options to reduce the amount of the tax increase. In light of this, staff recommend the following
changes:
1. Infrastructure - The current financial plan sets aside a 1% tax increase each year to go
towards infrastructure sustainability. We recommend that this be reduced to ½% each year
for the first two years of the next financial plan, returning to 1% in the third and subsequent
years.
2. Parks and Leisure Masterplan Implementation - The current financial plan anticipates a
1/2% dedicated annual tax increase to be set aside to fund the implementation of the Parks
and Leisure Masterplan. We recommend that this be reduced to 1/4% for each of the first
two years of the next financial plan, returning to ½% in the third and subsequent years.
These changes will result in the tax rate increase reducing from the projected 5% in 2013 and 4.8%
in 2014 to about 4.25% in 2013 and 4.05% in 2014. In addition, we recommend that other
parameters in the financial plan be reviewed to bring the overall increase down another 0.25% for
2013 and 2014.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the Financial Planning Guidelines attached as Appendix 2 be approved.
DISCUSSION:
The District has a comprehensive business planning process that is guided by parameters for the
development of the financial plan. Our current guidelines include the tax increases that appear on
the attached Appendix 1. Essentially, the bottom line tax increase to the average home amounted to
5.6% for 2012. During last December’s business plan deliberations, Council expressed concern with
the uncertain economic times that we are in and directed staff to consider options to reduce the
1132
2 | P a g e
amount of the increase. Appendix 1 shows the major cost drivers resulting in the overall projected
tax increase for each year of the financial plan. Each of the cost drivers is discussed below:
Recycling Levy - In 2012, the Recycling rate increased 6% and is planned to increase 3% for the
remaining years of the financial plan. Municipal Council is reviewing the services provided in area
and rates should be revised as service levels are determined.
Water and Sewer Levy - The current financial plan projects water rate increases of 9% per year and
sewer rate increases of 5% per year. As Council is aware, both of these utilities ran deficits in 2011
and the projected rate increases need to remain at the current level.
Drainage Levy - The drainage works required throughout the municipality are significantly
underfunded. Council directed that a $5 levy be implemented beginning in 2013 and increased $5
annually for a period of 5 years. We recommend that we continue on this path.
Parks and Leisure Services Levy - In the last financial plan, Council decided to set aside a dedicated
tax increase of 0.5% per year for 8 years for the implementation of the Parks and Leisure
Masterplan. It was understood that the requirements in the plan would have to be reprioritized to
reflect the funding envelope. We recommend that the amount of the increase be reduced to 0.25%
for each of the first two years of the next financial plan and then return to 0.5% for the remaining 3
years. This change will allow the overall tax increase to the average home to be reduced by 0.25%
and is in alignment with the relatively high level of citizen satisfaction in this service area.
Infrastructure Levy - Beginning in 2008, Municipal Council directed that a 1% annual tax increase go
towards infrastructure sustainability. In 2012, this pool has built up to $2.4 million annually, the
largest portion of which is directed towards road rehabilitation and maintenance. While the annual
infrastructure funding gap remains large and it will take several years to bridge this gap, we have
made significant head way. In light of Council’s desire to reduce the amount of the tax increase, we
recommend that our increase in this levy by reduced to ½% for each of 2013 and 2014, returning to
the 1% level in 2015 and subsequent years. The return to the 1% level is important as recent survey
results place a high level of importance on the condition of our roads.
These changes will result in the total increase reducing from about 5.6% in 2013 and 2014 to about
5.0% for each of those years. In addition, we recommend that other parameters in the financial plan
be reviewed to bring the property tax increase (excluding utility charges) down a further 0.25%. A
summary of the revised tax increases appears as Appendix 2.
a) Desired Outcome:
Direction to staff for the development of a financial plan that meets Council’s direction.
b) Strategic Alignment:
Our business planning process aligns our financial plan with Council’s strategic direction. Based
on the recent community surveys, the following have emerged as priority focus areas for the
2013-2017 business plans:
1. Economic Development, including the need for creating high quality local jobs and shopping
opportunities.
2. Continuous Improvement, with a customer service focus.
3. Transportation
3 | P a g e
The Corporate Strategic Plan will be updated to reflect these priorities and will be brought
forward for Council’s consideration in the coming weeks.
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
These guidelines will be presented at Committee of the Whole meeting and will be available on
our website. We will also seek comments through the website and all of the input that we receive
will be referred to Council, before they give final consideration to these guidelines at the next
Council meeting.
Council’s business plan deliberations take place in meetings open to the public. Tentatively,
these deliberations are scheduled for December 10 and 11, 2012. The resulting financial plan
bylaw will be considered at meetings open to the public in mid to late December.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
In developing the business plans, departments must consider their own work plans, the impact
of those plans on other departments as well as the impact to them of the work plans developed
by others. Cross departmental overlap must be represented in the business plans and managed
accordingly. The capital and information technology programs are two such examples.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The financial planning guidelines will form the foundation for the development of our 2013-2017
Business/Financial Plans.
f) Policy Implications:
These guidelines provide a framework for planning and augment the existing policy framework
used to guide decision making.
g) Alternatives:
A whole series of alternatives are available when it comes to establishing the parameters for the
development of a financial plan. The challenge is to find the appropriate balance between
service levels and affordability.
CONCLUSION:
The attached financial planning guidelines provide a framework for planning to meet the needs of
the community.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Laura Benson, CMA
Manager of Corporate Planning & Sustainability
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
LB:
4 | P a g e
Appendix I
Projected Average Home
2012 – 2017
Projected Property Tax Increase (assessment based) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
General Purpose (driven by RCMP & Labour) 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Infrastructure Replacement 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Fire Levy 0.9% 0.2%
Drainage
0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
Parks Master Plan
0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
Total Property Tax Increase 4.9% 5.0% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
User Fees (fixed rates)
Water 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
Sewer (fee 5% increase, parcel charge 0% increase) 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4%
Recycling 6.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Total Increase (on average home) 5.6% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.6%
Appendix 2
Projected Average Home
2013 – 2017
Projected Property Tax Increase (assessment based) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
General Purpose (driven by RCMP & Labour) * 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Infrastructure Replacement 0.50% 0.50% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
Fire Levy 0.20%
Drainage 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30%
Parks Master Plan 0.25% 0.25% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%
Total Property Tax Increase * 4.25% 4.05% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80%
User Fees (fixed rates)
Water 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00% 9.00%
Sewer (fee 5% increase, parcel charge 0% increase) 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40%
Recycling 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
Total Increase (on average home) * 5.09% 4.99% 5.52% 5.55% 5.58%
* Other parameters in the financial plan for 2013 and 2014 to be revised to bring the property tax
increase on the average home down a further 0.25%. This will bring the total increase including
user fees down to 4.93% in 2013 and 4.83% in 2014.
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 30, 2012
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Integrated Forensic Identification Unit – Request for Space
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Integrated Forensic Identification Service (IFIS) provides expert evidence gathering service to
RCMP detachments in the Lower Mainland District. Prior to its creation in 2005, each detachment
had its own forensic identification positions. This posed a number of challenges, including staffing,
proper training and supervision, and the high cost of specialized equipment. An integrated
approach in the lower mainland has addressed these issues.
Before integration, our detachment had 3 positions dedicated to forensic identification work. They
occupied an area of about 1,100 square feet in the main detachment building, which included
space for the examination of exhibits. When integration occurred, these positions were moved to
the Lower Mainland District and the space was used to address other police needs. Work stations
were, however, made available for IFIS members when they were doing work in our area.
IFIS would like to expand their presence in our area and grow the unit so that it can become a
forensic “hub” for the Fraser Valley. In order to do this, they wish to “repatriate’ the space that was
previously occupied by our own forensic identification officers so that it can be dedicated for the
use of IFIS. IFIS is prepared to pay reasonable rent. The letter from the Officer-in-Charge of IFIS
outlining this request is attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the request of the Integrated Forensic Identification Service (IFIS) to establish a regional hub
within the main RCMP detachment building in Maple Ridge as outlined in the staff report dated
April 30, 2012 be supported.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Before integration, our detachment had 3 positions dedicated to forensic identification work. They
occupied an area of about 1,100 square feet in the main detachment building, which included
space for the examination of exhibits. When integration occurred, these positions were moved to
the Lower Mainland District and the space was used to address other police needs. Work stations
were, however, made available for IFIS members when they were doing work in our area.
1133
2
a) Background Context (Cont’d.):
IFIS has approached the municipality as they would like to expand their presence in our area and
grow the unit so that it can become a forensic “hub” for the Fraser Valley. In order to do this, they
wish to “repatriate’ the space that was previously occupied by our own forensic identification
officers so that it can be dedicated for the use of IFIS. IFIS is prepared to pay reasonable rent for
this.
There are a number of benefits to our community from becoming an IFIS hub. We would have
additional forensic identification expertise working locally and this will speed up the flow of our
investigations. We would also have hands on expertise that we currently lack. Also, IFIS proposes
to add a senior position locally that will provide expert advice on local investigations and mobilize
IFIS resources to assist if necessary. The person will also provide valuable input into our overall
crime reductions strategies.
Providing dedicated space to IFIS will have a ripple effect that will result in the relocation of other
units. We are looking to relocate some police personnel into the Randy Herman Building. The
people displaced from Randy Herman Building will have to be accommodated in other areas,
including in vacant space in our office tower. The nature of the work being done by IFIS is such that
it needs to be housed in the main detachment building.
It should be noted that IFIS will be paying rent for th e space that they will be occupying. Further,
any space taken over in our office tower for displaced needs will be at market rates so that we can
protect the integrity of the cashflow for the office tower.
b) Desired Outcome:
The accommodation of a request from IFIS to create a regional hub for their services in our
community.
c) Interdepartmental Implications:
Our facilities section will be overseeing the move and any renovations that might be required. This
is not currently in their workplan. Some non-police services in the Randy Herman Building, notably
the Social Planning function, will have to move to the office tower.
d) Strategic Plan Alignment:
This initiative is aligned with Council’s objective of adding highly skilled jobs to our employment
base. As well, It will enhance public safety in our community.
3
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
We have discussed a lease rate of $27 per square foot with IFIS plus payment for parking and
computer support. It is estimated that cashflow from IFIS will approximate $35,000 per year. This
cashflow will offset space costs for displaced personnel.
Space is currently available in our office tower. Rental rates for such space are about $25 per
square foot ($16 base rate plus $9 for common costs).
IFIS has agreed to cover any renovation costs that might be necessary for their needs. Leasehold
improvements will be required for the space in the office tower, and such costs will treated in the
same manner as a third party transaction. In other words, the landlord may offer a certain amount
of assistance with the tenant improvements. The balance will be covered off through the Protective
Services Reserve.
Based on the foregoing, the request from IFIS can be accommodated without additional on-going
costs to the municipality.
CONCLUSIONS:
The letter from IFIS outlines their future plans to grow the unit so that it can become a Forensic hub
for the Fraser Valley. This is a significant achievement for our community and our citizens.
___________________________________
Prepared by: Paul Gill
GM: Corporate & Financial Services
___________________________________
Approved by: Supt. Dave Walsh
Officer in Charge, RCMP
___________________________________
Concurrence: Jim Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
District of Maple RidgeDistrict of Maple RidgeDistrict of Maple RidgeDistrict of Maple Ridge
TO:TO:TO:TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETINGMEETINGMEETINGMEETING DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: April 30, 2012April 30, 2012April 30, 2012April 30, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO: CDPRCDPRCDPRCDPR----0640064006400640----30303030
FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:MEETING:MEETING:MEETING: C.O.W.C.O.W.C.O.W.C.O.W.
SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: BID TO HOSBID TO HOSBID TO HOSBID TO HOSTTTT THE BC SUMMER THE BC SUMMER THE BC SUMMER THE BC SUMMER GAMES 20GAMES 20GAMES 20GAMES 2011116 OR6 OR6 OR6 OR 2018201820182018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
See the attached report reviewed by the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services
Commission at their meeting on April 19, 2012.
At that meeting, the Commission amended the recommendation to include that it be forwarded to
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Councils and School District No. 42and School District No. 42and School District No. 42and School District No. 42.
The Commission also requested information on the economic impact of the games and Appendix 6,
Economic Impact Assessments from the BC Winter Games & BC Summer Games 2016 and 2018
Bid Application Package is attached for reference.
RECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATIONRECOMMENDATION::::
That staff prepare a bid to host That staff prepare a bid to host That staff prepare a bid to host That staff prepare a bid to host the 2016 or 2018 BC Summer Games, noting that the bid the 2016 or 2018 BC Summer Games, noting that the bid the 2016 or 2018 BC Summer Games, noting that the bid the 2016 or 2018 BC Summer Games, noting that the bid
submission is submission is submission is submission is subject to endorsement by School District No. 42. This opportunity requires a one subject to endorsement by School District No. 42. This opportunity requires a one subject to endorsement by School District No. 42. This opportunity requires a one subject to endorsement by School District No. 42. This opportunity requires a one
time municipal budget commitment of $45,000 and a minimum of $50,000 of intime municipal budget commitment of $45,000 and a minimum of $50,000 of intime municipal budget commitment of $45,000 and a minimum of $50,000 of intime municipal budget commitment of $45,000 and a minimum of $50,000 of in----kind supportkind supportkind supportkind support, , , ,
namely in staff resources and namely in staff resources and namely in staff resources and namely in staff resources and use of Municipal Facilities required to host the Gamuse of Municipal Facilities required to host the Gamuse of Municipal Facilities required to host the Gamuse of Municipal Facilities required to host the Games, to be shared es, to be shared es, to be shared es, to be shared
proportionately according to the agreement between the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt proportionately according to the agreement between the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt proportionately according to the agreement between the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt proportionately according to the agreement between the District of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt
Meadows.Meadows.Meadows.Meadows.
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community DevelopmentKelly Swift, General Manager, Community DevelopmentKelly Swift, General Manager, Community DevelopmentKelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Parks & Parks & Parks & Recreation ServicesRecreation ServicesRecreation ServicesRecreation Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) RuleJ.L. (Jim) RuleJ.L. (Jim) RuleJ.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative Officer
:ik
Attachment
1151