The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-01-17 Council Agenda and Reports.pdfPage 1 City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA January 17, 2017 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber Note: This Agenda is also posted on the City’s 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 AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA 300 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 400 ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES 401 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of December 6, 2016 500 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 600 DELEGATIONS 601 Youth Wellness Centre Update • Dr. Ursula Luitingh, Co Chair Child and Youth Mental Health Substance Use Initiative and Past Chair, Ridge Meadows Division of Family Practice • Vicki Kipps, Executive Director Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Community Services • Treena Innes, Executive Director Ridge Meadows Division of Family Practice 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2017 Council Chamber Page 2 of 8 700 ITEMS ON CONSENT 701 Minutes 701.1 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meetings of December 7, 19 and 21, 2016 and January 11, 2017 701.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council • Community Heritage Commission November 1, 2016 • Environmental Advisory Committee – November 10, 2016 • Social Policy Advisory Committee – November 2, 2016 701.3 Minutes of the Committee of the Whole of January 9, 2017 702 Reports 702.1 Disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016 Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016 be received for information. 702.2 Adjustments to the 2016 Collector’s Rolls Staff report dated January 9, 2017 submitting information on changes to the 2016 Collector’s Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls 3 through 11. 702.3 2017 Tax Assessment Review Staff report dated January 16, 2017 providing information on 2017 Property Assessments. 702.4 Specialized Courts Staff report dated January 16, 2017 providing an update on work being done in the review of the use of specialized course. 703 Correspondence Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2017 Council Chamber Page 3 of 8 704 Release of Items from Closed Council Status From the Closed Council Meeting of January 9, 2017 04.01 Active Transportation Advisory Committee Membership – 2017/2018 Member Appointments 04.02 Agricultural Advisory Committee Membership – 2017/2018 Member Appointments 04.04 Pitt Meadows Airport Society, Temporary Board of Directors 800 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 801 2016-299-AL, 12176 237 Street, Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, Addendum Report Staff report dated January 17, 2017 providing options for consideration for Application 2016-299-AL to exclude approximately 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) from the Agricultural Land Reserve. 900 CORRESPONDENCE 1000 BYLAWS Note: Items 1001 to 1004 are from the January 17, 2017 Public Hearing Bylaws for Third Reading 1001 2016-325-RZ, 22606 Dewdney Road Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016 To permit a temporary taxi dispatch Third reading 1002 2014-009-CP, 11230 and 11240 206 Street; 20605, 20617, 20627, 20643, 20645, 20661 Maple Crescent; 11202, 11233 and 11391 Dartford Street; 20598 and 20657 Lorne Avenue and PIDs 003-435-181 and 004-963-415 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7292-2016 To rezone from C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) and RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to H-2 (Hammond Village Commercial) and P-4 (Place of Worship Institutional) to align existing Hammond commercial properties with the new Hammond Village Commercial land use designation Third reading Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2017 Council Chamber Page 4 of 8 1003 2014-009-CP, Hammond Area Plan Bylaw No. 7279-2016 To designate from Agricultural to Conservation and to identify the location and boundaries of the Hammond Area Plan Third reading Bylaws for Third Reading and Adoption 1004 2015-346-CP, Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 To amend the recently adopted Wildfire Development Permit Area guidelines to remove the references to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and provide greater flexibility when reviewing development applications Third reading and adoption 1005 2015-346-CP, Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines Maple Ridge Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 7233-2016 To amend Schedule J to provide consistency with other schedules within the bylaw Third reading and adoption Bylaws for Adoption 1006 2015-350-RZ, 24341 112 Avenue Staff report dated January 17, 2017 recommending final reading 1006.1 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227-2016 To designate from Low/Medium Density Residential to Conservation Adoption 1006.2 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015 To rezone from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban [Medium Density] Residential) to permit subdivision into 9 lots not less than 372 m2 (4000 ft2) Adoption 1007 Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7300-2016 To establish the five year financial plan for the years 2017 through 2021 1008 Maple Ridge Council Procedure Amending Bylaw No. 7301-2016 To define the release of the voting pattern from Closed Council Meetings Adoption Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2017 Council Chamber Page 5 of 8 1009 Maple Ridge Highway Closure & Dedication Removal Bylaw No. 7291-2016 To allow for closure and dedicate removal of a portion of laneway in the 11800 block of 226 Street and 227 Street Adoption COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1100 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Public Works and Development Services 1101 2016-434-AL, 11680 252 Street, Application to Subdivide within the Agricultural Land Reserve Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Application 2016- 434-AL to subdivide 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of land within the Agricultural Land Reserve not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission 1102 2016-398-RZ, 12178 and 12192 227 Street, RS-1 to RM-1 Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to allow for future construction of 12 townhouse units be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D and E of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. Note: Item 1103 was deferred at the January 9, 2017 Committee of the Whole Meeting 1103 2016-411-RZ, 21188 Wicklund Avenue, RS-1 to R-1 Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Application 2016- 411-RZ not be given first reading. The following issues were presented at an earlier Committee of the Whole meeting with the recommendations being brought to this meeting for City 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 January 17, 2017 Council Chamber Page 6 of 8 1104 2011-089-RZ, 22325 St. Anne Avenue, Heritage Revitalization Agreement Amendment Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016 be given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1105 2016-129-RZ, 11225 240 Street, Site Specific Text Amendment, C-1 Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016 for a site specific text amendment to a C- 1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone to add additional permitted uses for a proposed mixed use commercial and rental apartment project be given first and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1106 2015-350-DVP, 24341 112 Avenue Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-350-DVP to reduce the minimum setback from an interior side lot line for the garage roof projection for proposed Lots 4 through 9 to permit 9 single family lots. 1107 2016-129-DVP, 2016-129-DP, 11225 240 Street Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-129-DVP to allow buildings to be sited closer to Kanaka Way (front lot line) and 240 Street (exterior side lot line), that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016- 129-DP to permit a mixed use commercial and rental apartment building in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the Cancellation of Charges application to discharge DP/045/09 and DVP/045/09. 1108 2015-207-DP, 22650 136 Avenue, Wildfire Development Permit Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-207-DP to allow the first phase of a four phase single family subdivision located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2017 Council Chamber Page 7 of 8 Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Police) Note: Items 1131 and 1132 have been placed in the “Items on Consent” agenda 1131 Disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016 1132 Adjustments to the 2016 Collector’s Rolls 1133 Revision to Policy 10.1 Disposal of Found Goods Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending approval of revised Policy 10.1 Disposal of Found Goods. Community Development and Recreation Service 1151 Dog Off-Leash Areas – Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the trial dog off- leash areas at Westview Park and Upper Maple Ridge Park be approved as permanent off-leash areas. 1152 Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Operating Agreement Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending the preparation of an updated operating agreement with the Ridge Meadows Seniors Society (RMSS) which removes RMSS involvement in strata fee management and increases funding for the programming. Administration 1171 Other Committee Issues 1191 1200 STAFF REPORTS 1300 OTHER MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT Council Meeting Agenda January 17, 2017 Council Chamber Page 8 of 8 1400 NOTICES OF MOTION AND MATTERS FOR FUTURE MEETING 1500 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 1600 ADJOURNMENT Checked by:________________ Date: ________________ 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 bylaws 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. City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 6, 2016 The Minutes of the City Council Meeting held on December 6, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Elected Officials Appointed Staff Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer Councillor K. Duncan K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development, Councillor B. Masse Parks and Recreation Services Councillor G. Robson P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services Councillor T. Shymkiw F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Councillor C. Speirs Services C. Carter, Director of Planning ABSENT L. Darcus, Manager of Legislative Services Councillor C. Bell A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary Other staff as required C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental Services B. Elliott, Manager of Community Planning D. Hall, Planner 2 Note: These Minutes are also posted on the City’s Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca The meeting was live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge 100 CALL TO ORDER 200 INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS Item 501 Christmas Card Design Contest Winners Item 601 Presentation by KEEPS Item 1301 Correspondence from the Canadian Mental Health Association 300 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as amended. 401 Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 2 of 16 400 ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES 401 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 29, 2016 R/2016-553 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 29, 2016 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 402 Minutes of the Special Council Meetings of November 28, 29 and 30, 2016 Note: The Manager of Legislative Services advised that the November 28, 2016 minutes will be amended to add the following resolution: It was moved and seconded to remove the item on page 3 of the Communication Plan titled “Work with the Agricultural Advisory Committee to develop information for the website”. Councillor Duncan, Councillor Masse and Councillor Speirs were opposed. The motion was defeated. R/2016-554 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the Special Council Meetings of November 28, 2016 be adopted as amended and that the minutes of the Special Council Meetings of November 29 and 30, 2016 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 500 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 501 Christmas Card Design Contest Winners Mayor Read advised on the Christmas Card Design contest for children to send art into the City to choose designs for Christmas cards to be used by the City for the 2016 Christmas Season. Pictures of the winning art and names of the artists were announced. Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 3 of 16 600 DELEGATIONS 601 CP Holiday Train Event and Update on the Friends in Need Food Bank Programs • Lynda Lawrence, Chairperson, Board of Directors, Friends in Need Food Bank Society Ms. Lawrence thanked Council for the opportunity to promote the CP Holiday Train. She advised that the Holiday Train will arrive in Port Haney on December 16, 2016. She provided advice on the background of the CP Holiday Train and the goal of the event to collect non-perishable food and money for local food banks. Ms. Lawrence also provided information on the “CP Has Heart” campaign and highlighted the work done by the local Friends in Need Food Bank Society. 602 Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society (“KEEPS”) • Ross Davies Mr. Davies gave a PowerPoint presentation introducing KEEPS and its partners, outlining programs and events run by the Society in 2016 and highlighting the Bell-Irving Hatchery and the Kanaka Creek Watershed Stewardship Center. 700 ITEMS ON CONSENT 701 Minutes 701.1 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meetings of November 24 and November 30, 2016 701.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council • Public Art Steering Committee – September 20, 2016 702 Reports – Nil 703 Correspondence – Nil 704 Release of Items from Closed Council Status – Nil Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 4 of 16 R/2016-555 It was moved and seconded That Items 701.1 and 701.2 on the Items of Consent be received. CARRIED 800 UNFINISHED BUSINESS – Nil 900 CORRESPONDENCE – Nil 1000 BYLAWS Note: Item 1001 is from the December 6, 2016 Public Hearing Bylaw for Third and Final Reading Note: Councillor Robson excused himself for the discussion of Item 1001 at 7:24 p.m. as the proposed bylaw affects the property he lives on. 1001 2016-436-RZ Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.7298-2016 To establish a farm home plate that limits house size and setbacks for residential and accessory residential uses on properties within the Agricultural Land Reserve Third reading and final reading R/2016-556 It was moved and seconded That Bylaw No. 7298-2016 be given third reading and be adopted. CARRIED Councillor Shymkiw – OPPOSED Note: Councillor Robson returned to the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 5 of 16 Bylaws for Final Reading 1002 2014-104-RZ, 23050 136 Avenue Staff report dated December 6, 2016 recommending final reading 1002.1 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7167-2015 To designate land adjacent to proposed Lot 8 from Eco Clusters to Conservation Final reading R/2016-557 It was moved and seconded That Bylaw No. 7167-2015 be adopted. CARRIED 1002.2 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7124-2014 To rezone from R-1 (Residential District) and R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to R-2 (Urban Residential District) to permit a future subdivision of 21 lots Final reading R/2016-558 It was moved and seconded That Bylaw No. 7124-2014 be adopted. CARRIED 1003 2012-109-RZ, 24979 108 Avenue Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6961-2012 Staff report dated December 6, 2016 recommending final reading of Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6961-2012 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) to permit a future subdivision of 13 lots Final reading R/2016-559 It was moved and seconded That Bylaw No. 6961-2012 be adopted. CARRIED Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 6 of 16 COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1100 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Public Works and Development Services 1101 2016-299-AL, 12176 237 Street, Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, Addendum Report Staff report dated December 5, 2016 providing options for consideration for Application 2016-299-AL to exclude approximately 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) from the Agricultural Land Reserve. 1101.1 R/2016-560 It was moved and seconded The following resolutions are provided for Council’s consideration: i. That Application 2016-299-AL not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission. DEFEATED Councillor Masse, Councillor Robson, Councillor Shymkiw – OPPOSED 1101.2 R/2016-561 It was moved and seconded That Application 2016-299-AL be deferred to a Council meeting in January 2017. DEFEATED Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Speirs – OPPOSED There was no action on item 1101. NOTE: Item 1102 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant 1102 2016-434-AL, 11680 252 Street, Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Application 2016-434-AL to subdivide 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of land within the Agricultural Land Reserve not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission and providing options for consideration. Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 7 of 16 NOTE: Item 1103 was withdrawn at the request of the applicant 1103 2016-411-RZ, 21188 Wicklund Avenue, RS-1 to R-1 Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Application 2016-411-RZ to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into two single family residential lots not be given first reading. 1104 2016-052-RZ, 22260 and 22292 122 Avenue and 12159 and 12167 223 Street, LUC and RS-1 to RM-2 Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7243-2016 to designate subject properties from Single Family to Low Rise Apartment be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing and that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7244-2016 to rezone from LUC (Land Use Contracts) and RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) to permit construction of a 291 unit multi- family rental housing development within the Town Centre. R/2016-562 It was moved and seconded 1) That, in accordance with Section 475 of the Local Government Act, opportunity for early and on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Bylaw No. 7243-2016 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting (DIM), and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; 2) That Bylaw No. 7243-2016 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 3) That it be confirmed that Bylaw No. 7243-2016 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 4) That Bylaw No. 7243-2016 be given first and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 5) That Bylaw No. 7244-2016 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 6) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i) Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii) Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 8 of 16 iii) Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedule “A”, Chapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, Schedule 1 – Town Centre Area Land-Use Designation Map; iv) Road dedication on 223 Street as required; v) Consolidation of the subject properties; vi) Registration of a Housing Agreement in accordance with Section 483 of the Local Government Act and a Restrictive Covenant stating that the use of the property as consolidated will be restricted to residential rental units; vii) Removal of existing vacant structure at 22292 122nd Street and existing houses at 12159 & 12167 223rd Street. viii) In addition to the site profile, a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject properties. If so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a contaminated site. R/2016-563 It was moved and seconded That Application 2016-052-RZ be deferred pending the applicant’s submission of a property management plan that identifies how their existing and proposed Maple Ridge buildings will be managed, made compliant with building and fire codes and be maintained in good repair; and the submission of a rental transition plan that identifies how existing tenants will be accommodated and how future rental rates will be established. MOTION TO DEFER CARRIED Councillor Masse – OPPOSED 1105 2016-325-RZ, 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road, Temporary Taxi Dispatch Use Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016 to designate 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road to permit a temporary taxi dispatch use be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. R/2016-564 It was moved and seconded 1) That, in accordance with Section 475 of the Local Government Act, opportunity for early and on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283- 2016 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting (DIM), and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 9 of 16 2) That Bylaw No. 7283-2016 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 3) That it be confirmed that Bylaw No. 7283-2016 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 4) That Bylaw No. 7283-2016, as amended, be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 5) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i) Amendment to Official Community Plan Appendix D – Temporary Use Permits, to add the subject property to the list of properties; and ii) Provision of a refundable security equivalent to 100% of the estimated landscape cost, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Temporary Use Permit. CARRIED 1106 2014-104-SD, 23050 136 Avenue, Local Area Service Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that a local area service bylaw be authorized for enhanced landscape maintenance costs of lands referred to as “East Hampstead” and that East Hampstead Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7278-2016 to require property owners within the development to pay an annual fee as a Local Service Tax for enhanced landscape maintenance areas be given first, second and third readings. R/2016-565 It was moved and seconded 1. That a Local Area Service Bylaw, as formally petitioned by the developer of the lands referred to as ‘East Hampstead’, and per the Community Charter, Part 7, Division 5, 211 (1)(a), be authorized for the enhanced landscape maintenance costs to be levied on the benefitting properties to be created by subdivision of the land; and further 2. That East Hampstead Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7278-2016 be given first, second and third readings. CARRIED Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 10 of 16 1107 2015-346-CP, Wildfire Development Permit Update Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 to amend recently adopted Wildfire Development Permit Areas to remove references to the National Fire Protection Association standards and provide greater flexibility when reviewing development applications be given second reading as amended and be forwarded to Public Hearing. R/2016-566 It was moved and seconded That Bylaw No. 7187-2015, as amended, be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. CARRIED 1108 2016-448-CP, 13150, 13120, 13070, 13030, 12990, 12940, 13655 256 Street; 25775, 25801, 25927 128 Avenue; 26185 130 Avenue; 13301 251A Street; 13055 251A Street; and 25100 Alouette Road Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7299-2016 to designate 15 properties in the 256 Street and 128 Avenue vicinity from Suburban Residential and Institutional to Industrial to expand employment opportunities in the vicinity of existing and well-utilized employment lands. R/2016-567 It was moved and seconded 1) That Bylaw No. 7299-2016 be given first reading; 2) That, in respect of Section 475(2)(b) of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a municipal Official Community Plan; ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. First Nations; v. Boards of Education, Greater Boards and Improvement District Boards; vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies. Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 11 of 16 3) That the only additional consultation to be required in respect of this matter beyond the consultation and communication process outlined in this report titled “Employment Land Use Suitability Assessment (Located East and West of 256 Street and North of 128 Avenue)” and the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw on the City’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, are meetings with the subject property owners. CARRIED 1109 2012-109-DVP, 24979 108 Avenue Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-109-DVP to reduce minimum lot widths for lots 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13. R/2016-568 It was moved and seconded That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-109-DVP respecting property located at 24979 108 Avenue. CARRIED 1110 Council Policy 6.21 – Development Sign Policy Review Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Council Policy 6.21 –Development Sign Policy dated September 12, 2012 be repealed and replaced with the revised Council Policy 6.21 – Development Sign Policy. R/2016-569 It was moved and seconded That Council Policy 6.21 - Development Sign Policy, dated September 12, 2012 be repealed and replaced with the attached draft Council Policy 6.21 - Development Sign Policy. CARRIED Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 12 of 16 Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Police) 1131 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw Staff report dated December 6, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7300-2016 be given first, second and third readings. R/2016-570 It was moved and seconded That Bylaw No. 7300-2016 be given first, second and third readings. CARRIED Councillor Robson, Councillor Shymkiw – OPPOSED 1132 Council Procedure Amending Bylaw No. 7301-2016 – Release of Vote Pattern from Closed Meetings Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Council Procedure Amending Bylaw No. 7301-2016 be given first, second and third readings. R/2016-571 It was moved and seconded That Bylaw No. 7301-2016 be given first, second and third reading. CARRIED 1133 2017 Acting Mayor, Committee & Commission Appointments Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the Acting Mayor schedule and appointments to Government Agencies, Advisory and/or Legislated Committees, Special Committees, Community Groups and Organizations and Standing Committees be approved. R/2016-572 It was moved and seconded That the Acting Mayor schedule and appointments to Government Agencies, Advisory and/or Legislated Committees, Special Committees, Community Groups and Organizations and Standing Committees as attached to the staff report dated December 5, 2017 be approved. CARRIED Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 13 of 16 1134 Bylaw for Highway Closure & Dedication Removal for a Portion of Laneway (11800 Block of 226 Street and 227 Street) Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Highway Closure & Dedication Removal Bylaw No. 7291-2016 for closure and dedicate removal of a portion of laneway in the 11800 block of 226 Street and 227 Street be given first, second and third readings. R/2016-573 It was moved and seconded That Bylaw No. 7291-2016 be given first, second and third readings. CARRIED 1135 Award of Contract, Construction of Fire/Tanker Truck, Fire Truck Replacement, Engine 32 Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the contract for construction of one fire pumper/tanker truck be awarded to Hub Fire Engines Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. R/2016-574 It was moved and seconded That the contract for the construction of one fire pumper/tanker truck at the cost of $596,154.00 plus applicable taxes and a 10% contingency be included for any unanticipated scope changes; be awarded to Hub Fire Engines and Equipment Ltd. of Abbotsford, B.C. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. CARRIED 1136 Award of Contract, Construction of Tower Truck Fire Apparatus, Fire Truck Replacement, Tower 1 Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the contract for construction of one tower truck fire apparatus be awarded to Safetek Emergency Vehicles Ltd. and Smeal Fire Apparatus and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. R/2016-575 It was moved and seconded That the contract for the construction of one Tower Truck Fire Apparatus at the cost of $1,585,925.00 plus applicable taxes and a 10% contingency be included for any unanticipated scope changes; be awarded to Smeal Fire Apparatus Company of Snyder, Nebraska and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract; and Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 14 of 16 That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign SafeTek Emergency Vehicles LTD “offer to purchase” wherein the existing Tower Truck, (VIN# 4S7AT9D00TC021345), would be traded in for the amount of $25,000.00 CAD. CARRIED Community Development and Recreation Service 1151 Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Facility – Phased Design Process Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Phase One of the design process for the Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Master Plan be funded from the Parks Recreation and Culture Master Plan funding and that staff be directed to issue a Request for Proposal to conduct phase one of the detailed design process. R/2016-576 It was moved and seconded 1. That phase one (25%) of the design process be funded from the Parks Recreation and Culture Master Plan reserve in an amount estimated to be $525,000; and 2. That staff be directed to issue a Request for Proposal to conduct phase one (25%) of the detailed design process for the Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural facility. CARRIED 1152 Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Recommendations Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the Maple Ridge- Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee of Accessibility Issues continue as a joint committee with the City of Pitt Meadows, sharing all associated costs equally and that staff work with the committee to establish an updated committee structure and bylaw. R/2016-577 It was moved and seconded That the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues continue as a joint committee with the City of Pitt Meadows sharing all associated costs equally; and Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 15 of 16 That staff be directed to work with Pitt Meadows City staff representative and the committee to establish an updated committee Terms of Reference and bylaw and report back to Council. CARRIED 1153 Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Retrofit Update Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that a report be provided on the process of updating existing Leisure Centre retrofit costs, communication plan and customer accommodations. R/2016-578 It was moved and seconded That staff provide a report outlining the process of updating the Leisure Centre retrofit plan including, proposed timeline, customer implications and potential funding source. CARRIED Administration – Nil Other Committee Issues – Nil 1200 STAFF REPORTS – Nil 1300 OTHER MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 1301 Letter from the Canadian Mental Health Association Mayor Read reviewed a letter received from the Canadian Mental Health Association and advised on the endorsement form attached R/2016-579 It was moved and seconded That that both options outlined on the enforcement form of the b4stage4 manifesto distributed by the Canadian Mental Health Association be endorsed. CARRIED Council Meeting Minutes December 6, 2016 Page 16 of 16 1400 NOTICES OF MOTION AND MATTERS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS – Nil 1500 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC – Nil 1600 ADJOURNMENT – 9:06 p.m. _______________________________ N. Read, Mayor Certified Correct ___________________________________ L. Darcus, Corporate Officer 700 ITEMS ON CONSENT 700 701.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council 701.2 The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Community Heritage Commission, held in the Blaney Room, at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:00 pm _____________________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Eric Phillips Member at Large Sandra Ayres Member at Large Brenda Smith, Chair Maple Ridge Historical Society Julie Koehn Maple Ridge Historical Society Councillor Craig Speirs Council Liaison Len Pettit Member at Large STAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENTSTAFF PRESENT Lisa Zosiak Staff Liaison, Community Planner Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk DELEGATIONSDELEGATIONSDELEGATIONSDELEGATIONS Sean Orcutt, Stuart Pledge, Friends of Jackson Farm Beryl Eales, Bernice Rolls GUESTSGUESTSGUESTSGUESTS Kevin Bennett Community Member Erica Williams President, Maple Ridge Historical Society REGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENTREGRETS/ABSENT Russell Irvine Member at Large Steven Ranta, Vice-Chair Member at Large 1.1.1.1. CALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDER There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm and introductions were made. 2.2.2.2. AGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTION R16-030 It was moved and seconded That That That That the the the the agenda agenda agenda agenda dated dated dated dated November 1November 1November 1November 1, 2016 , 2016 , 2016 , 2016 bebebebe amended to add Item 4.1 Friends of Jackson amended to add Item 4.1 Friends of Jackson amended to add Item 4.1 Friends of Jackson amended to add Item 4.1 Friends of Jackson Farm presentation and Item 8.Farm presentation and Item 8.Farm presentation and Item 8.Farm presentation and Item 8.3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Annual Heritage Planners Meeting Annual Heritage Planners Meeting Annual Heritage Planners Meeting Annual Heritage Planners Meeting and be and be and be and be adoptedadoptedadoptedadopted as as as as amendedamendedamendedamended.... CARRIED CHC Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 2 of 4 3.3.3.3. MINUTES MINUTES MINUTES MINUTES APPROVALAPPROVALAPPROVALAPPROVAL R16-031 It was moved and seconded That the That the That the That the Minutes of the Minutes of the Minutes of the Minutes of the September 8September 8September 8September 8 and October 4and October 4and October 4and October 4, 2016 meeting , 2016 meeting , 2016 meeting , 2016 meeting be be be be approvedapprovedapprovedapproved.... CARRIED 4.4.4.4. PRESENTATIONSPRESENTATIONSPRESENTATIONSPRESENTATIONS 4.14.14.14.1 Friends of Jackson Farm Friends of Jackson Farm Friends of Jackson Farm Friends of Jackson Farm –––– Stuart PledgeStuart PledgeStuart PledgeStuart Pledge Mr. Pledge made a presentation regarding the Jackson Farm on 102 Avenue. The history and significance of the farm was explained. The vision of the Friends of Jackson Farm for the future of the site was discussed. More information can be found at: https://www.facebook.com/Friends-of-Jackson-Farm-785009614843840/ 5.5.5.5. FINANCEFINANCEFINANCEFINANCE 5.15.15.15.1 Business Plan 2017Business Plan 2017Business Plan 2017Business Plan 2017----2021202120212021 The Staff Liaison provided an update on the 2017 business plan. Feedback was provided by members. 6.6.6.6. CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE ---- NilNilNilNil 7.7.7.7. NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.17.17.17.1 MembershipMembershipMembershipMembership 7.1.1 Calendar of Events The Calendar of Events has been provided to the end of December 31, 2016. 7.1.2 December Meeting Date The next CHC meeting will be Thursday, December 8. 7.27.27.27.2 Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure –––– Request for Stop of Interest Sign Request for Stop of Interest Sign Request for Stop of Interest Sign Request for Stop of Interest Sign SubmissionsSubmissionsSubmissionsSubmissions After discussion the Commission agreed that no Maple Ridge locations meet the criteria for provincial Stops of Interest submission. 7.37.37.37.3 Meeting with Chief Administrative Officer Ted SwabeyMeeting with Chief Administrative Officer Ted SwabeyMeeting with Chief Administrative Officer Ted SwabeyMeeting with Chief Administrative Officer Ted Swabey The Chair, the Staff Liaison, Councillor Speirs and Erica Williams reported on a recent meeting with Ted Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer, and Frank Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Services in regards to a new museum and archives facility. 7.47.47.47.4 TourismTourismTourismTourism The Chair reported the new tourism plan will be unveiled by the Tourism Task Force will at their meeting on November 22. 7.57.57.57.5 Webster’s Corners (25569 DWebster’s Corners (25569 DWebster’s Corners (25569 DWebster’s Corners (25569 Dewdney Trunk Road) ewdney Trunk Road) ewdney Trunk Road) ewdney Trunk Road) Councillor Speirs provided information on the heritage commercial building at Webster’s Corners. R16-032 It was moved and seconded That That That That Chair of the Community Heritage Commission write a letter of support for Chair of the Community Heritage Commission write a letter of support for Chair of the Community Heritage Commission write a letter of support for Chair of the Community Heritage Commission write a letter of support for bringing the Finnish grocery store (located at 25569 Dewdney Trunk Road) into public bringing the Finnish grocery store (located at 25569 Dewdney Trunk Road) into public bringing the Finnish grocery store (located at 25569 Dewdney Trunk Road) into public bringing the Finnish grocery store (located at 25569 Dewdney Trunk Road) into public ownership. ownership. ownership. ownership. CARRIED CHC Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 3 of 4 8.8.8.8. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTSSUBCOMMITTEE REPORTSSUBCOMMITTEE REPORTSSUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 8.18.18.18.1 Communications SubcommitteeCommunications SubcommitteeCommunications SubcommitteeCommunications Subcommittee 8.1.1 Local Voices The current Local Voices poster was shared. 8.28.28.28.2 Recognitions SubcommitteeRecognitions SubcommitteeRecognitions SubcommitteeRecognitions Subcommittee 8.2.1 Heritage Week Subcommittee Plans for Heritage Week during February 2017 were discussed. Julie Koehn, guest Kevin Bennett, the Chair, the Staff Liaison, Councillor Speirs and Steven Ranta were confirmed as members of the Recognitions subcommittee. 8.2.2 Heritage Awards 2017 Nominations The Staff Liaison will setup a meeting of the Recognitions subcommittee in early December to review nominations received for the 2017 Heritage Awards. 8.38.38.38.3 Education SubcommitteeEducation SubcommitteeEducation SubcommitteeEducation Subcommittee 8.3.1 BC Societies Act Workshop The Chair provided an update on the proposed workshop. 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 Maple Ridge Oral History ProposalMaple Ridge Oral History ProposalMaple Ridge Oral History ProposalMaple Ridge Oral History Proposal The Staff Liaison reported that Steven Ranta has reached out to a local secondary school outlining the proposed Oral History project, which would involve students interviewing long term residents to produce videos. The videos will be made available online and through the museum. The Oral History subcommittee will meet with Fred Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications to move the project forward. Julie Koehn agreed to participate on the subcommittee. 8.58.58.58.5 Heritage Plaque Inventory Database UpdateHeritage Plaque Inventory Database UpdateHeritage Plaque Inventory Database UpdateHeritage Plaque Inventory Database Update The Chair, the Staff Liaison, the Committee Clerk, and Erica Williams recently met with Valerie Richmond, Manager of Parks, Planning and Operations to share the Heritage Plaque database. The database will be used to record the history of heritage markers, including identifying responsibility for maintenance and standardizing the design of future markers. 8.68.68.68.6 Digitization Project SubcommitteeDigitization Project SubcommitteeDigitization Project SubcommitteeDigitization Project Subcommittee No update. 8.78.78.78.7 Heritage Inventory Project UpdateHeritage Inventory Project UpdateHeritage Inventory Project UpdateHeritage Inventory Project Update The Staff Liaison provided an update on Heritage Inventory nominations received to date. 8.8.8.8.8888 Robertson Robertson Robertson Robertson Family Cemetery Project SubcommitteeFamily Cemetery Project SubcommitteeFamily Cemetery Project SubcommitteeFamily Cemetery Project Subcommittee The Chair and Staff Liaison provided an update on the Robertson Family Cemetery Project and outlined next steps to move the project forward. This is a private cemetery protected by city bylaw and municipal heritage designation. 8.8.8.8.9999 Museum and Archives Work Group UpdateMuseum and Archives Work Group UpdateMuseum and Archives Work Group UpdateMuseum and Archives Work Group Update Previously dealt with under Item 7.3 9.9.9.9. LIAISON UPDATESLIAISON UPDATESLIAISON UPDATESLIAISON UPDATES 9.19.19.19.1 BC Historical FederationBC Historical FederationBC Historical FederationBC Historical Federation Potential BC Historical Federation Recognition Award nominations were discussed. It was suggested that a schedule of award nomination deadlines be created for future reference. 9.29.29.29.2 Heritage BCHeritage BCHeritage BCHeritage BC No update. CHC Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 4 of 4 9.39.39.39.3 BC Museums AssociationBC Museums AssociationBC Museums AssociationBC Museums Association Erica Williams reported on the recent BC Museums Association conference in Whistler. 9.49.49.49.4 Maple Ridge Historical SocietyMaple Ridge Historical SocietyMaple Ridge Historical SocietyMaple Ridge Historical Society Julie Koehn reported the Maple Ridge Historical Society recently participated in Culture Days and Rivers Day. Heritage Consultant Don Luxton did a talk at the ACT Arts Centre. The annual holiday decorating party will be held at St. Andrews Heritage Hall on November 26. 9.59.59.59.5 Council LiaisonCouncil LiaisonCouncil LiaisonCouncil Liaison Councillor Speirs reported on an art installation that will make use of a 180 year old cedar stump. More information can be found at www.mapleart.ca 8.3.2 Annual Heritage Planners Meeting The Chair reported a Heritage and Culture Planners and Professionals meeting will be held on Friday November 25 at the Shadbolt Centre in Burnaby. Funds are available in the Education budget to cover the $40 registration fee. Members interested in attending should email the Staff Liaison. R16-033 It was moved and seconded That That That That the Community Heritage Commission the Community Heritage Commission the Community Heritage Commission the Community Heritage Commission budget be used to pay budget be used to pay budget be used to pay budget be used to pay registration fees for registration fees for registration fees for registration fees for members to attend the 2016 Heritage members to attend the 2016 Heritage members to attend the 2016 Heritage members to attend the 2016 Heritage and Culture and Culture and Culture and Culture Planners Meeting.Planners Meeting.Planners Meeting.Planners Meeting. CARRIED 11110000.... ADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENT It was moved that the meeting be adjourned at 9:11 pm. Chair /ss City of Maple Ridge ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGMEETINGMEETINGMEETING MINUTESMINUTESMINUTESMINUTES The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee, held in the Council Chambers, at Maple Ridge City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 7:00 pm COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT VOTING MEMBERS Councillor Masse Council Liaison David Neufeld Environmental Professional Gerry Pinel CEED Centre Rep Janice Jarvis Environmental Professional Ken Williams KEEPS Rep – Alternate Ken Stewart ARMS Rep Leanne Koehn (EAC Chairperson) Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Ross Davies KEEPS Rep NON-VOTING MEMBERS Ashley Doyle Kwantlen First Nation STAFF MESTAFF MESTAFF MESTAFF MEMBERS PRESENTMBERS PRESENTMBERS PRESENTMBERS PRESENT Rodney Stott Staff Liaison / Environmental Planner Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk REGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTS VOTING MEMBERS Betty & Klaus von Hardenberg TAPS Rep & Alternate rep Dennis Kinsey Member at Large Lukasz Szlachta Member at Large – Youth rep Terryl Plotnikoff Member at Large NON-VOTING MEMBERS Pam McCotter Katzie First Nation MLA Dr. Doug Bing Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia MLA Marc Dalton Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia MP Dan Ruimy Member of Parliament 1.1.1.1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm and introductions were made. 2.2.2.2. AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA APPROVALAPPROVALAPPROVALAPPROVAL R16-006 It was moved and seconded That the agenda datedThat the agenda datedThat the agenda datedThat the agenda dated NovemberNovemberNovemberNovember 10101010, 2016 , 2016 , 2016 , 2016 be amended to add be amended to add be amended to add be amended to add IIIItem 4.tem 4.tem 4.tem 4.4444 Facilitation and Facilitation and Facilitation and Facilitation and Item 4.5 AdvocaItem 4.5 AdvocaItem 4.5 AdvocaItem 4.5 Advocaccccyyyy and be and be and be and be adopted adopted adopted adopted as as as as amendedamendedamendedamended.... CARRIED EAC Minutes November 10, 2016 Page 2 of 3 3.3.3.3. MINUTE ADOPTION MINUTE ADOPTION MINUTE ADOPTION MINUTE ADOPTION R16-007 It was moved and seconded That minutes dates October 12, 2016 be corrected to accurately reflect the comments made That minutes dates October 12, 2016 be corrected to accurately reflect the comments made That minutes dates October 12, 2016 be corrected to accurately reflect the comments made That minutes dates October 12, 2016 be corrected to accurately reflect the comments made by Leanne Koehn during Roundtable and be adopted as corrected. by Leanne Koehn during Roundtable and be adopted as corrected. by Leanne Koehn during Roundtable and be adopted as corrected. by Leanne Koehn during Roundtable and be adopted as corrected. CARRIED 4.4.4.4. NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESSNEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4.14.14.14.1 Natural Capital Natural Capital Natural Capital Natural Capital ---- Inventory and Evaluation Presentation Inventory and Evaluation Presentation Inventory and Evaluation Presentation Inventory and Evaluation Presentation –––– Rod StottRod StottRod StottRod Stott The Staff Liaison made a presentation on “Natural Capital Evaluation – Applications and Pilot Studies” and answered questions from the Committee about the information provided. 4.24.24.24.2 Review of EMS Recommendations and Consultant’s Findings Review of EMS Recommendations and Consultant’s Findings Review of EMS Recommendations and Consultant’s Findings Review of EMS Recommendations and Consultant’s Findings ---- Rod SRod SRod SRod Stotttotttotttott The Staff Liaison made a presentation that included consultant recommendations in regards to the Environmental Management System report. The presentation included a listing of goals and key challenges. The Staff Liaison provided further details on resources required, relative priorities and responsibilities for key actions. 4.34.34.34.3 Business Planning ProcessBusiness Planning ProcessBusiness Planning ProcessBusiness Planning Process The Chair provided information on the business planning process. The Committee will create a 2017-2021 Business Plan in the new year. 4.44.44.44.4 FacilitationFacilitationFacilitationFacilitation The Chair provided information on a facilitated session being planned to prioritize EAC Actions and Goals. 4.54.54.54.5 AdvocacyAdvocacyAdvocacyAdvocacy Councillor Masse raised the issues of advocacy to senior levels of government. Councillor Masse encouraged committee members to think of community level issues that EAC may wish to raise. Councillor Masse outlined the subcommittee structure that the committee will move towards in the next few months and reminded the committee about opportunities to apply for outside funding. 5.5.5.5. CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE ---- Nil EAC Minutes November 10, 2016 Page 3 of 3 6.6.6.6. ROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLE Gerry Pinel has been in contact with a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law which is planning grass roots class action suits against carbon polluters with the goal of obtaining funds which could be used for green projects. Mr. Pinel raised the issue of reducing the municipal carbon footprint of residents by providing appropriate amenities within neighbourhoods. David Neufeld thanked Rodney Stott for his presentation on Natural Capital. Mr. Neufeld shared some strategies he uses as an Environmental Professional for measuring and communicating costs related to environmental services. Janice Jarvis praised Rodney Stott’s data collection efforts over the previous years and suggested some topics for the committee to consider such as identifying areas for protection, regulating development and communicating environmental information to the community. Ross Davies feels the language of natural capital can be a good communication tool to share data with the general public. Ashley Doyle enjoyed the information provided on natural capital and suggested that the Kwantlen First Nation would be interested in cooperating with the City on initiatives and funding applications. Ken Stewart discussed upcoming changes to water licenses and reported ARMS focuses on fish mobility. ARMS recently had a productive meeting with the Mayor and city staff. Ken Williams related his experiences over many years in Maple Ridge, seeing changes unfold and development increase. Rodney Stott looks forward to continuing the discussion. Leanne Koehn recently attended a Zero Waste Conference. Councillor Masse raised the issue of the December 14th meeting. The Committee Clerk will email members to determine if the meeting should go ahead. 7.7.7.7. QUESTION PERIODQUESTION PERIODQUESTION PERIODQUESTION PERIOD 8888.... ADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 8:24 pm. Chair /ss City of Maple Ridge SOCIAL PSOCIAL PSOCIAL PSOCIAL POLICYOLICYOLICYOLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTESMINUTESMINUTESMINUTES The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Social Policy Advisory Committee, held in the Blaney Room, at Maple Ridge City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 7:00 pm COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Delaram Farshad Fraser Health Councillor Bob Masse Council Liaison Annette Morgan Seniors Network Tarel Swansky Member at Large Mike Murray School District #42 Trustee Susan Carr School District #42 Trustee (Alternate) Vicki Kipps, Chair Community Network Laura Butler Member at Large Sgt. Brenda Gresiuk RCMP Mikayla Clayton Youth Rep Dr. Helena Swinkels Fraser Health Ineke Boekhorst Downtown BIA / Friends in Need STAFF MEMBERS PRESENTSTAFF MEMBERS PRESENTSTAFF MEMBERS PRESENTSTAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk Shawn Matthewson Staff Liaison / Social Planning Analyst GUESTSGUESTSGUESTSGUESTS Cathy Bennett Community Dialogue on Homelessness Subcommittee REGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTS Matt Williams Member at Large Kathy Doull Fraser Health Candace Gordon Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows-Katzie Community Network Hannah Macdonald Member at large – Youth Rep 1.1.1.1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONSCALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm and introductions were made. 2.2.2.2. AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA ADOPTIONADOPTIONADOPTIONADOPTION R16-023 It was moved and seconded That the Agenda dated That the Agenda dated That the Agenda dated That the Agenda dated November 2November 2November 2November 2, 2016 , 2016 , 2016 , 2016 be be be be adoptadoptadoptadoptedededed.... CARRIED SPAC Minutes November 2, 2016 Page 2 of 4 3.3.3.3. MINUTEMINUTEMINUTEMINUTE APPROVALAPPROVALAPPROVALAPPROVAL R16-024 It was moved and seconded That the Minutes dated That the Minutes dated That the Minutes dated That the Minutes dated September 7September 7September 7September 7, 2016 be approved., 2016 be approved., 2016 be approved., 2016 be approved. CARRIED It was decided to begin with Item 7.1 Note: Dr. Swinkels entered at 7:10 pm. 7.7.7.7. COMMITTEE UPDATESCOMMITTEE UPDATESCOMMITTEE UPDATESCOMMITTEE UPDATES 7.17.17.17.1 Community Dialogue on Homelessness Subcommittee UpdateCommunity Dialogue on Homelessness Subcommittee UpdateCommunity Dialogue on Homelessness Subcommittee UpdateCommunity Dialogue on Homelessness Subcommittee Update SPAC members provided feedback on the two sessions of the Community Dialogue on Homelessness sessions held so far. 7.27.27.27.2 Community NetworkCommunity NetworkCommunity NetworkCommunity Network The Chair provided an update on the Community Network. The ongoing Community Superhero campaign is a great success. 5.5.5.5. NEW BUSINESSNEW BUSINESSNEW BUSINESSNEW BUSINESS 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 End End End End of Year Celebrationof Year Celebrationof Year Celebrationof Year Celebration The Staff Liaison reviewed the work of the committee throughout 2016 including the development of the Youth Strategy, a presentation by Victims Services, the Community Fentanyl forum, the Community Dialogue on Homelessness. Committee members shared their thoughts on what they are grateful for, including the involved community agencies, the action orientated nature of the committee, the partnerships formed. Chair Vicki Kipps was recognized for her many contributions to the community this year. 5.25.25.25.2 SPAC Budget UpdateSPAC Budget UpdateSPAC Budget UpdateSPAC Budget Update The Staff Liaison provided a current budget and outlined plans for 2017. A more detailed review of financial commitments will be done in January 2017. 5.35.35.35.3 Federal Government’s Affordable and Social Housing AnnouncementsFederal Government’s Affordable and Social Housing AnnouncementsFederal Government’s Affordable and Social Housing AnnouncementsFederal Government’s Affordable and Social Housing Announcements The Staff Liaison provided an update on funding provided by the provincial and federal governments for affordable and social housing. 5.45.45.45.4 Ideas for the Social Policy WorkshopsIdeas for the Social Policy WorkshopsIdeas for the Social Policy WorkshopsIdeas for the Social Policy Workshops The Staff Liaison reminded the Committee that Social Policy engagement workshops will be planned annually going forward. Housing and the implementation of the youth strategy were mentioned as potential topics. This topic will be addressed in January. SPAC Minutes November 2, 2016 Page 3 of 4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Update from the Opioid Overdose Working GroupUpdate from the Opioid Overdose Working GroupUpdate from the Opioid Overdose Working GroupUpdate from the Opioid Overdose Working Group Dr. Helena Swinkels, Chair of the Opioid Overdose Response Working Group, provided an update on the work of the group which was struck during the summer in response to concerns about overdose deaths. Statistics and current actions regarding opioid overdoses were provided. The group recently made a presentation to Council. 6.6.6.6. UNFINISHED BUSINESSUNFINISHED BUSINESSUNFINISHED BUSINESSUNFINISHED BUSINESS 6.16.16.16.1 Youth Strategy UpdateYouth Strategy UpdateYouth Strategy UpdateYouth Strategy Update The Youth Strategy was endorsed by Council on October 24, 2016. Staff were directed to bring back a report that includes a multi-year implementation plan for Council’s consideration. 6.26.26.26.2 Update on the BC Bus Pass Program for People with DisabilitiesUpdate on the BC Bus Pass Program for People with DisabilitiesUpdate on the BC Bus Pass Program for People with DisabilitiesUpdate on the BC Bus Pass Program for People with Disabilities The Staff Liaison reported the Bus Pass program for People with Disabilities has been reinstated by the provincial government. In response to a question raised the Staff Liaison provided an update on a local residence for at risk youth. An update on this topic will be provided when new information becomes available. 8.8.8.8. CORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCE 8.18.18.18.1 Correspondence received from public following September SPAC MeetingCorrespondence received from public following September SPAC MeetingCorrespondence received from public following September SPAC MeetingCorrespondence received from public following September SPAC Meeting The correspondence has been distributed to Committee members. 9.9.9.9. QUESTION PERIOD QUESTION PERIOD QUESTION PERIOD QUESTION PERIOD 10.10.10.10. ROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLE Mike Murray reported on the current work of School District 42. The School District is waiting for a response to their application for a new elementary school (and community centre) in the Albion area. Ineke Boekhorst reported on the work of the BIA including an upcoming downtown Maple Ridge safety audit and a recent meeting with RainCity in regards to the temporary shelter. A downtown clean up initiative is being planned in conjunction with Alouette Addictions. Sgt. Brenda Gresiuk raised the issue of the recent tragedy in Abbotsford. Sgt. Gresiuk provided an update on the current work of the RCMP, including the review of risk assessment and response plans. Tarel Swansky reported the fireworks on October 30 were amazing. Susan Carr is arranging Naloxone training. The District Parent Advisory Committee recently held a youth mental wellness forum that was very well attended. SPAC Minutes November 2, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Annette Morgan reported the Seniors Network has a number of projects on the go. The Seniors Network has been nominated for a Business Excellence award. Ms. Morgan thanked Heather Treleavan for her work with the Seniors Network. Councillor Masse raised the issue of the dissolution of Alouette Home Start Society. The contributions of the Society to the community were acknowledged. Mikayla Clayton shared information regarding a school club she participates in. Ms. Clayton suggested the Committee look at specific drugs used by youth at an upcoming meeting. Laura Butler reported the Ridge Meadows Foundation recently held a very successful fundraiser. Shawn Matthewson reported on a recent Community Foundation report on community safety. The report will be emailed to the Committee. 11.11.11.11. ADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 9:14 pm. Chair /ss 701.3 Minutes of the Committee of the Whole 701.3 City of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES January 9, 2017 1:32 p.m. Council Chamber PRESENT Elected Officials Appointed Staff Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer Councillor K. Duncan K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development, Councillor B. Masse Parks and Recreation Services Councillor T. Shymkiw P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services Councillor C. Speirs F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Services ABSENT C. Carter, Director of Planning Councillor C. Bell L. Darcus, Manager of Legislative Services Councillor G. Robson A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary Other Staff as Required C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental Services A. Kopystynski, Planner 2 D. Hall, Planner 2 T. Cotroneo, Manager of Community Services Note: Mayor Read was not in attendance at the beginning of the meeting; 1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS – Nil 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 2016-434-AL, 11680 252 Street, Application to Subdivide within the Agricultural Land Reserve Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Application 2016-434- AL to subdivide 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of land within the Agricultural Land Reserve not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission D. Hall, Planner gave a Power Point presentation providing the following information: Committee of the Whole Minutes January 9, 2017 Page 2 of 7 • Application Information • Subject Map • Official Community Plan Context • Neighbourhood Plan Context • Site Characteristics • Development Proposal • Impacts to Agricultural Proposal • Proposed Subdivision Plan • Recommendation in staff report Jeremy Dodd - Applicant Mr. Dodd outlined his reasons for the request to subdivide his property. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED 1102 2016-398-RZ, 12178 and 12192 227 Street, RS-1 to RM-1 Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to allow for future construction of 12 townhouse units be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D and E of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED Committee of the Whole Minutes January 9, 2017 Page 3 of 7 1103 2016-411-RZ, 21188 Wicklund Avenue, RS-1 to R-1 Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Application 2016-411- RZ not be given first reading. The Manager of Development and Environmental Services recommended that the application be deferred as the applicant is unable to attend today’s meeting. RECOMMENDATION That Application 2016-411-RZ be deferred to the January 23, 2017 Committee of the Whole Meeting. CARRIED 1104 2011-089-RZ, 22325 St. Anne Avenue, Heritage Revitalization Agreement Amendment Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016 be given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. A. Kopystynski, Planner provided clarification on the Heritage Revitalization Agreement and on previous deferrals. He advised on the request to change one of the terms of the agreement. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED 1105 2016-129-RZ, 11225 240 Street, Site Specific Text Amendment, C-1 Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016 for a site specific text amendment to a C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone to add additional permitted uses for a proposed mixed use commercial and rental apartment project be given first and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing. A. Kopystynski, Planner gave a Power Point presentation providing the following information: Committee of the Whole Minutes January 9, 2017 Page 4 of 7 • Application Information • Subject Map • Official Community Plan Context • Neighbourhood Plan Context • Site Characteristics • Development Proposal • Proposed Uses • Recommendation in staff report The Director of Planning provided a brief history on commercial residential nodes on the east side of Maple Ridge RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED 1106 2015-350-DVP, 24341 112 Avenue Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-350-DVP to reduce the minimum setback from an interior side lot line for the garage roof projection for proposed Lots 4 through 9 to permit 9 single family lots. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED Note: Mayor Read joined the meeting at 1:50 p.m. 1107 2016-129-DVP, 2016-129-DP, 11225 240 Street Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-129-DVP to allow buildings to be sited closer to Kanaka Way (front lot line) and 240 Street (exterior side lot line), that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-129-DP to permit a mixed use commercial and rental apartment building in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the Cancellation of Charges application to discharge DP/045/09 and DVP/045/09. Committee of the Whole Minutes January 9, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Mark Lesack – Ankenman Associates Architects, Applicant Representative Mr. Lesack provided clarification on wheelchair accessibility on the east side and front of the proposed building and outlined areas of the building which are wheelchair accessible. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED 1108 2015-207-DP, 22650 136 Avenue, Wildfire Development Permit Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-207-DP to allow the first phase of a four phase single family subdivision located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 Disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016 Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016 be received for information. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED Committee of the Whole Minutes January 9, 2017 Page 6 of 7 1132 Adjustments to the 2016 Collector’s Rolls Staff report dated January 9, 2017 submitting information on changes to the 2016 Collector’s Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls 3 through 11. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED 1133 Revision to Policy 10.1 Disposal of Found Goods Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending approval of revised Policy 10.1 Disposal of Found Goods. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 Dog Off-Leash Areas – Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending that the trial dog off-leash areas at Westview Park and Upper Maple Ridge Park be approved as permanent off-leash areas. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED Committee of the Whole Minutes January 9, 2017 Page 7 of 7 1152 Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Operating Agreement Staff report dated January 9, 2017 recommending the preparation of an updated operating agreement with the Ridge Meadows Seniors Society (RMSS) which removes RMSS involvement in strata fee management and increases funding for the programming. The Manager of Community Services reviewed the report. RECOMMENDATION That the staff report be forwarded to the Council Meeting of January 17, 2017. CARRIED 5. CORRESPONDENCE – Nil 6. OTHER ISSUES – Nil 7. ADJOURNMENT – 2:15 p.m. 8. COMMUNITY FORUM – Nil ___________________________________ R. Masse, Acting Mayor Presiding Member of the Committee CityCityCityCity of Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridge TO:TO:TO:TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING MEETING MEETING MEETING DATEDATEDATEDATE:::: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: MEETING: MEETING: MEETING: Committee of the Whole SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: Disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The disbursements summary for the past period is attached for information. All voucher payments are approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor and a Finance Manager. Council authorizes the disbursements listing through Council resolution. Expenditure details are available by request through the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION:RECOMMENDATION: That the That the That the That the disbursements as listed below for the month ended disbursements as listed below for the month ended disbursements as listed below for the month ended disbursements as listed below for the month ended November 30November 30November 30November 30, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016 bebebebe received for received for received for received for information only.information only.information only.information only. GENERALGENERALGENERALGENERAL $$$$ 8,650,5248,650,5248,650,5248,650,524 PAPAPAPAYROLLYROLLYROLLYROLL $$$$ 1,805,3111,805,3111,805,3111,805,311 PURCHASE CARDPURCHASE CARDPURCHASE CARDPURCHASE CARD $$$$ 96,96496,96496,96496,964 $$$$ 10,552,79910,552,79910,552,79910,552,799 DISCUSSION:DISCUSSION:DISCUSSION:DISCUSSION: a)a)a)a) Background Context:Background Context:Background Context:Background Context: The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and provided authorization for expenditures to deliver municipal services. The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan. b)b)b)b) Community Communications:Community Communications:Community Communications:Community Communications: The citizens of Maple Ridge are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial disbursements. 702.1 c)c)c)c) Business Plan / Financial Implications:Business Plan / Financial Implications:Business Plan / Financial Implications:Business Plan / Financial Implications: Highlights of larger items included in Financial Plan or Council Resolution • Eurovia BC – 203 St road & drainage improvements $ 479,310 • G.V. Water District – Water consumption Aug 3 – 30/16 $ 941,817 • King Hoe Excavating Ltd. – 128 Ave road & drainage improvements $ 1,580,980 • NWallace & Company – Storage building & shed construction $ 476,305 • Ridge Meadows Recycling Society – Monthly contract for recycling $ 189,713 d)d)d)d) Policy Implications:Policy Implications:Policy Implications:Policy Implications: Corporate governance practice includes reporting the disbursements to Council monthly. CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS: The disbursements for the month ended November 30, 2016 have been reviewed and are in order. Original signed by G’Ann Rygg ______________________________________________ Prepared by: G’Ann RyggG’Ann RyggG’Ann RyggG’Ann Rygg Accounting Accounting Accounting Accounting Clerk IIClerk IIClerk IIClerk II Original signed by Trevor Thompson _______________________________________________ Approved by: Trevor Trevor Trevor Trevor Thompson, Thompson, Thompson, Thompson, BBA, BBA, BBA, BBA, CPA, CPA, CPA, CPA, CGACGACGACGA Manager of Financial PlanningManager of Financial PlanningManager of Financial PlanningManager of Financial Planning Original signed by Paul Gill _______________________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, Paul Gill, BBA, Paul Gill, BBA, Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CPA, CPA, CPA, CGACGACGACGA GM GM GM GM –––– Corporate & Financial Corporate & Financial Corporate & Financial Corporate & Financial ServicesServicesServicesServices Original signed by E.C. Swabey _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. Swabey Chief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative OfficerChief Administrative Officer VENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT AMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNT 0846904 BC Ltd Security refund 37,890 677560 BC Ltd Soil removal overpayment refund 15,390 Aecom Canada Ltd National benchmarking initiative 19,656 BC Hydro Electricity 124,022 BC SPCA Contract payment - Oct 28,558 Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd Maintenance: Albion Dyke service 9,877 City Hall 2,556 Cottonwood landfill service 9,913 Haney Wharf 1,386 Leisure Centre 14,804 Memorial Park 963 Pedestrian crossings 321 Street lights 1,928 Street signs 214 Telosky Park 2,503 Traffic cameras 571 Traffic lights 896 45,932 CUPE Local 622 Dues - pay periods 16/22 & 16/23 25,915 C&C Trucking Limited Soil removal overpayment refund 15,307 Chevron Canada Ltd Gasoline & diesel fuel 45,134 Co-Pilot Industries Ltd Gravel & dump fees 16,983 Donald Flooring Contract Sales The Act flooring 23,457 Epic Homes (2012) J.V.Security refund 15,000 Eurovia British Columbia 203 St road & drainage improvements - Lougheed Hwy to Golden Ears Way 479,310 Falcon Centre Joint Venture Security refund 86,376 Fitness Edge Contracted service provider - fitness classes & programs 15,329 Gotraffic Management Inc Traffic control 38,707 Greater Vanc Water District Barnston pump station 58,927 Water consumption Aug 3 - Aug 30/16 941,817 1,000,744 Hallmark Facility Services Inc Janitorial services & supplies Sep & Oct: City Hall 3,427 Firehalls 4,552 Hammond Community Centre 4,205 Library 5,583 Operations 4,070 Pitt Meadows Heritage Hall 1,155 Randy Herman Building 4,766 RCMP 4,070 South Bonson Community Centre 3,592 35,420 Hanks Trucking And Bulldozing Roadworks hauling & bulldozing 19,097 Horizon Landscape Contractors Grass cutting 70,595 ISL Engineering & Land Serv 128 Avenue (216 St - 224 St) Construction support services 23,207 203 St Lougheed Highway - Golden Ears Way - Design 1,055 Culvert replacement program - McFadden Creek enviromental montoring 5,231 29,493 King Hoe Excavating Ltd 128 Avenue road and drainage improvements (210 Street to 216 Street)1,580,980 Lafarge Canada Inc Roadworks material 31,360 Manulife Financial Employer/employee remittance 150,256 Maple Ridge & PM Arts Council Arts Centre contract payment 53,102 Theatre rental 2,020 55,122 Maple Ridge Carpet One Flooring replacement: City Hall 3,822 Fairview House 1,143 Firehall 2,607 Leisure Centre 368 Operations 499 RCMP 7,866 16,305 Mar-Tech Underground Services Culvert replacement program - Wood Stave culvert structural lining 127,332 McElhanney Consulting Services 203 Street road & drainage improvements (DTR to Golden Ears Way)36,617 232 St sidewalk (132 Ave - Silver Valley Rd)23,945 60,562 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGECITY OF MAPLE RIDGECITY OF MAPLE RIDGECITY OF MAPLE RIDGE MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER 2016MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER 2016MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER 2016MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - NOVEMBER 2016 VENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAMEVENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENTDESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT AMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNTAMOUNT McQuarrie, Hunter - "In Trust"Security refund 707,102 Medical Services Plan Employee medical & health premiums 40,750 Mertin Nissan Ltd Two Nissan 3/4 ton vans 71,820 Municipal Pension Plan BC Employer/employee remittance 480,391 North Of 49 Enterprises Ltd Contracted service provider - skating lesson programs 23,023 Now Solutions Inc Payroll software annual license 72,017 Nustadia Recreation Inc Subsidized ice purchased by P&LS on behalf of user groups - Oct 73,429 NWallace & Company Ltd.Operations storage building & shed construction 476,305 Oaken Developments (Haney) Inc Security refund 125,828 Pace Group Communications Inc Media relations & communication services 23,354 Parsons Inc Gravel review Ph2 - stormwater management plan for expansion area 17,996 Paul Bunyan Tree Services Tree maintenance & damaged tree removal 20,017 Province Of BC - 21312 2016 school tax remittance 38,310 Receiver General For Canada Employer/Employee remittance PP16/22 & PP16/23 615,863 RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd Ice rental Sep & Oct 120,692 Curling rink operating expenses Sep 4,258 Third surface insurance 6,682 131,632 Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Monthly contract for recycling 189,713 Weekly recycling 468 Litter pickup contract Sep & Oct 3,846 Recycling station pickup Sep & Oct 660 Roadside waste removal 190 Toilet rebate program 188 195,065 Russell, Grant Security refund 21,914 Sandpiper Contracting Ltd 224 Street watermain replacement (122 Ave to 124 Ave)80,351 Snowden, Deborah Security refund 34,285 Softchoice LP Server Utility 1 & 2 replacement 21,342 Stantec Consulting Ltd 270A St reservoir & pump station 19,602 225 St pump station & River Road forcemain capacity study 18,173 108 Avenue watermain (Grant - Albion PRV)2,598 40,373 Total Power Ltd Generator maintenance Oct: Firehalls 413 Library 206 Operations 206 Pitt Meadows Family Rec Centre 206 Portable generators 2,818 Pump stations 15,748 Radio tower 870 RCMP 206 Whonnock Community Centre 207 20,880 Triahn Enterprises Ltd 108 Ave watermain & PRV chamber 76,762 Warrington PCI Management Advance for Tower common costs 60,000 Disbursements In Excess $15,000 7,679,0417,679,0417,679,0417,679,041 Disbursements Under $15,000 971,483971,483971,483971,483 Total Payee Disbursements 8,650,5248,650,5248,650,5248,650,524 Payroll PP16/23 & PP16/24 1,805,3111,805,3111,805,3111,805,311 Purchase Cards - Payment 96,96496,96496,96496,964 Total Disbursements November 2016 10,552,79910,552,79910,552,79910,552,799 Page 1 of 2 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: Jan. 09, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W SUBJECT: Adjustments to 2016 Collector’s Roll EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BC Assessment (BCA) has revised the assessed value for the 2016 Collector’s Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls 3 through 11. The Collector is required to make all the necessary changes to the municipal tax roll records and reports these adjustments to Council. RECOMMENDATION: For information only DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Twelve folios were adjusted in total: Appeals filed with the Property Assessment Appeal Board for 2016 resulted in adjustments to the assessed value of eight residential and three commercial properties to more accurately reflect the value of the improvements. One residential property had it’s farm status reinstated. (Municipal tax revenue changes: Decrease in Class 1 (Residential) $6,898; Decrease in Class 6 (Commercial) $11,613; Increase in Class 9 (Farm) $387.) b)Business Plan/Financial Implications: There is a total decrease of $ 18,124 in municipal tax revenue. 702.2 Page 2 of 2 CONCLUSIONS: Adjustments by BC Assessment resulted in a decrease of $1,576,300 to the Residential assessment base, a decrease of $977,564 to the Commercial assessment base and an increase of $11,485 to the Farm assessment base. This report dated Jan. 09, 2017 is submitted for information and is available to the public. “Original signed by Silvia Rutledge” ______________________________________________ Prepared by: Silvia Rutledge Manager of Revenue & Collections “Original signed by Paul Gill” _____________________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _____________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: Jan. 17 2017 MEETING: Council SUBJECT: 2017 Property Assessment Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Property assessment information for 2017 was received from BC Assessment on January 03, 2017. This information is preliminary as property owners have the opportunity to appeal their assessments until January 31, 2017. The purpose of this report is to give Council a sense of the 2017 assessments based on the information currently available. RECOMMENDATION: For information only DISCUSSION: 2017 Property Assessments For the purpose of valuation, BC Assessment bases 2017 property assessments on market conditions as at July 1, 2016. The changes in the assessment roll are generally comprised of two components: 1.Market value fluctuations 2.Real growth due to new construction For taxation purposes, properties in Maple Ridge are classified into seven classifications which are Residential, Utilities, Major Industry, Light Industry, Business and Other, Recreational/Non-Profit, and Farm Land. Where the term Commercial is used in this report it refers to a combination of Light Industry, Business and Other. The majority (91.8%) of Maple Ridge’s taxable assessed value is in the Residential Class. The real estate market in 2016 was very volatile and market values in the Residential Class increased by an average 35% and Commercial Classes experience an average increase of 13%. Decisions concerning the municipal budget are made independent of market value fluctuations. As in past years, municipal tax rates will be: i)adjusted to offset average market value increases/decreases in each class ii)increased based on the tax increase included in the approved financial plan 702.3 Page 2 of 8 As a result, properties that experience market value changes above the average for their class will experience higher than average tax increases and properties that experience value changes below the average will experience lower than average tax increases. It is therefore critical for property owners to keep in mind that their own tax experience will vary based on the assessment change for their specific property in relation to the overall averages for their property class. Local governments do not have the legislative authority to smooth tax increases among properties. To better demonstrate this variability from property to property, we have been tracking the municipal taxes assessed against a sample of properties for a number of years and the data from that analysis is attached in Appendix “A”. While the impact to the average home amounts to a municipal tax increase of around 3.15%, there is significant variation around this average. The sample property in Upper Hammond (Sample 8) increased in value by 30% and, as that is below the average increase, will experience a slight reduction in municipal taxes whereas the sample property in Lower Hammond (Sample 7), which saw an increase in assessed value of 46% in 2017, will experience an overall municipal tax increase closer to 11%. This variation in tax impact is the direct result of the assessment changes experienced by each individual property. For this reason it is important that property owners review their assessment notices closely and refer any questions or concerns to BC Assessment. Property owners who believe their assessments to be incorrect have until January 31 to appeal to BC Assessment for a review. Property taxes are based on final assessed values and cannot be appealed. The second major component of the change in the assessment roll is due to new construction. Overall new construction in 2017 increased the assessment base by approximately 3%, with the majority being in the Residential Class. A number of properties that were exempt from a portion of taxes under the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program (TCIIP) will now be fully taxable adding an additional .4% to the assessment base. This is in line with our financial plan. As the information is preliminary, we will monitor this area to see if further modifications are required to the financial plan. NEIGHBOURHOOD ANALYSIS The following is a brief look at the effects of growth on the assessments of various neighbourhoods throughout the City to give Council a sense of how these changes impact individual areas. Residential Properties: Of the total assessment base in Maple Ridge, approximately 92% is attributable to the residential class. While the total growth factor in the Residential Class is 3.2%, specific neighbourhoods continue to contribute to the bulk of that increase. Page 3 of 8 Residential Properties (continued) Neighbourhood Growth Contribution to Assessment Base % of Total Growth Kanaka Creek $ 50,188,800 17% Silver Valley/Fern Cres $ 45,676,400 15% Cottonwood $ 39,264,600 13% Laity $ 26,217,200 8% 232nd to 264th / 108th to 128th $ 23,101,700 7% Strata Units $ 89,352,300 29% All other neighbourhoods $ 36,882,100 11% Though the average market value in the Residential Class increased by about 35% the change, in assessed value for specific areas, varies. Percentage of Change in Assessment 10% or Less 10.1% to 25% 25.1% to 30% 30.1% to 40% 40.1% + % of properties 2% 15% 6% 58% 19%  Average 2017 The following information provides a sense of the impact of assessment changes experienced in specific neighbourhoods. Haney Residential Boundaries: S – Lougheed; W – Burnett and 224; N – 124A, 125, 128; E – 234 and 235 This area is made up of mostly single family homes which are 30 years or older. New construction in this area is limited. The neighbourhood represents 10% of the City’s overall residential inventory. The average home in this area, valued at $491,812 in 2016 and paying $2,153 in municipal taxes, has seen an increase in value of 34%, close to the city wide average of 35%, and will experience a general purposes tax increase of around 3%. Percentage of Change in Assessment 10% or Less 10.1% to 25% 25.1% to 30% 30.1% to 40% 40.1% + % of properties 0% 1% 12% 62% 25%  Average 2017 Cottonwood/Albion Boundaries: S - Kanaka Way and 128; W - Cottonwood Dr; N – DTR; E – 240 Page 4 of 8 This area, comprised mostly of single family homes, represents 7% of the City’s overall residential inventory and was the 3rd largest growth contributor in 2016 at 13% of overall growth. The average home here, valued at $510,703 in 2016 and paying $2,236 in municipal taxes, has increased in value by 40% and the municipal tax increase will be around 7%. Percentage of Change in Assessment 10% or Less 10.1% to 25% 25.1% to 30% 30.1% to 40% 40.1% + % of properties 0% .3% .5% 91.4% 7.7%  Average 2017 Kanaka Creek Boundaries: S, SW – Lougheed; N – Kanaka Way and 128; E – 248 This area, comprised mostly of single family homes, continues to develop and was this year the highest contributor to the overall residential growth at 17%. It represents approximately 9% of the City’s overall residential inventory. The average home in this area, valued at $522,745 in 2016 and paying $2,287 in municipal taxes, has increased in value by 37.8% and as a result will experience a general purpose tax increase of around 5% Percentage of Change in Assessment 10% or Less 10.1% to 25% 25.1% to 30% 30.1% to 40% 40.1 + % of properties .2% .4% 16.9% 74.6% 7.9%  Average 2017 Silver Valley and Fern Cres. Boundaries: S – 128; N – Silver Valley Rd; W – Marc Rd. & 224; E – 264 This area now makes up approximately 9% of the City’s overall residential inventory and, at 15% of the overall growth, continues to be one of the biggest growth contributors. It is comprised of mostly single family homes some of which are on large lots and acreages. The average home here, valued at $802,786 in 2016 and paying $3,513 in municipal taxes, increased in value by 37.4% and the municipal tax increase will be around 5%. Percentage of Change in Assessment 10% or Less 10.1% to 25% 25.1% to 30% 30.1% to 40% 40.1 + % of properties .1% 1.1% 3.7% 71.2% 23.9%  Average 2017 Page 5 of 8 Whonnock and Ruskin Boundaries: S – Lougheed; N – 132; W – 248; E – 287 This established rural neighbourhood is made up of large residential lots and acreages of which 2% continue to enjoy farm status. The average home in this area was valued at $603,954 in 2016 and paid $2,643 in municipal taxes, is now assessed at $823,380, an increase of 36.3%. It will likely experience a general purposes tax increase around 4%. Percentage of Change in Assessment 10% or Less 10.1% to 25% 25.1% to 30% 30.1% to 40% 40.1 + % of properties .4% 6.4% 5.8% 64% 23.4%  Average 2017 Strata Townhouses There are 4,271 properties in Maple Ridge which are classed as residential strata townhouses and 203 of those are new this year. Market value for these types of properties experienced an average increase of 33%. The average townhouse assessed in 2016 at $299,431 and paying $1,310 in municipal taxes now has an average assessment of $399,660 and will experience a tax increase around 2%. Percentage of Change in Assessment 10% or Less 10.1% to 25% 25.1% to 30% 30.1% to 40% 40.1 + % of properties .2% 4.2% 11.2% 82.1% 2.3%  Average 2017 Strata Apartments The number of Strata Apartments remains the same as in the prior year at 3,268. The TCIIP, which spurred growth in this sector in 2014 and 2015, has expired for most of these units and, as a result, deferred growth of $39M is being recognized this year. The average market value for these types of units increased by 17% in 2016. The average apartment, which was assessed in 2016 at $196,554 and paid $860 in municipal taxes, is now assessed at $230,143 and will see a decrease in municipal taxes. Percentage of Change in Assessment 10% or Less 10.1% to 20% 20.1% to 30% 30.1% to 40% 40.1 + % of properties 7.7% 81.7% 8.8% 1.3% .5%  Average 2017 Page 6 of 8 Business Class and Light Industry Class Of the just over 32,000 properties in Maple Ridge, 4% of them fall into the Business and Light Industry Classes. Combined growth recognized in 2016 in these two classes is 2.25%. Over half of this is due to the expiration of expired tax incentive programs. The remaining 1% is the result of updates to the business complex at 224th on Dewdney at a value of $4.5M, $2.8M of which is the beneficiary of the TCIIP and as a result will be deferred until 2019, $2.5M for the Air Rec Centre in Kanaka Industrial Park, $1.8M for the newly opened No Frills across from City Hall and $1.2M for the new RBC location at 203rd. The commercial sector growth contribution to the assessment base for 2017 is around $7M. The average market value increase in the Business and Light Industry Classes is around 13%. Business Class & Light Industry Class Percentage of Change in Assessment Zero or Less 0.1% to 5% 5.1% -10% 10.1% - 20% 20% + % of properties 6.7% 28.7% 32.7% 23.2% 8.7%  Average 2017 The following information is intended to give an idea of what is occurring in some of the more concentrated areas for these classes. Maple Meadows Industrial Park This area represents 20% of Business Class properties. These are mostly commercial strata units and some warehousing facilities. Of the 316 commercial properties in the park, 106 are classed Light Industry. These 106 properties account for 55% of all Light Industry properties in Maple Ridge and represent 50% of the Light Industry assessment base. Overall market change in the park is around 12%, and being close to the City average, tax increases for most properties here will also close to the City average. Percentage of Change in Assessment Zero or Less 0.1% to 5% 5% -10% 10% - 20% 20% + % of properties 0% 59% 15% 19% 7%  Average 2017 Albion Industrial This area represents 4% of Business Class folios and 16% of Light Industry Class folios and accounts for approximately 10% of the taxable commercial assessment base. The average increase was close to the City average which will result in a tax increase close to the City average. Percentage of Change in Assessment Zero or Less 0.1% to 5% 5% -10% 10% - 20% 20% + % of properties 1% 4% 36% 48% 10%  Average 2017 Page 7 of 8 Lougheed and Dewdney Trunk Commercial, West of 207 Street These two commercial corridors represent only 5% of Business Class folios in number but account for 11% of total Business Class assessments. The average market increase in this area is 13% and most properties will therefore experience the average tax increase. Percentage of Change in Assessment Zero or Less 0.1% to 5% 5% -10% 10% - 20% 20% + % of properties 9% 11% 54% 20% 6%  Average 2017 Kanaka & Webster’s Corner Business Parks These two business parks started development in 2010 and continue to grow. They represent 6% of Commercial folios and account for 4% of the combined Business and Light Industry assessment base. Overall market change is quite different. All but 3 of the properties in both parks experienced a 17% market increase. As these increases are above the City average of 13%, tax increases will also be above the City average. Kanaka Percentage of Change in Assessment Zero or Less 0.1% to 5% 5% -10% 10% - 20% 20% + % of properties 0% 0% 4% 96% 0%  Average 2017 Webster’s Corner Percentage of Change in Assessment Zero or Less 0.1% to 5% 5% -10% 10% - 20% over 20% % of properties 0% 0% 0% 90% 10%  Average 2017 CONCLUSIONS: Though the assessment information is preliminary, it does give an indication of how assessments have changed since the last valuation. While the average assessment change for Residential is 35% and Commercial Classes is 13%, there is some variability around this average. As a result, the property tax impact to individual properties will vary, depending on how their experience relates to the average for their property class. Page 8 of 8 Property owners with concerns have until January 31 to contact BC Assessment to appeal their assessments. A revised roll incorporating any changes due to appeals or corrections will be made available to us in early April. “Original signed by Silvia Rutledge” ______________________________________________ Prepared by: Silvia Rutledge Manager of Revenue & Collections “Original signed by Paul Gill” _____________________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by Ted Swabey” _____________________________________________ Concurrence: Ted Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendix is attached hereto: Appendix A – Sample Tax Properties Appendix A - Sample Tax Properties (History of Assessed Values and Taxation) % Change in Assessed Values Location 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 Silver Valley -4.3%-0.7%-3.2%1.7%9.9%33.8% 2 Albion/Kanaka 0.0%-6.8%-0.6%0.2%9.7%33.9% 3 Whonnock 2.7%0.0%0.6%-2.7%7.2%34.9% 4 Central MR 0.5%-3.1%-2.8%11.1%-5.4%39.0% 5 Central MR- strata -5.8%-3.1%0.0%-3.7%1.5%31.8% 6 West MR -2.1%0.0%7.0%2.3%7.8%38.9% 7 Lower Hammond 0.1%-9.8%8.6%13.1%11.2%45.7% 8 Upper Hammond -4.7%0.0%2.3%15.3%10.7%29.8% Total -1.8%-2.2%0.9%3.9%7.1%35.5% % Change in Taxation (General Purpose, Drainage & Parks Levy) Location 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1 Silver Valley 0.3%4.0%0.9%1.9%7.5%2.1% 2 Albion/Kanaka 4.8%-2.3%3.5%0.4%7.4%2.2% 3 Whonnock 7.6%4.9%4.8%-2.5%4.8%2.9% 4 Central MR 5.3%1.6%1.3%11.3%-7.4%6.0% 5 Central MR- strata -1.2%1.6%4.2%-3.5%-0.6%0.5% 6 West MR 2.6%4.8%11.5%2.5%5.5%6.0% 7 Lower Hammond 4.9%-5.5%13.1%13.4%8.8%11.2% 8 Upper Hammond -0.1%4.8%6.6%15.5%8.4%-1.0% Total 3.0%2.5%5.1%4.1%4.9%3.4% Page 1 of 2 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 17, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council SUBJECT: Specialized Courts EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Ministry of Justice is looking at the use of specialized courts, as described in this report, as a way of making the justice system more efficient and effective. The feasibility of such courts for Maple Ridge is being considered and the purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on that work. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive for Information. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: During the 2016 UBCM meetings in Victoria, Supt Fleugel, Councillors Robson and Masse and the GM: Corporate & Financial Services visited the Victoria Integrated Court (VIC) and met with the judge responsible for the VIC. The VIC is an example of a specialized court. It is an initiative that brings together justice, health and social services to manage offenders who have a history of substance addiction or mental challenges and unstable housing and whose criminal activity is having a significant impact on the community. To be eligible for the VIC, the accused must demonstrate a willingness, with community support, to address the underlying causes of the criminal activity. The objective of the court is to help reduce recidivism and improve offenders’ health by encouraging them to access support services. These supports are critical to the success of the VIC. The VIC began operations in 2010 and successive reports have shown that it is working well. One of the key factors contributing to its success is the consistency that it offers. Specifically: The court is held on Tuesday mornings in Courtroom 101 A dedicated judge presides over the court The Crown Council working on VIC files is consistent The community support groups coordinate their schedules and are also present Overall, the process used by the court is quite informal and relies on oral reports where possible. The judge is able to hear directly from the offenders and those responsible for working with them about the progress that is being made. The VIC appears to result in improved communication, collaboration and coordination between justice, health and social services. There are 11 specialized courts and judicial initiatives in British 702.4 Page 2 of 2 Columbia, and the VIC is just one example. An overview of specialized courts is provided in the attached report dated March, 2016 from the Ministry of Justice. It should be noted that the desired outcomes of a specialized court for Maple Ridge have not yet been determined. Since the visit to Victoria, there have been discussions with Chief Judge Crabtree about the possibility of a specialized court strategy for Maple Ridge. It is important to note that the decisions about the specialized courts and how they function will be made by the ministry and the judiciary. The effectiveness of the specialized courts is, however, dependent upon the involvement of other justice and community partners and that is why their views will be considered. The Chief Judge will be arranging for an informational exchange session, to be put on by the Ministry of Justice. The purpose of the session will be to understand the issues and determine the most promising area(s) for improvement. Attendees are to include:  Court Services  Corrections  Probation  Community services agencies  RCMP  Health Services  Business community representatives The Chief Judge has asked Justice Sandstrom to arrange for the informational session early this year. The city is not directly involved as the services being provided are those that are the responsibility of the Provincial Government. The RCMP will be participating as their work involves the court system. One of the first steps will be to identify the specific characteristics of the problem as the solution to the problem may not necessarily lie in the court system. If the judiciary decides to proceed with a specialize court strategy for Maple Ridge, it will be done as a time-limited pilot, subject to data collection, evaluation and modification, before a long-term decision is made to continue with it. Decision-making will rest with the ministry and the judiciary, though they will take into account the views of other justice and community partners. CONCLUSION: Court services are an important service and the work being done in Maple Ridge will allow the judiciary to implement service level enhancements that make sense. “Original signed by Paul Gill” Prepared and Approved by: Paul Gill, GM: Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. (Ted) Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer Specialized Courts Strategy Ministry of Justice March 2016 1 MESSAGE FROM THE MIN ISTER 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 4 I. Specialized Courts and Judicial Initiatives in British Columbia 4 The Benefits of Developing a Specialized Court s Strategy 4 The Scope of the Specialized Courts Strategy 5 The Development and Consultation Process 5 THEORETICAL OVERVIEW AND CONTEXT 6 II. What do we mean by a Specialized Court? 6 Problem-Solving Courts 6 Benefi ts and Challenges 7 The Challenges of Measuring Success 9 RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES 12 III. Match Problems and Solutions 12 Collaborative Solutions 13 Eval uation Planning and On-going Monitoring 13 Adopting Effective Principles and Practices 14 THREE ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT FOR SPECIALIZED COURTS IN B.C. 16 IV. Specialized Courts Strategy Objectives 16 1 | Governance Structure 17 2 | Needs Assessment and Business Case Requirement for New Specialized Courts 19 3 | Assessment of Specialized Courts 21 CONCLUSION 23 V. APPENDIX A – An Overview of Specialized Courts and Judicial Initiatives in British Columbia 24 APPENDIX B – Summary of External Consultation Feedback 37 2 MESSAGE FROM THE MINISTER As Attorney General, one of my top priorities is to work with our justice partners to create a justice system that is more timely and accessible to British Columbians in their daily lives. This means ensuring that everyone in our province – no matter their circumstance s – can access the justice system in ways that are flex ible, responsive and effective. As part of the White Paper on Justice Reform Part Two: A Timely, Balanced Justice System , the Government of B.C. committed to develop, in consultation with the judiciary an d other justice partners, a strategic, evidence-based approach for specialized court initiatives. This strategy delivers on that commitment by providing a plan to work with the judiciary, justice system partners and communities to assess existing specializ ed courts and the ways in which future specialized court proposals will be considered. While not a commitment to create additional specialized courts, this strategy establishes a way to better monitor the results of existing specialized courts and iden tify if more should be created. B.C. currently has a number of specialized courts – incl uding First Nations Courts, Domestic Violence Courts, the Victoria Integrated Court, the Downtown Community Court and the Vancouver Drug Treatment Court – as well as other courts better described as judicial docket initiatives, which are serving British Columbians throughout the province. Our government recognizes the need to move beyond the traditional justice system to address unique criminal justice issues, and we need t o ensure we are doing so in the most effective way possible. This strategy takes into account the unique roles of government and the judiciary while maintaining the principle of judicial independence. It considers best practices and evidence -based approaches to decision making that help to ensu re effective justice outcomes. I would like to thank all those who assisted in the development of the strategy. Through these efforts, we will continue to chart a positive course for specialized courts to better serv e the unique needs of citizens and communities across B.C. Hon. Suzanne Anton, Q.C. Attorney General and Minister of Justice 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The growing number of specialized courts and judicial initiatives in British Columbia and the varied approaches they take indicates that the judiciary, government, communities and service providers are searching for effective solutions to challenges in the justice system. Currently, there is no province wide approach to specialized courts that engage s the government and the judiciary jointly. These courts tend to be established in response to a unique community, justice or resource challenge without a province - wide planned, coordinated allocation of limited resources to adva nce effective justice solutions throughout British Columbia. This provincial strategy for specialized courts establishes a structured approach for current and future specialized courts that is rooted in validated research, is fiscally responsible, and e ngages the judiciary, justice system partners and other interested parties. This strategy is limited to specialized courts that include a therapeutic component as opposed to judicial initiatives such as docket courts. The first section sets out the background and context for t he Specialized Courts Strategy. It defines what specialized courts are for the purpose of this strategy , provides an overview of specialized criminal courts and judicial initiatives in B.C., and outlines the benefits of developing a strategy. Section two sets out four best practices that were identified through a literature review undertaken by the Ministry of Justice (ministry) in 2014, following from the development of the Framework for Domestic Violence Courts in British Columbia . The final section of the strategy charts a course for the future by setting out three strategic actions: 1. Create a joint governance structure to enable shared decision-making on specialized courts; 2. Create a needs assessment and business case process to assess future proposals for specialize d courts which require significant resources or s ignificantly impact government policies and processes; and 3. Develop an assessment framework for existing specialized courts . This strategy reflects the mutual interests of the ministry and the judiciary to set priorities for the development and administration of specialized courts. 4 INTRODUCTION I. Specialized Courts and Judicial Initiatives in British Columbia The number of specialized courts has grown significantly in the past decade. The 1982 federal white paper, The Criminal Law in Canadian Society , recognized that as criminal sanctions are primarily punitive, they should be reserved for the most serious crimes and restorative approaches used wherever else possible. The 1996 changes to Canada’s Criminal Code, and the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretations of these provisions, reinforced this direction in criminal law reform and provided the basis for judges to use restorative alternatives to incarceration in sentencing. A number of communities, as well as some justice system participants, have indicated strong support for the establishment of new specialized courts as an innovative and effective response to justice system and community challenges. These projects are often led by a local champion dedicated to bringing about change to attempt to address a challenging situation in their community. However, despite positive anecdotal results from various participants indicating high levels of satisfaction with specialized courts, more empirical research and evidence would determine whether these courts are achieving their intended objectives. This strategy is informed by examination of the following 11 specialized criminal courts and judicial initiatives in B.C.:  Domestic Violence Courts1 (Duncan, Nanaimo, Penticton, and Kelowna);  First Nations Courts (Duncan, New Westminster, North Vancouver, and Kamloops);  Victoria Integrated Court (VIC);  Drug Treatment Court of Vancouver (DTCV ); and  Downtown Community Court (DCC) (Vancouver). These specialized courts and judicial initiatives vary greatly in terms of their objectives, approach es and the degree to which they embrace therapeutic components (see Appendix A for a more detailed description of the initiatives). The Benefits of Developing a Specialized Courts Strategy A specialized courts strategy will establish a considered and deliberate approach to decisions about existing specialized courts and the development of new specialized courts. It will also allow for a planned and coordinate d allocation of limited resources to advance effective justice outcomes. A specialized courts strategy will ensure best practices and evidence -based approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective in existing specialized court s can be appropriately adopted , and will work to ensure the expenditure of public funds is managed appropriately in an accountable and transparent manner. 1 It should be noted that the Domestic Violence Courts in Penticton and Kelowna are docket courts which are judicial initiatives to improve case management rather than therapeutic justice initiatives. 5 Since specialized courts are a relatively new creation, it is not surprising that there are not a significant number of research studies available to confirm their effectiveness. Nonetheless, in B.C., there is widespread institutional and community stakeholder support for exploring further development of specialized courts. This strategy sets out the ministry’s overarching policy direction to help guide these efforts. The Scope of the Specialized Courts Strategy This strategy proposes a governance model for specialized courts, the details of which are laid out later in this document. The ministry and the judiciary will jointly govern current and future specialized courts which have a significant impact on court administration and other participant resources. The Development and Consultation Process The development of the strategy was led by the Justice Services Branch and guided b y a Ministry Advisory Committee, which included representatives from Corrections, Court Service s, Policing and Security, Community Safety and Crime Prevention, and Criminal Justice branches. The ministry held two external consultation sessions to solicit input on the structure, goals and overall direction of the strategy. The consultations included staff from other ministries, justice system partners, Aboriginal organizations, community, social and he alth agencies. A consultation summary report, including a full list of organizations represented , can be found in Appendix B. In addition, one -on-one meetings were held with individuals who were consulted on specific issues related to specialized courts. 6 Theoretical Overview and Context II. What do we mean by a Specialize d Court? For the purpose of inclusion in this strategy, we have limited our consideration to specialized criminal courts in the Provincial Court of B.C. As mentioned above, there are judicial initiatives that, for example, address the scheduling of domestic violence cases that have been considered in the review, however, not all judicial initiatives would be included under the governance model proposed for the Specialized Courts Strategy. In recent years, specialized court processes have been gaining recognition and support as jurisdictions in Canada and around the world seek better solutions to manage criminal offenders. These courts offer alternativ es to the traditional court process. Broadly defined, specializ ed courts offer more tailored approaches in response to specific challenges. Some specialized courts require significant and ongoing collaboration, as well as the investment of financial and staff resources of various justice system participants, while others simply require a reallocation of existing resources. There is no single model for speci alized courts or the judicial initiatives in B.C. and the approaches vary greatly. Each court has been created to respond to a unique problem or circumstance in the community or offender population they are intended to serve . Even within the same types of specialized courts there can be significant variation in the model or approach . For example, the f our domestic violence initiatives in B.C. differ in their intake and screening processes, degree of specialization, and range of court processes invol ved. As noted above, two are solely docket courts addressing case management while the other two have more therapeutic goals which require community and ministry resources. Problem-Solving Courts Problem-solving courts are a type of specialized court (see Fi gure 1 below), in which court processes are informed by the theories of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative j ustice . Therapeutic jurisprudence suggests that legal rules, processes, and participants, such as lawyers and judges , can have both therapeutic and anti -therapeutic consequences for participants, including offenders or victims, and also the community at large. For example, the adversarial nature of the traditional court system can have profound, and in many cases negati ve, psychological and emotional impacts on defendants, victims and witnesses. Restorative justice refers to a non-adversarial and non -retributive approach to justice that focuses on healing, holding the offender accountable , and the involvement of the community to achieve better justice outcomes. As a result, problem-solving courts usually employ therapeutic and restorative components which aim to address the underlying reasons for criminal behaviour within a community context. In this way, they seek to i mprove outcomes, reduce recidivism, enhance public safety, and ultimately increase public confidence in the justice system. Other kinds of specialized courts , such as tax and traffic courts , also offer specialized court processes but are concerned primari ly with efficiencies rather than bringing about therapeuti c results for participants. 7 While the terms ‘problem-solving court,’ ‘specialized court,’ and ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ are often used interchangeably, they are conceptually distinct. Not all specialized courts are informed by the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence; those that are, such as drug treatment courts, and most community courts, may be described as problem -solving. Broadly speaking, most specialized criminal court and judicial initiatives in B.C. have one or more of the following characteristics: 1. A therapeutic component or approach intended to address the underlying causes of o ffending behaviour; 2. Altered or enhanced and integrated case management components to improve offender outcomes; and 3. A distinct method of judicial case management. If viewed along a spectrum, specialized court and judicial initiatives in B.C. vary greatly, ranging from the DCC, which operates in a dedicated facility and has introduced court processes quite distinct from traditional processes, to the domestic violence docket courts in the Interior, which are focused on judicial case management and have limited community engagement.2 For the purposes of this strategy, the specialized courts considered in scope operate within the criminal justice system (as opposed to hearing civil and family cases). Benefits and Challenges Positive results have been reported by various jurisdictions and many offenders and stakeholders indicate high levels of satisfaction with specialized courts.3 Benefits commonly associated with specialized courts include: 2 See more detailed outline of the docket cou rt models in Appendix A of the s trategy. 3 R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. (2011). Victoria Integrated Court Exploratory Process Report, Reflections on the Court's First Year of Operation. Victoria: R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd; Slinger, E. & Roesch, R. (2010). Problem-solving courts in Canada: A review and call for empirically-based evaluation methods. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(4) p. 258-264; Wiener, R. & Brank, E. (2013). Problem Solving Courts: Social Science and Legal Perspectives. Springer, New York. 8  Improved access to information through the participati on of health and social service partners;  Increased efficiency and improved o utcomes, such as fewer appeals ; and  Enhanced sentencing options which employ proven alternative treatment and supervision methods. Additional benefits commonly attributed to drug courts, the problem -solving courts for which the most rigorous evaluations exist, include reduced drug use, reduced recidivism, the capacity to deal with relapse and its consequences in a timely manner, and the capability to integrate drug treatment with other rehabilitation services to promote long -term recovery.4 Decreased recidivism for chronic offenders is among the main advantages reported for community courts. The DCC evaluation, for example, found that, compared to traditional approaches, the DCC produced significantly greater reductions in offending among a subgroup of offenders wit h complex health and social challenges who were managed by an integrated Case Management Team.5 However, specialized courts are not without criticism. Some suggest that heavy financial investment in these courts necessarily taps into public funds that might be better spent strengthening other social support structures. Critics have also commented that the requirement of certain specialized courts for offenders to plead guilty, or the availability of alternative sentence options in specialized court s which are not available in traditional courts (including in some cases , avoiding incarceration) may pose serious concerns. These critics suggest that processes be taken to ensure due process is appropriately reconceptuali zed and respected within specialized courts ,6 while at the same time ensuring fairness in the administration of justice in communities that do not have specialized courts. Problem-solving courts have also been criticized for seeking to use the authority of the courts to address not only the individual offende r but also identified challenges in the justice system, including a lack of public confidence and apparent shortcomings in other social programs and services.7 The question of where and when vulnerable people should be connecting with social services has also been raised. Critics argue that the justice system is not the appropriate front door to access se rvices and that the coordinated provision of services should be made available much sooner . For example, treatment should be offered to a person with a drug addiction long before they e nd up in the justice system with a criminal charge. This would be beneficial not only from the perspective of public safety and to the benefit of the offender, but also from a cost -effectiveness perspective. Having courts act as the gateway to accessing services can also lead to unintended consequences , such as entrenching people in the justice system unnecessarily and unintended ‘net-widening’ (e.g., police arrest someone for a petty crime so they can receive services). 4 Walsh, C. (2001). The Trend Towards Specialisation: West Yorkshire Innovations in Drugs and Domestic Violence Courts. The Howard Journal , 40(1), p. 32. 5 Somers, J., Moniruzzaman, A., Rezansoff, S. & Patterson, M. (2014). Examining the Impact of Case Management in Vancouver’s Downtown Community Court: A Quasi-Experimental Design. PLOS ONE, 9(3), p. 1. 6 Dorf, M. & Fagan, J. (2003). Problem Solving Courts: From Innovation to Institutionalization . American Criminal Law Review, 40, p. 1510. 7 Nolan, J. (2011). Legal Accents, Legal Borrowing: The International Problem -Solving Court Movement. Princeton, University Press, p. 8. 9 Additional concerns include the concentration of resources in particular courts at the expense of others within a finite public resource pool, and the lack of sufficient empirical evidence to confirm effectiveness. The Challenges of Measuring Success A principle of good public management i s that all publicly funded initiatives, whether new or existing, should be subject to on-going monitoring and rigorous evaluation to ensure they are meeting objectives and are cost-effective. As noted in the Framework for Domestic Violence Courts in British Columbia, the regular collection, analysis and reporting on outcomes and processes is critical to continually improve the overall functioning of any specialize d court process. Both informal monitoring, as well as formal, comprehensive evaluation , is important. In particular, given the variation in specialized court models, research into the variables that result in more effective outcomes will shed much needed light on the question of what models and outcomes can and should be replicated. In the Downtown Community Court evaluation, the authors describe existing evaluations of community courts generated to date as follows: Although encouraging, these studies do not address the fundamental question of whether community courts are effective at reducing reoffending, and thereby at improving community safety. Very little of the literature concerning community courts has been pub lished, and no studies of recidivism have yet appeared in peer reviewed journals. A review of the available research on community courts described the literature as “shockingly sparse”. The need for empirical research is amplified by the prospect that comm unity courts may expand in a manner similar to the growth of other problem -solving courts.8 Closely linked to, and perhaps a partial explanation for the lack of rigorous evaluations of problem - solving courts, is the lack of consensus on their goals and how the success of courts should be measured in terms of achieving the se objectives. Both objective factors, such as efficiency, crime rate, recidivism rate and subjective measures, including public opinion, stakeholder satisfaction , and satisfaction among participants have been employed in various combinations. Selecting goals and measures of success is complicated by the fact that many of the measures and objectives suggested by practitioners and academics are seemingly contradictory or the information specific to that objective is not or cannot be measured adequately. For example, many problem-solving courts pursue efficiency and reduced recidivism as distinct objectives. However, evidence indicates that for at least some types of cases, increasing the nu mber of court appearances by offenders reduces their probability of re -offending.9 Because this practice clearly also reduces the court’s docket-clearing rate, it provides a good example of the challenges that evaluati ng a court, which appears to be simultaneously pursuing apparently incompatible goals, can present. 8 Supra. N. 5, p. 2. 9 Gottfredson, D. et al. (2007). How Drug Treatment Courts Work: An Analysis of Mediators. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(1), p. 3. 10 DCC Evaluation In March 2014, a comprehensive, three -part evaluation of the Downtown Community Court was released. The first part was an offender outcome evaluation, the second an efficiency evaluation, and the third a series of community engagement surveys. The evaluation found a significant reduction in recidivism for a small percentage of the client population who benefited from the Case Management Program for offenders with complex needs and higher criminogenic risks, compared to matched offenders who received tradi tional offender services. In terms of efficiency, the DCC was found to have a neutral impact, which is in part explained by the heavy case load assigned to it (beyond what was originally envisioned), and changes made to the DCC’s operations after it opene d. Ultimately, however, the evaluation points to a need for more research to answer many unanswered questions:  What elements of the Case Management Program made it successful in reducing recidivism?  Could similar results be achieved in other courts acros s the province?  Did positive impacts extend to other outcomes, such as health and social services?  Which interventions were most effective?  What specialized court processes are successful and cost - effective for which populations? Even when compatible objectives and measures of success are identified, however, causally attributing an outcome to the activities of a specialized or problem-solving court can be problematic due to the fact that all justice initiatives are situated in dynamic and multi -causal environments. For example, lowering the crime rate is an objective identified by many problem -solving courts, and many of them claim success in terms of this measure. Yet crime rates are affected by a wide range of variables, including other justice reforms or initiatives, demographic changes, legal changes, and factors that influence people’s likelihood of reporting crime . Changes in the crime rate may also reflect a national trend that cannot be adequately accounted for at the local level. Proving these causal lin ks is also difficult because few evaluations of specialized or problem-solving courts are able to incorporate experimental designs , such as random assignment. Random assignment, an experimental technique for assigning subjects to different treatments, is widely recognized as the best available method for achieving reliable assessments of program effectiveness. The goal of random assignment is to generate a comparable group according to pre -selected variables other than exposu re to the treatment in question. Because social and legal frameworks are often not flexible enough to accommodate a controlled experiment, many specialized or problem-solving court evaluations have compared outcomes using non-equivalent matched groups. The use of non -equivalent matched groups means that 11 conclusions are drawn by comparing two groups of offenders who may not have been sufficiently similar. That is, pre -existing differences between them could account for the different outcomes in the experimental group. This clearly complicates the task of determining what changes are attributable to the court and limits the ability to draw causal conclusions with certainty. A further complication is the issue of interpreting outcomes once they have been measured. For example, a decre ase in the rate at which crime is reported could be interpreted as indicating the success or fai lure of a specialized or problem-solving court. As one study of Domestic Violence C ourt notes, “…treatment-focused Domestic V iolence Courts anticipate that victims will have a higher likelihood of reporting domestic violence incidences given the rehabilitative philosophy [of the court].”10 A less thorough evaluation of this court might have concluded that the problem -solving approach was increasing the incidence of domestic violence, even though the court was actually a success not only in terms of decreasing the probability of re -offending,11 but also in terms of increasing victims’ confidence in the justice system to such an extent that they were more likely to report these crimes when they did occur. As one report cautions, “... [m]erely because a program has not been evaluated properly does not mean that it is failing to achieve its goals.”12 Understanding the problems associated with measuring the success of specialized courts highlights the need for more rigorous evaluations, especially those wh ich move beyond the common yardstick of recidivism.13 10 Gover, A. et al. (2003). Combating Domestic Violence: Findings from an Evaluation of a Local Domestic Violence Court. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(1), p. 112. 11 ibid, p. 127. 12 Berman, G. and Gulick, A. (2002). Just the facts, ma’am: What we know and don’t kn ow about problem-solving courts. Fordham Urban Journal, 30(3), p. 1028. 13 Boyes -Watson, C. (1999). In the Belly of the Beast? Exploring the Dilemmas of State -Sponsored Restorative Justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 2(3), p. 273 - 277. 12 Research and Best Practices III. The challenges are further complicated by the fact that specialized courts are a relatively new creation and, therefore , there are few peer-reviewed, academic research studies available to confirm the ir effectiveness. The Framework for Domestic Violence Courts in British Columbia finds that, due to the lack of a consistent province-wide approach to specialized courts , there is a potential to miss opportunities to expand on best practices and processes that have been demonstrated to be effective in exi sting specialized court models. The Framework outlines those best practices and processes and this strategy adopts those findings. In a broader literature review , the strategy identified the following best practices from current research and lessons learned about specialized courts and justice reform initiatives in British Columbia and other jurisdictions. Although there is an abundance of literature on the subject of specialized courts, only research validated through a peer-review process was included for the purposes of supporting th is strategy. Match Problems and Solutions Although many jurisdictions are anxious to respond to a highly visible social or crime problem through the establishment of a specialized court, the literature suggests the creation of specialized court processes may not be the most effective or appropriate solution in every situation. Each community face s unique challenges in their court processes and will be best served by a response that takes into consideration local characteristics and is tailored to adequately address a community’s particular situation. The solution to a problem in the administration of justice may not necessarily lie in the court system. Some researchers argue that in the absence of empirical evidence, there is reason to question whether results favouring specialized courts could not be achieved by improving the availability of services and supports in the community alongside the usual administration of justice. Addressing substantial gaps in community services, for example, may be the first step in addressing some of the factors that p lace individuals at risk for offending. The first step in developing an appropriate response to a particular issue is to identify the specific characteristics of the problem. This includes providing context and outlining what has or is currently being done to address the problem. The literature urges communities to develop justice strategies that reflect the range of needs and gaps identified by a comprehensive analysis of the problem while giving careful consideration to available resources. The success of a strategy is highly dependent on adequate resourcing. Specialized or problem-solving courts in particular will only be effective if adequate services are available to support them in the community. The analysis should also consider whether existing services in the community could be better utilized or coordinated to respond to a community’s needs. 13 The li terature suggests that options should be developed while considering such things as:  Available resources;  Structure and scale of the problem;  The target population;  Costs and budget available;  Gaps in services/ availability of services/potential for the development of services;  Stakeholder interest;  Coordination of diverse agencies;  Available quantitative information; and  Championship. Meaningful consultation with partners and stakeholders is essential to accurately identify issues and respond to them effectively. Involving a diverse group of stakeholders in the decision -making process not only allows for the consideration of various options and informed policies and practices , but also has the added benefit of increasing support for the resulting approach or solution. Collaborative Solutions While courts are a critical nexus of criminal justice activity, they are only part of any specialized approach. To be effective, they must be designed to respond effectively to the needs of any particular community and be supported by other justice, health and social system partners. Consequently, communities, non-profit organizations and other service delivery agencies have a significant role to play in ensuring the success of any specialized court approach. Forging collaborative partnerships among public agencies and community-based organizations can facilitate capacity building and broaden available reso urces. Collaboration can also result in the added benefit of enhancing court efficiency by managing shared clients in an integrated fashion. Justice, health and social service agencies frequently provide services to shared clients. Collaboration and coo rdination of services can allow for a better use of programs, while improving the effectiveness and efficiency of resource use. Evaluation Planning and On-going Monitoring A common theme across the literature is that all initiatives, whether new or exis ting, be subject to on - going progress monitoring and rigorous evaluation of effectiveness. The lessons learned from the subsequent research should then be used to make adjustments to existing programs and inform future justice initiatives and the allocati on of funding and resources. The methodological limitations found within existing evaluations can often be attributed to the failure to adequately plan for monitoring and evaluation in advance of implementation. Early evaluation planning can allow for the careful consideration of important factors, such as the funds that will be required, the data that will be needed to evaluate the objective, as well as other variables that are of interest. Assessment of the initiative should include empirically based program evaluations in addition to process evaluations and descriptive, qualitative research. Where possible, e valuations should also address cost- 14 benefit considerations. It is important that evaluations address both process and outcome, with explicit links between the two displayed through the use of sound research methodologies. Evaluation methods should then be thoroughly scrutinized and validated by a peer review process to validate overall results. This includes looking not only at outcomes but al so proving compliance with legal standards.14 Adopting Effective Principles and Practices This best practice has two distinct elements. First, new specialized court proposals should, where appropriate, look to adopt evidence-based principles and practices that have been shown to be effective in other jurisdictions. The process of incorporating evidence-based principles and practices should be flexible to allow for modification to accommodate the unique needs of each community. Second, a growing number of researchers are beginning to express interest in the application of problem-solving court practices in conventional court settings. They suggest that, where appropriate, mainstream courts should implement evidence -based policies and practices that have proven to be effective. Principles and practices that result in improvement in court processes and outcomes, such as integrated services and collaborative decision making, coul d be applied to conventional court settings.15 The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model, for example, is widely recognized as the most effective way in which to identify and prioritize offenders to make sure they receive appropriate interventions. Justice initiatives that adhere to RNR principles are associated with significant reductions in recidivism, whereas initiatives that fail to follow the principles yield minimal reductions in recidivism and, in some cases, can even lead to an increase in re -offending. This practice of “i nstitutionalizing i nnovation” could include exploring which processes would lend themselves well to adoption in conventional courts and what process could guide these efforts.16 Suggested best practices for specialized court processe s which may lend themselves well to “institutionalization” include :  A problem-solving mindset;  Direct interaction with defendants;  Increased informality to improve inclusiveness of the proceedings ;  Monitoring offenders’ performance in treatment ;  Reaching out to social service providers ; and  Enhanced information sharing. The DCC evaluation found that approaches and solutions developed in the DCC are being adopted beyond the DCC as staff move to positions in other court houses. These efforts to introduce in novative best practices should be encouraged while being mindful of local requirements and capacity. 14 Quinn, M. (2009). The Modern Problem Solving Court Movement: Domination of Discourse and Untold Stories of Criminal Justice Reform. Journal of Law and Policy, 31(57), p. 81. 15 Farole, D., Puffett, N., Rempel, M. & Byrne, F. (2005). Applying the problem-solving model outside of problem-solving courts. Judicature, 89(1), p. 40-42; King, M. (2007). What can mainstream courts learn from problem-solving courts? Alternative Law Journal, 32(2), p. 91-95; Wolf, R. (2008). Breaking with tradition: Introducing problem solving in conventional courts. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 22(1), p. 77-93. 16 Supra. N. 7, p. 12. 15 The creation of domestic violence units also provides an example of specialized processes being adopted within the justice sector without the need for a s pecialized court. These units co -locate police, community-based victim services and, in some cases, child prote ction workers to respond to cases where those involved are deemed to be at the highest risk of violence . Another example found in some court locations around the province is the desi gnated Crown counsel with enhanced file ownership in domestic violence cases. This involves having the same Crown counsel be responsible for handling a file through the various stages in the prosecutorial process, with the intended benefits of providing better victim engagement, earlier file resolution and improved trial preparation. These types of innovative responses are important to consider as they may address in whole or in part the challenges for which a specialized court might otherwise be deemed necessary. A Case Study: Surrey Task Force – From Community Court to Integrated Services Network The Surrey Criminal Justice Task Force was established in March 2014, after community leader s in Surrey advocated for the creation of a community court. The task force held a two-day workshop in September 2014. The workshop included key stakeholders from the provincial and municipal governments, the judiciary , Surrey RCMP, the health authority and other community organizations . The workshop reviewed relevant data and current best practices in British Columbia and other jurisdictions to identify problems and potential opportunities. Stakeholders also identified and reviewed existing initiatives and services in the Surrey area. Interviews were conducted with users of the justice system to bring their experiences and perspectives to the workshop. This provided an evidence -based understanding of the challenges Surrey faces. The Task Force members con cluded in their final report that a community court would not address Surrey’s particular problems and recommended instead enhancements to service integration. The Surrey Criminal Justice Task Force Final Report recommended the development of an Integrated Services Network of social, health and justice service providers in a single location to provide a coordinated, collaborative approach aimed at reducing crime in Surrey. 16 Three Actions to Implement for Specialized Courts in B.C. IV. A key theme that emerged from consultations with external stakeholders is that specialized courts need to be developed, monitored and administered in a more coordinated and strateg ic way. Moreover, a strategic approach to specialized courts can ensure a more proactive an d coherent approach to planning – meaning important considerations such as established best practices can be considered in the development or adjustment of specialized court processes. This strategy sets out three actions to implement for specialized courts, focusing on evaluation and monitoring, developing a community-led needs assessment and business case requirement for new court proposals, and establishing a governance structure that is designed to more proactively manage the strategic decision -making for specialized courts in B.C. This approach aims to achieve the following objectives: Specialized Courts Strategy Objectives 1 Specialized courts should have clearly stated objectives, decision-making structures, monitoring and evaluation plans and tools in place. 2 Specialized courts should be included and identifiable in the ministry and judiciary data collection activities and reports. 3 Decision-making around specialized courts should be transparent and made on the basis of rigorous, publicly av ailable reports and evaluation . 4 Community and justice sector partners who play a central role in the day-to-day work of specialized courts should b e involved in local operational decision-making. 5 Best practices and lessons learned from specialized courts should be proactively shared between practitioners working in other specialized courts across the province. 6 Innovative policies and processes which have been found effective in evaluations o f existing specialized courts should b e implemented in traditional courts where appropriate . 17 1 | Governance Structure The court system in B.C. currently operates according to an e xecutive court administration model. Inherent in this model is a requirement for the ministry and the judiciary to work together in the area of administration, given that neither the judiciary nor the ministry has full responsibility over the delivery of court services to the public. The ministry and the judiciary have respective roles and responsibilities, given the constitutional division of powers and the current executive court administration model which are set out in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Attorney General, Chief Justices and Chief Judge. The MOU sets out the following areas of responsibility: Judiciary’s Responsibility: Ministry’s Responsibility:  Judicial administration to support independent adjudication  Court administration/ functioning courtrooms and staff  Assignment of judges  Funding/budgeting/planning  Case scheduling/court lists  Human resources and facilities To ensure clear and coordinated direction for the future of specialized courts in B.C. there is a need for a governance structure for strategic decision-making at the provincial level . To be effective , the governance structure will enable decision-making about the establishment, development, monitoring and evaluation of specialized courts, and be able to support decision -making by local organizations at the community level. In order to create successful specialized court initiatives , there would also need to be engagement with a broad range of agencies that would participate in and be affected by the initiative. Governance Principles Th e ministry will be guided by the following overarching principles: Principle 1 Specialized courts are not a first resort – consideration should always be given ACTION 1 – Implement a bi-lateral governance model based on f ive governance principles The judiciary and ministry wi ll be responsible for strategic decision-making about current and future specialized courts which affect court administration significantly to require joint governance. There are five principles proposed which could form the basis of this governance structure . 18 to the most effective response to a local criminal justice problem . Principle 2 Any specialized court should first be established as a time -limited pilot – subject to data collection, modification and evaluation before a long-term decision is made . Principle 3 Decisions should be evidence-based – initiatives should not be driven by a single perspective and should be based upon objective analysis of available evidence . Principle 4 Management of specialized courts should match their degree of specialization – specialized courts should be viewed on a spectrum. C ourts which are more similar to regular courts should have a governance structure more similar to regular courts while those that are more complex and unique should have a distinct management structure . Principle 5 Governance decisions should be informed by justice system partners and communities - Although the ministry and judiciary will retain decision-making authority in their respective areas of jurisdiction, the effectiveness of specialized courts is dependent upon the involvement of other justice and community partners whose views must also be considered . The applicability of the above principles in joint governance decisions on the activities of a specialized court will depend on the nature and the complexity of the initiative. To ensure the right balance is struck, the governance model will focus on the management of strategi c issues that impact specialized courts (such as ensuring best practices are shared between courts and that a court is operating in accordance with legal standards and due process policies ), while leaving day-to-day operations to be addressed at the local management level . This will ensure specialized court proposals continue to consider regional circumstances , including resource availab ility and other local dynamics. The ministry and the judiciary will limit joint involvement to governance issues involving specialized courts that have a significant additional impact on court administration . Governance issues that are wholly within the ambit of judicial administration and do not have any substantial impact on court administration or other participants’ resources would be excluded from the governance model. If a business case for a new specialized court demonstrates that it would have a substantial impact on government resources, processes or policies it would then require the approval of the Office of the Chief Judge , the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General , and others, as appropriate , in order to proceed. The Ministry of Justice would approve on the basis of court -related services, e.g., prosecution and legal aid resources, while the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General would approve on the basis of program services, e.g., corrections, policing or victim services. 19 2 | Needs Assessment and Business Case Requirement for New Specialized Courts Needs Assessment Proposals for new specialized courts should have a clear definition of the problem they are trying to address. To assist communities and local champions in this exploration, a needs assessment will be recommended for all proposals to initiate a new specialized court where financial and other resources are impacted. The process itself would be community specific and could take a number of different approaches, for example , a planning workshop with community partners or a written assessment completed by an external consultant with appropriate expertise. The needs assessment sh ould look holistically at the presenting issue s and determine the most promising areas for improvement. This includes considering whether a realignment of existing services would adequately respond to the identified issue. This process would be community specific and involve consultation and collaboration with the ministry and the judiciary as appropriate . The following elements should be considered when developing a needs assessment: 1. Review of current programs, processes and resources . 2. Presentation of e vidence (e.g., What data and other evidence is available to a ssist in identifying the issue or problem ?). 3. Problem identification (e.g., What are the gaps to be addressed , as presented by the data ?). 4. Identify possible solutions (e.g., Is the development of a specialized court the best course of action? What are some alternatives? How would data show change?). 5. Evidence of community and stakeholder support. If, following a needs assessment, it becomes clear that changes to social, health or justice services would best address the presenting issue without materi ally changing the court process then the outcome would be to pursue another solution rather than develop a new specialized court. ACTION 2 – Implement a two-step process to respond to requests for new specialized courts involving a needs assessment and business case requirement Community proposals for new specialized court initiatives that impact court administration significantly to require joint governance should include a needs assessment to clari fy the problem and determine the best solution. If a needs assessment is successful, a business case should be completed and receive the approval of the Office of the Chief Judge and the Ministries of Justice and Public Safety and Solicitor General. 20 Business Case Rationale Decisions about the creation of new specialized courts where there are significant impacts on both funding and resources would be made based on a proven business case rationale. If the needs assessment indicates the desirability of formally pursuing change s to court practice s and/or services provided by participants in court or as a result of the court’s involvement, then the community proponents of the specialized court may be required to prepare a busi ness case outlining: 1. The problem to be addressed ; 2. What specialized court processes will be introduced to address the problem ; 3. How these processes align with policy priorities and evidence-based principles (e.g., risk -needs- responsivity principles for offender management or implementing a process for early and/or timely case resolution, and victim safety considerations ); 4. The overall objectives of the intended specialized court processes; 5. The alternatives considered ; 6. All the affected parties and a description of the anticipated impact on them; 7. The benefits expected ; 8. The required costs and expected funding source ; 9. How ongoing operational decisions including changes are to be made and by whom; and 10. The nature of planned monitoring and evaluation activities, including criteria to determine whether the court has met its stated objective s, including: a. The number of years to be covered by the evaluation ; b. Proposed performance measures; c. Description of what data is needed and how this data will be collected ; d. Reporting timelines and intended audience; and e. Description of new funding requirements and how they will be met. In addition, it will be useful to identify opportunities to work more collaboratively with academics in the field and to consider whether there could be an ongoing role or partnership with third party institutions in supporting the development and evaluation of a business case process for new specialized courts. 21 3 | Assessment of Specialized Courts Assessing the impact of specialized courts , as well as judicial initiatives, can be challenging. The benefits they bring are often difficult to measure, and hard to isolate from other dynamics at play in the real world environment. Many specialized courts primarily involved a reallocation of existing resources and do not have monitoring and evaluation plans. With the exceptions of the DCC and DTCV , most specialized courts in B.C. are functioning relatively independently at the local l evel and usually operate in isolation from ministry and judiciary performance measurement activities . For specialized courts within the scope of this strategy, it is recommended that consideration be given to using the Justice and Public Safety Council ’s performance measures 17 in future e valuation planning. In the case of some specialized courts, development of an evaluation methodology will be made more challenging by the fact that there may not be specified objectives set forth against which results can be evaluate d. Furthermore, in many cases required data is either not currently collected or difficult to access. As a result, measuring the performance of specialized courts in B.C. may be complex and will take some time to develop. Building a Framework The principle of public accountability requires that the operational outcomes of jointly governed specialized courts be managed effectively. It is clear work must be done to strengthen the performance measurement capacity of specialized courts. In order to bui ld an assessment framework, collaborative efforts should take place on a number of fronts guided by a properly funded and resourced research and e valuation committee (committee). Ministry staff and the judiciary will need to work collaboratively as part of this committee to manage the calendarization of evaluation reports and expiration of time - limited pilots so that jointly governed specialized courts are not established and continued without assessment. This process will also serve to ensure liaison with community partners involved in the day - to-day operation of specialized courts. The committee would guide efforts to develop and implement an evaluation framework. The ministry and judiciary already gather considerable data through various case management systems including the Justice Information System (JUSTIN). JUSTIN supports the tracking of key administration activities carried out by enforcement agencies, Crown counsel, the judiciary, Court Services and Correction s in the processing of a file from report to Crown counsel, through to disposition. JUSTIN tracks court case and 17 Performance measures can be found beginning on page 25 of the April 2015 to March 2018 Justice and Public Safety Strategic Plan . ACTION 3 – Develop an assessment framework for existing specialized courts An assessment framework is required in order to lay the foundation to begin monitoring and evaluating all existing specialized courts. 22 court administration details . However, current file information gathering practices do not capture whether a case was heard before a specialized court, except for the DCC and the DTCV, which have a unique location and filing convention style. Similarly, performance metrics captured by the provincial judiciary’s computerized scheduling system may offer little data for the evaluation of specialized courts . Although evaluation efforts could be carried out using qualitative information sources (e.g., interviews) quantitative evaluation based on empirical data needs to be considered. Additional opportunities to improve data collection for use in future evaluations of specialized courts may be available through the development of business intelligence systems occurring in the ministry to support the implementation of the Justice and Public Safety Council’s Strategic Plan for the Justice and Public Safety Sector and should be pursued. The committee could also be tasked with the following: a) Develop an annual or multi -year evaluation plan for all specialized courts in B.C.; b) De velop criteria for consideration of new proposals for specialized courts and how these can be assessed objectively. These criteria would s upport efforts to determine the target population of specialized courts. There currently is not a clear answer to what ki nds of crime and social problems are amenable to or appropriate for specialized courts, and what conditions must exist for these courts to be abl e to provide best outcomes; c) Consider how to institutionalize the innovations piloted at specialized courts by providing guidance on taking the problem-solving orientation and adapting it into the traditional court system; d) Facilitate the creation and administration of a “practitioner network .” This could provide specialized court users with formal and informal opportunities to solicit advice from their counterparts in other courts. These efforts could take shape in a variety of ways, including the creation of a web site or email list serve ; sharing evaluation documents among court users within and across sites; developing a best practices manual with input from all specialized court practitioners; or developing and distributing a newsletter; and e) Investigating technological enhancements. Aside from one -time studies, which can be expensive and time consuming, new advances in information technology could assist in creating a practice of continuous self -monitoring. New advances in information technology should allow specialized courts to monitor performance and , in future years, specialized courts and those who study them should be able to compare various models and approaches more readily. By way of creating an assessment framework, specialized court initiatives, whether new or existing, could be subject to monitoring and evaluation. These as sessments would be expected to inform any improvements to the initiative and, eventually, whether to continue with the pilot as a permanent initiative or whether to reallocate resources to another initiative. Evidence from the research would also be considered to inform future justice initiatives. 23 CONCLUSION V. This provincial strategy for specialized courts establishes an evidence -based, integrated and strategic approach for current and future jointly governed specialized courts in Bri tish Columbia. The strategy was informed by lessons learned from current academic literature on specialized courts, the results of the final evaluation of Vancouver’s Downtown Community Court, assessments and learnings from other specialized court models, empirical data and consultations with stakeholders. The strategy charts a course for the future by setting out three strategic actions that focus on evaluation and monitoring, developing a community -led needs assessment and business case requirement for new court proposals, and establishing a governance structure designed to proactively manage the strategic decision-making for jointly governed specialized courts. To ensure clear and coordinated direction for the future of specialized courts in B.C., thi s strategy sets out a governance structure for strategic decision-making at the provincial level. This governance structure will facilitate decision-making about the establishment, development, monitoring and evaluation of specialized courts, and will be able to assist with the engagement of local organizations at the community -level. This strategy is a first step towards a more proactive and strategic process for the management of specialized court initiatives. It will evolve over time as evidence is gathered and our understanding of best practices develops in consultation with the judiciary and other interested parties. 24 Appendix A – An Overview of Specialized Court s and Judicial Initiatives in British Columbia The following overview provides a detailed description of the eleven specialized criminal courts and judicial initiatives currently operating in British Columbia. B.C.’s specialized courts and judicial initiatives reflect a great degree of variation, ranging from courts that require substantial resourcing, such as the Downtown Community Court, to courts that require very few additional resources, such as the domestic violence docket courts in the interior. Vancouver ’s Downtown Community Court (DCC) The DCC opened on September 10, 2008, in response to a recommendation made by the British Columbia Justice Review Task Force and its Street Crime Working Group. The DCC was implemented as a partnership between the provincial government, the Provincial Court of British Columbia and 14 other justice, health and social services agencies. The DCC was designed to take an innovative, problem-solving and more efficient approach to crime in the city’s core. The DCC integrates justice, health and social service agencies to deal with offen ders more quickly and effectively through a coordinated and informe d response. Staff from participating organizations, including health, income assistance, housing, and victim services are located together in a new courthouse, along with Crown counsel, de fence counsel, a police officer and probation officers. The DCC hears the following types of offences that occur within the court’s geographic jurisdiction where the accused does not elect to have a trial:  Provincial offences (e.g., driving while prohibited);  Criminal Code offences (in the absolute jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, summary conviction offences, and hybrid offences where Crown counsel chooses to proceed summarily), and drug possession offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; and  Offences that occur outside of the designated catchment area may proceed in the DCC for disposition at the request of the defence and where the Crown counsel consents when the accused has charges already being addressed at the DCC. The DCC deals with approximately 2,000 accused per year. This includes approximately 200 individuals with complex health and social challenges who are managed in a comprehensive and intensive manner. Cross-disciplinary , integrated case management teams work to create individualized plans for these offenders in order to address issues such as housing, emplo yment, financial assistance, mental health and substance use . The goals of the DCC are to: 1. Improve justice system efficiencies through the adoption of innovative case management practices; 25 2. Integrate justice, health and social services to hold offenders accountable while producing better outcomes for offenders by responding to their needs and circumstances ; and 3. Contribute to a livable community and afford new opportunities for community participation in the criminal justice system . Domestic Violence Courts There are three distinct Domestic Violence C ourt models in British Columbia. Domestic Violence Court — Duncan Established in 2009, the Domestic Violence Court in Duncan is a judge -led initiative that takes a collaborative and therapeutic approach to justice by bringing together various community services and government agencies. The primary objective of the court is to stop violence in relationships and keep families safe. All domestic violence offences, except the most serious offences, and Criminal Code section 81018 applications can be scheduled in this court. On average there are approximately 40 to 45 files scheduled for each court date (usually one day every two weeks).19 Representatives from various service providers attend court. There is no office space at the courthouse for service providers or community agencies to meet; however, the courtroom is opened early to provide time for service providers to meet with victims and accused persons. Community Corrections staff provide information about the offenders’ progress prior to court. Domestic Violence Court — Nanaimo The Domestic Violence Court in Nanaimo was established in 2013 through a collaborative effort of the Community Coordination for Domestic Safety (CCDS) Committee whose membership includes representatives from government agencies and community service provid ers. All domestic violence related offences for adult accused persons, except for murder offences , and Criminal Code section 810 applications can be scheduled in this court. On average there are approximately 50 to 60 files scheduled for each court date (usually one day every two weeks)20. Cases may be adjourned for longer periods of time to facilitate the engagement of victims and accused persons with service providers. The CCDS Committee has established six goals for the court: 1. To strongly promote the prevention and reduction of domestic v iolence within families and relationship settings. 2. To promote the collaboration of specialized resources in a Domestic Violence Court in order to improve safety and services for victims and offenders . 18 Criminal Code of Canada, Sec 810(1) An information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common -law partner or chi ld or will damage his or her property. 19 Framework for Domestic Violence Courts in British Columbia , p. 11 20 ibid, p. 12. 26 3. To improve the response of the criminal justice system to victim needs and safety planning through connections with community resources that promote timely and appropriate service delivery. 4. To offer therapeutic and culturally appropriate sentencing options to offenders thus encouraging the early acceptance of responsibility and improved accountability of offenders . 5. To support families which have experienced violence in their relationship but wish to remain intact. 6. To provide these responses in an integrated domestic viol ence courtroom setting which promotes timely and appropriate responses to individual domestic violence files. Domestic Violence Docket Courts — Kelowna and Penticton The Domestic Violence Docket Courts in the Interior are primarily designed to increase efficiency and case management of domestic violence cases that have a high level of trial uncertainty so that resources in other courts can be used for cases with high er trial certainty. A Provincial Court Practice Direction sets out the types of cases to be scheduled in the docket courts and provides specific case management and scheduling requirements. Generally, the cases scheduled in docket courts are limited to less serious domestic violence offences. Cases can only be scheduled in the docket courts for trials or continuation dates unless ordered otherwise by the court. Only one Crown witness is required for each case for the initial trial date, unless otherwise set by the court .21 Drug Treatment Court of Vancouver The Drug Treatment Court of Vancouver (DTCV) opened in December 2001, and was created in response to the well -documented need to address the deaths and other associated major health issues (such as HIV/AIDS), which were rampant in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, due to the illega l drug trade. The DTCV deals only with offenders who commit crime because of an addiction and choose to opt into the drug court’s treatment program and plead guilty. The overarching objective of the court is to enhance public safety and protect the publi c by reducing or eliminating future criminal offending and contact with the criminal justice system. The goals of the DTCV are to:  Have a participant achieve and maintain abstinence from illegal drugs;  Improve a participant’s physical, emotional and menta l health and well-being; and  Improve a participant’s housing, life skills, employment and education. Participants are under strict bail conditions, which include reporting to court on a regular basis, random urine testing to ensure compliance, as well as t aking part in a minimum 14-month intensive day treatment program through the Drug Court Treatment and Resource Centre (DCTRC) located outside of the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. This four -phase treatment program is offered Monday through Friday by an i ntegrated team of probation officers, addiction counsellors, physicians, health care workers, and an employment assistance worker. The DCTRC staff offer a broad range of services which 21 Information provided by Ministry of Justice branch staff in each of these court locations. 27 address the participants’ complex needs, including addictions treatment, health care, psychiatric care, housing, financial assistance, life skills training, education and leisure activities. After participating in the program for a minimum of 14 months and completing all four phases, a participant is eligible to graduate and receive a non-custodial sentence or the charge will be stayed if the participant has:  Abstained from consuming all intoxicants for the three months immediately preceding graduation;  Not been charged with a new offence in the six months immediately precedi ng graduation;  Been engaged in secure employment, training, or volunteering; and  Secured stable housing approved by the DTCV judge. First Nations Courts First Nations Courts have been developed in consultation with local First Nations, community members, police, Community Corrections, Crown counsel, defence lawyers, and other support service groups like the Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of British Columbia. The overarching goal of First Nations Courts is to take a holistic, culturally appropriate approach to First Nations offenders and find solutions to the problems underlying their criminal behaviour other than incarceration. The focus of these courts is holistic, recognizing the unique circumstances of First Nations offenders within the framework of existing laws. First Nations Courts provide support and healing to assist in offender rehabilitation and seek to acknowledge and repair the harm done to victims and the community. Local First Nations communities are encouraged to contribute to the proceedings. Elders, for example, often attend court sessions to represent the community. The First Nations Courts make decisions on bail hearings, sentencing hearings and child protection matters. To be eligible to have a case heard in First Nations Court, a person must:  Self-identify as an Aboriginal person;  Acknowledge the wrongdoing and p lead guilty to a criminal offence; and  Have available to the person the sentencing option of either a probation order (generally referred to as a healing plan) or a conditional sentence order. First Nations Courts currently operate in four B.C. communities:  New Westminster, since November, 2006;  North Vancouver (includes Whistler, Squamish and the North Shore), since February, 2012;  Kamloops, since March, 2013; and  Duncan, since May, 2013. 28 Victoria Integrated Court (VIC) In 2007, the Victoria Mayor's Task Force on Homelessness and Mental Illness released a report entitled Breaking the Cycle of Mental Illness, Addictions, and Homelessness . The Task Force found that chronically homeless people in Victoria were consuming an inordinate proportion of available social services and were often heavy users of emergency and acute healthcare services. These same people were also found to have frequent contact with the police and involvement in the justice system. As part of the response, the VIC was established in March , 2010 to offer a holistic approach to dealing with chronic offenders in Victoria. The VIC goals are: a. Increase public safety by decreasing recidivism for substantive offences and reducing harmful antisocial behaviour in the community; b. More effective sentencing through integrated case planning and intensive community supervision; c. Provide support for the community teams; and d. Decrease the inappropriate use of emergency services. The integrated approach of the VIC strives to bring together people and agencies at the community leve l in an effort to comprehensively address the complex problems that often contribute to or motivate criminal behaviour. The VIC takes a problem solving approach and integrates justice, health and social services to manage offenders who have a history of s ubstance abuse and/or mental disorder and unstable housing, and whose criminal activity has a significant impact on the community. The VIC deals with about 100 offenders per year believed to be responsible for a disproportionate amount of social disorder and nuisance behaviour in the city, and for high use of emergency services. The VIC does not conduct trials. Those who plead not guilty are tried in the regular court system. If the individual is found guilty, he or she can return to the VIC for supervis ion, a community-based sentence, or for any new charges that may occur. To be eligible for the VIC, an accused person must meet the following criteria:  Demonstrate a willingness to address - with community support, including intensive supervision - the underlying causes of their criminal activity;  Have a history of substance addiction and/or mental disorder and unstable housing; and  Be accepted as a client of an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team, or supported by another community service for an alternative plan of supervision in the community. Me mbers of Island Health's ACT teams and Community Living B.C.'s Community Response Teams, including community outreach workers, social workers, probation officers and police, meet regularly with the dedicated Crown counsel and defence counsel to discuss cases and plan support and supervision in the community. The VIC uses pre -court planning meetings to discuss the risks and needs of individuals and to develop recommendations regarding sentencing and struct ured plans for each 29 individual offender. Plans developed during the pre -court meetings are then presented in court, often in the form of a joint submission, and they typically inform the disposition. In proceedings before the judge, the court relies heavi ly on oral reports about the offender's progress in the community. Community teams, such as ACT, assist the VIC by being able to monitor clients in the community so that clients can serve a community -based sentence instead of incarceration. The court often hears from the team members who are actively working with the accused. Team members may provide the court with detailed and current information about the participant’s willingness to engage with the team, changes since the last appearance, concerns reg arding the individual’s health, or progress towards completion of community work service. The court also hears any recommendations from the team. The judge also invites the offender to speak and seeks to engage the offender by explaining the court’s ulti mate decision and expectations. 30 Initiative Location Governance Funding Clientele Description Research/Evaluation Downtown Community Court (DCC) (September, 2008) Downtown Vancouver An Executive Board was established to provide strategic project oversight and direction in support of the DCC evaluation until the conclusion of the pilot phase. The Board provides strategic direction and key decision- making for the DCC on matters related to the evaluation, changes to the DCC model, budget, project schedule, procurement and communications The assignment of the judge to hear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. The DCC required substantial resources, and is funded with a budget allocation. The DCC’s 2015 budget is $2.4 million. Partner agencies’ investment in the DCC is estimated at $2.6 million annually. Ministry capital investment to renovate the Downtown Community Court building was $6.2 million. All offenders who comm it the following offences within the court’s geographic jurisdiction, and who do not elect the right to trial: 1) Provincial offences (e.g., driving while prohibited) 2) Criminal Code offences (in the absolute jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, summary convi ction offences and hybrid offences where Crown counsel chooses to proceed summarily) 3) Drug possession offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Catchment area is West of Clark Drive (including Stanley Park) with Great Northern Way and Coal Harbour serving as the southern and northern boundaries. Offenders must plead The DCC co -locates and integrates justice, health and social services. A number of unique features are integral to the DCC model. These include: the services of an in-house defence lawyer available to all out-of-custody accused, in addition to a DCC roster of duty counsel; pre -court triage of cases to inform Crown and defence counsel in order to facilitate early case resolution and prepare for court; and inter-agency teams to manage offenders with multifaceted problems in a planned and integrated manner. The DCC provides an integrated service delivery model. Located in the courthouse are: A Provincial Court judge, Crown counsel, defence counsel, Vancouver police officers, sheriffs, court clerks, probation officers, forensic liaison workers, an occupational therapist, a licensed practical nurse, nurses, social workers, employment assistance workers, victim services workers, B .C. Housing support workers and Native Courtworkers. A forensic psychiatrist is also available to offenders in the community court The evaluation of the DCC in Vancouver focused on three key areas – recidivism, efficiency and community engagement. As part of the evaluation, a research team examined the effectiveness of the DCC in reducing recidivism of the high- need offending group managed by the integrated Case Management Team (CMT). Through the use of a quasi - experimental design, the outcomes for 250 individuals sentenced in the DCC and triaged to the CMT to be managed in the community in an integrated manner were compared to a ma tched group of 250 offenders from the neighbouring Vancouver Provincial Court (VPC). The study examined the number of offences in the pre-period compared with the number of offences in the post-period. The evaluation found that CMT-managed offenders had a mean reduction of 2.30 offences per person (from 3.7 offences committed in the preceding year) versus 1.35 per person in the comparison group. Overall, individuals managed by the CMT exhibited significantly greater reduction in reoffending compared to the matched comparison group. Reductions in offending were primarily associated with property offences and breach offences. Although the results of the recidivism study appear to be promising, questions regarding what elements of the CMT approach produced improved recidivism results remain to be further explored. 31 Initiative Location Governance Funding Clientele Description Research/Evaluation guilty http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/ju stice/courthouse-services/vancouver- downtown -community- court/evaluating-the-court Domestic Violence Court (January, 2013) Nanaimo The assignment of the judge to hear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. There is no designated judge; however judges who sit in the court are aware of the goals and objectives of the initiative. Domestic Violence Cases Therapeutic Component Crown counsel maintains file ownership of the majority of the domestic violence files from charge assessment to f ile conclusion Representatives from government and community organizations attend to provide assistance to the court and the parties Cases are scheduled one day every two weeks. No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. Domes tic Violence Court (2009) Duncan The assignment of the judge to hear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. Domestic Violence Cases Therapeutic Component There is an assigned Judge who sits in this court. Crown counsel maintains file ownership of the majority of the domestic violence files from charge assessment to arraignment. Representatives from government and community organizations attend to provide assistance to the court and the parties Bail hearings and trials are not usually scheduled in this court. Cases are scheduled one day every two week s. No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. Domestic Violence Court (Docket Court) Kelowna The Chief Judge exercises oversight by Practice Directive and is Domestic Violence Cases Focus on trial b acklog by addressing trial certainty. Committed Courtroom on specific days each month. No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. 32 Initiative Location Governance Funding Clientele Description Research/Evaluation (2013) overseen by the Regional Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge generally sits in the docket court. Efforts are made to have continuity in the Crown counsel assigned to the docket court. Cases are scheduled one day per month . Domestic Violence Court (Docket Court) (2013) Kamloops This court was established in 2013 by a practice directive from the Office of the Chief Ju dge. It was discontinued in April 2015. Domestic Violence Cases Focus on Trial Backlog by addressing trial certainty. Efforts are made to have continuity in the Crown counsel assigned to the docket court. Crown counsel assess whether the case should be dealt with in the court. Cases are scheduled one day per month . No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. Domestic Violence Court (Docket Court) (2013) Penticton The Chief Judge exercises oversight by Practice Directive and is overseen by the Regional Administrative Judge. Domestic Violence Cases Focus on Trial Backlog by addressing trial certainty. Committed Courtroom on specific days each month. Efforts are made to have continuity in the Crown counsel assigned to the docket court. Cases are scheduled one day per month . No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. Drug Treatment Court (December, 2001) Vancouver The assignment of the judge to hear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. Non -violent offenders whose offen ces are motivated by addiction and committed in Vancouver. Offenders must plead guilty and opt into the drug treatment program. Offenders cannot be Participants must comply with obligations of the court, including participating in court-monitored drug treatment. Sentencing is deferred to allow for completion of treatment. Offender progress is monitored by the court through regular court appearances. Designated court staff include a designated judge, Crown counsel, defence counsel and court clerks. Treatment staff include a Program Director, Case An evaluation conducted in 2012 examined changes in recidivism of 180 participants in Vancouver’s DTC (DTCV) and a matched comparison group that received the traditional sentencing outcomes in the co -located Provincial court. The evaluation found that participants in the DTCV exhibited significantly greater reductions in offending than the comparison group. The DTCV cohort exhibited an averag e reduction of 0.95 offences per person per year, including a reduction in drug 33 Initiative Location Governance Funding Clientele Description Research/Evaluation an associate or member of a gang or criminal organization. Managers, Clinic Manager, Therapists, Physician, Psychologists, Support Workers and Administrative Assistants. Treatment staff are housed in a stand- alone, dedicated treatment centre located downtown. The court sits every Tuesday and Thursday. related offences of 0.42 per person per year. The report also found that while the matched comparison group exhibited no significant reduction in drug -related offending, the n umber of DTCV participants who were sentenced for drug -related charges decreased by over 50% in the two years following their involvement in the program http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrc s/pblctns/drgtrtmnt-vncvr/index- eng.aspx First Nations Court (November, 2006) New Westminster First Nations Court Users group meets regularly. Chaired by Judge Buller. Participants include Elders, Legal Services Society, Judges, Gladue writers, victim services, and social workers. The assignment of the judge to hear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. Elders receive an honorarium. People who identify as Aboriginal and p lead guilty to a criminal offence. Crown counsel must consent to a case from another court location to be dealt with in the First Nations Court. Court uses healing plans in sentencing. Anyone in the courtroom may speak during the sentencing. The court has designated staff and there are elders present during court. A sheriff is not present. Sentencing takes place after a Pre - sentencing Report or Gladue report is prepared. Often people from victim services and drug and alcohol counsellors attend to give information on available resources. There are frequent reviews to monitor offender progress. The court sits one day per month usually the 3rd or 4th Thursday of the month. No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. First Nations Court (March , 2013) Kamloops First Nations Court Users Meeting s are held regularly. The court also has an Aboriginal Justice Council that Elders receive an honorarium. People who identify as Aboriginal and plead guilty to a criminal offence. The court aims to be more rehabilitative. Its objective is to reduce recidivism by addressing the underlying factors that lead people to commit crime. The court encourages offender No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. 34 Initiative Location Governance Funding Clientele Description Research/Evaluation meets quarterly. The Council is made up of police, defence, probation, corrections, Band representatives, Social Workers, White Buffalo representatives (tre atment and support). The Counci l selects and trains Elders selected for the court. The assignment of the judge to hear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. involvement in the healing plan. Elders also assist in the development of the healing plans. Focuses on making sure everyone involved in the outcome has a chance to be heard, including: the offender, Aboriginal Community Justice Council members; family or supports; members of the community; the victim; the victim's family and/or supports; and others such as social workers, drug and alcohol counsellors, court workers, social workers, probation officers, and police officers. Court users have created a Community Resource Manual, which lists available treatment programs. The court sits once a month. Usually the first Friday. Fi rst Nations Court (May 2013) Duncan An Elders Advisory Panel, comprised of individuals that are trained in the court system and also have knowledge of traditions and cultural practices, has been established The assignment of the judge to h ear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. Elders receive an honorarium. People who identify as Aboriginal and plead guilty to a criminal offence. Court uses healing plans in sentencing. The cases dealt with in the court are limited to those that are likely to result in community based sentences. Crown counsel assess whether the case should be dealt with in the court. Sentencing circle process. The court invites anyone to speak to the offender’s progress. Participants include: A Native Court Worker, Crown counsel, duty counsel, offender, supports (e.g., family), community service workers, the Judge and a court clerk. Victims and members of the community can also participate. There is no sheriff present. No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. 35 Initiative Location Governance Funding Clientele Description Research/Evaluation The court has a 12 member Elder panel. Three to four Elders sit at a time and are scheduled in advance. Elders receive a small honorarium for their service. The court has held two training sessions and plan to offer training the future. Catchment area includes the Malahat to Cedar, Salt Spring Island, and Penelakut (formerly Kuper) Island. However, files can be from other locations if there is a connection to the community. The court sits once a month. First Nations Court (Feb ruary, 2012) North Vancouver Judicial initiative. The assignment of the judge to hear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. No additional resources required. People who identify as Aboriginal and plead guilty to a criminal offence. Goal is to deal with sentencing matters involving First Nations peoples in a more culturally sensitive way. Service providers often attend but not on a regular basis. Native Court worker attends regularly. Elders do not actively participate or attend regularly. A sheriff is present. The court process invites anyone to speak to the offender’s healing plan or progress during a review hearing. Catchment area is the North Shore or th e Sea to Sky corridor up to and including Whistler, and other cases can be waived in at the discretion of the judge, if there is a connection to the community. The court is scheduled to sit once a month but if the court list isn’t finished an additional day may be scheduled when available. No formal research or evaluation has been done on this initiative. 36 Initiative Location Governance Funding Clientele Description Research/Evaluation Victoria Integrated Court (March, 2010) Victoria The Working Group consists of the presiding Judge and Judicial Justice, Crown counsel and defence counsel, the Native court worker and members of the ACT teams and CLBC’s Community Response Team. The assignment of the judge to hear these cases is under the authority of the Chief Judge. The VIC operates on e xisting resources. The VIC does not have in-house services and the teams are not located onsite, but instead convene by agreement once per week at the Victoria Courthouse. The offender must demonstrate a willingness to address the underlying causes of th eir criminal activity with community support, including intensive supervision; have a history of substance addiction and/or mental disorder and unstable housing; and be a client of an ACT team, or supported by another community service for an alternative plan of supervision in the community. Consistent time and location for the court hearings and consistent judiciary and Crown counsel. This consistency is meant to allow the judge and Crown counsel to become familiar with offenders and their circumstances as well as the operation and processes of the VIC program. Other k ey features include calling of the court list by a Judicial Justice, pre -court planning meetings with a multidisciplinary team, court hearings that involve mostly oral reports about the offender’s progress in the community and frequent case reviews. The VIC is a result of integrating the services available through existing resources; no new funding was provided. The local business community provided furnishings for a room to be used by th e team members and counsel to plan for court sessions. The VIC sits every Tuesday Morning. Three reports have been completed regarding the VIC’s operations and progress, one by the Community Liais on Committee (led by the local judiciary), one from a priva te consultant (R.A. Malatest and Associates) and one in consultation with the University of Victoria, The Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Chief Judge. Overall, the reports speak positively of the VIC. To date, reports have been qualitative. An outcome evaluation of the VIC has not been completed. 37 Appendix B – Summary of External Consultation Feedback Specialized courts rely on the dedication and expertise of provincial court judges, court staff and numerous other justice, health and social services professionals. In order to ensure these voices were heard in the development of the Specialized Court s Strategy, staff at the Ministry of Justice facilitated two face -to-face consultations in Vancouver and Victoria. In preparation for the sessions, discussion questions and a background paper were provided to participants in advance of the meeting. The purpose of the paper was to provide an overview of the key issues and considerations shaping the development of the pro vincial Specialized Courts Strategy. Who We Heard From The consultation process generated a wide range of comments and feedback from the representatives of Aboriginal organizations, academics, community partners and other health and social service agencies. Both meetings followed the same agenda, although the Victoria session was more heavily attended by representatives of the public service sector and academia while the Vancouver session was more heavily weighted towards non -profit organizations and the legal community. Input from both meetings is combined into this report. A full list of consultation participants can be found at the end of this summary. What We Heard During the two half day consultation meetings, we heard a number of differe nt viewpoints and opinions on specialized courts in B.C. Overall , there emerged a consensus around a number of key themes which continued to be reinforced throughout the discussion, including:  Specialized Courts can offer benefits over traditional courts because of the holistic, integrated and problem-solving nature of these courts;  Not enough is currently being done to evaluate and monitor specialized courts and this can lead to unintended consequences such as a focus on the offender at the expense of victims;  It is difficult to evaluate specialized courts, due to a number of limitations including limited agreement on how success is defined and the availability of data;  The importance of community participation and consultation cannot be overstated;  Specialized courts cannot be effective without community resources and services;  The i mportance of setting shared objectives at the outset after defining the problem to be addressed by the initiative was reinforced;  Local leadership and engagement is important;  Information sharing protocols are essential;  There is a lack of coordination between justice system partners; and  There is a need to better establish shared objectives/goals for specialized courts early during the development phase and to adjust these periodically as necessary. 38 Summary Report A summary report was provided to particip ants, along with an invitation to provide any additional written input. Participant List Abbotsford Community Services Battered Women's Support Services Canadian Bar Association – British Columbia Branch Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Legal Services Society Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Ministry of Children and Family Development Ministry of Health Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation MOSAIC, Men in Change – Relationship Violence Prevention Program Native Court Worker and Counselling Association of B .C. Public Prosecution Service of Canada RCMP - Surrey Detachment Secwepemc Community Justice Program Simon Fraser University – School of Criminology Simon Fraser University – School of Health Sciences Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. University of the Fraser Valley International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy University of Victoria, Faculty of Law Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Vancouver Police Department Victoria Police Department Watari Counselling and Support Services Society Women Against Violence Against Women YWCA Vancouver City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 17, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-299-AL FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council SUBJECT: Addendum Report Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve 12176 237th Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At their October 11, 2016 Council meeting, Council considered and deferred Application 2016-299- AL to exclude the 1.12 hectare (2.8 acres) parcel from the Agricultural Land Reserve, under Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It was understood that Council wished to have an accompanying development proposal in support of the application. The exclusion application occurred concurrently with exclusion application 2016-298-AL, for the subject property at 12102 237th Street, which was forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission on October 11, 2016. The Commission had previously recommended excluding this parcel, and this recommendation formed the basis of Council’s decision to forward the application. It is assumed that this application will be successful, based on the Commission’s recommendation. Should Council forward Application 2016-299-AL, and if the Commission agrees to its exclusion, the applicant will have a contiguous block of 3 properties, including 12102 and 12146 237th Street. The parcel at 12146 237th Street was previously excluded under application AL/045/04. This report includes the applicant’s response to Council’s request. The original report is attached as Appendix A. RECOMMENDATION: The following resolutions are provided for Council’s consideration: i.That the application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission; ii.That the application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council’s comments and the staff report. 801 - 2 - DISCUSSION: Applicant: Paul Hayes Owner: R C B Enterprises Limited Legal Description: Lot: 2, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP72342 OCP : Existing: AGR (Agricultural) Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Surrounding Uses North: Use: Rural Residential Zone: A-2 Upland Agriculture Designation Agriculture South: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Designation: Agricultural East: Use: 3 properties, urban residential Zone: RS-1b One Family Urban Medium Density Residential Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: Townhouse Residential Zone: RM-1 Townhouse Residential Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: vacant Proposed Use of Property: not explicitly stated Site Area: 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) Access: 237th Street Servicing: On-site sewer and water a) Project Description: This application is to exclude the subject property from the Agricultural Land Reserve. In response to Council’s request for more development details, the applicant provides the following: The owner does not have an explicit development plan as two of the three properties are presently within the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, the intention of the owner (if and when ALR exclusion occurs) is to consolidate the three properties at 12102, 12146, and 12176 237th Street and present a proposal for residential development that will meet the Planning Department’s recommendations and expectations that will fit with the neighbouring urban residential lands and the ALR lands to the north, and also that may be supportable by the Maple Ridge City Council. Thank you for your consideration. Paul Hayes - 3 - CONCLUSION: This report has provided, for Council’s consideration, a response to their request for more information about the development intentions for the subject property should this application for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve be successful. The recomm endations provided in this report are consistent with Council direction for processing exclusion applications. “Original signed by Diana Hall“ _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA, (Planning), MCIP Planner 2 “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Report dated October 3, 2016, and titled, Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, 12176 237th Street City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 3, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-299-AL FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve 12176 237 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received under Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to exclude approximately 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The applicant’s submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission. The applicant has not provided an explicit development plan with this proposal, but indicates an intent to assemble the subject property with the 2 parcels to its south (12146 and 12102 237th Street), as attached to this report (Appendix C) This property is designated Agricultural in the Official Community Plan and in the Regional Growth Strategy of Metro Vancouver. Redevelopment of this property for urban uses would be contrary to these long range plans and would require approval from municipal, regional, and provincial agencies. On this basis, this application could be considered not supportable. The recommendation of this report has been provided in accordance with Council direction for applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, other options for Council’s consideration are presented in the Alternatives section of this report. RECOMMENDATION: In accordance with Council direction for applications for exclusions from the Agricultural Land Reserve, the following resolutions are provided for Council’s consideration: a)That the application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission; b)That the application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council’s comments and the staff report. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Paul Hayes Owner: R C B Enterprises Limited Legal Description: Lot: 2, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP72342 APPENDIX A - 2 - OCP : Existing: AGR (Agricultural) Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Surrounding Uses North: Use: Rural Residential Zone: A-2 Upland Agriculture Designation Agriculture South: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Designation: Agricultural East: Use: 3 properties, urban residential Zone: RS-1b One Family Urban Medium Density Residential Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: Townhouse Residential Zone: RM-1 Townhouse Residential Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: vacant Proposed Use of Property: not explicitly stated Site Area: 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) Access: 237th Street Servicing: On-site sewer and water b) Project Description: This application is to exclude the subject property from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The applicant does not have a stated land use plan for the site, but indicates a desire to assemble this property with the 2 parcels to its south ( 12146 and 12102 237th Street) for redevelopment, likely to an urban standard. Of these 3 properties, this most northern parcel, if excluded, would require an amendment to Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy prior to redevelopment to an urban standard. The other two parcels are currently designated urban in this regional plan, and therefore, urban development would be possible south of the subject property, without first requiring regional approvals. The parcel at 12102 237th is concurrently being proposed for exclusion under application 2016-298-AL. The Agricultural Land Commission indicated support for its removal from the ALR under Commission Resolution # 2635/2011. The property at 12146 237th Street was previously excluded under Application AL/045/04. A number of letters have been received in opposition to this application, due to a concern over the loss of farmland. These letters will be circulated to the Commission, should this application be supported. c) Planning Analysis: On July 19, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council outlining legal implications and the local government’s role in processing applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve. Council resolved to consider the following options for referring applications to the Agricultural Land Commission: - 3 -  The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with no comment.  The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with comments.  The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a recommendation to exclude the property with or without comments.  The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a recommendation to not exclude the property with or without comments.  The application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission. The process for decision making on applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Res erve was further refined by Council at their February 14, 2005 Workshop. At that time, Council resolved that the process for referring applications for exclusion to the Agricultural Land Commission include the following options: a) That the application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission; b) That the application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council’s comments and the staff report. The above resolution forms the recommendations presented in this staff report. To assist Council in the decision of allowing this application to proceed further, this development proposal will be reviewed in light of the policies of the Official Community Plan and the Agricultural Plan. OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN The Official Community Plan, adopted by Council on November 14, 2006, provides a policy context that has relevance to this application, and the agricultural future of the subject property. The following outlines some of the relevant sections from the Official Community Plan. Official Community Plan Agricultural Policies The Maple Ridge Official Community Plan emphasizes the value of agriculture in contributing to the local economy and to the rural character of the community. It is noted that Maple Ridge agriculture faces considerable challenges, but there is consistent community support for local farming. Policy 6-12 of the Official Community Plan states: Maple Ridge will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by: a) Adopting a guiding principal of “positive benefit to agriculture” when making land use decisions that could affect the agricultural land base, with favourable recognition of initiatives including but not limited to supportive non-farm uses, infrastructure improvements for farmland, or the inclusion of land elsewhere in the Agricultural Land Reserve: b) requiring agricultural impact assessments (AIAs) and Groundwater Impact Assessment of non-farm development and infrastructure projects and identifying measures to off-set impacts on agricultural capability; - 4 - c) preserving larger farm units and areas by using appropriate buffers such as roads, topographic features, watercourses, ditching, fencing, or gradually reduced residential densities on properties adjacent to agricultural land; d) discouraging the subdivision of agricultural land into smaller parcels, except where positive benefits to agriculture can be demonstrated; e) reinforcing the concept that the Agricultural Land Reserve is intended for agricultural use by increasing the minimum lot size for ALR properties that are zoned Rural Residential; f) encouraging the amalgamation of smaller parcels of farmland into larger, more cohesive parcels. Section 6.2 of the Official Community Plan, which pertains to Agricultural opportunities. states that the value of agriculture is consistently recognized and supported within the community, as follows: Agricultural land is a key component of the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy and provides many benefits of local and regional significance. As an economic generator it contributes to a more complete community. Official Community Plan - Growth Management Policies Section 2.1 of the Official Community Plan states that in Maple Ridge th e majority of the growth in population, jobs and housing will be accommodated within the Urban Area Boundary where services are readily available or infrastructure is already in place. The subject property forms the legal boundary of the Agricultural Land Reserve at this location. The Official Community Plan emphasized that adjustments to the Urban Area Boundary, if required, must follow a specified process. Although additional adjustments may occur in the future, this process was generally concluded, thereby clarifying the location of the Urban Area Boundary, through the completion of the Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan in 2009 and the adoption of the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy in 2011. The 2 parcels to the south of the subject property have either been excluded (12146 237th Street) from the Agricultural Land Reserve, or identified as appropriate for this purpose (12102 237th Street) by the Commission. They have both been designated urban in the Regional Growth Strategy, demonstrating the extent of cooperation between the agencies involved. For these reasons, the exclusion and redesignation of these adjacent properties is supportable. However, urban development of the subject property is not supportable. AGRICULTURAL PLAN The Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan, adopted by Council on December 15, 2009, provided additional direction for advancing agricultural opportunities in Maple Ridge. Although adopted, specific actions related to the implementation of the Plan are currently being prioritized by Council. Pertinent excerpts of the Plan are included below. Issue 1 in the Agricultural Plan notes the difficulty faced by farmers in gaining access to underutilized agricultural land. Specific issues included the following: • Absentee landlords • Agricultural land held in idle state • Landless operators unable to find land to farm • High land cost restricts access. - 5 - The Plan indicates that an appropriate means to address these issues would be to encourage non- farming land owners to make idle land available to farmers or to start farming it themselves. The Plan notes the need to re-emphasize the role of agriculture in the Agricultural Land Reserve and to remove some of the perception that the Agricultural Land Reserve is a land reserve for eventual non - agricultural development in Maple Ridge. Issue 5 of the Agricultural Plan discusses the loss of the agricultural land base and notes the following specific issues: • Many small parcels • High level of rural residential incursion into Agricultural Land Reserve • Non-farmed areas of the Agricultural Land Reserve tend to be smaller parcels • Limited availability of irrigation water • Continued conversion pressure from the District of Maple Ridge’s urban growth • Financial pressure on farming The Agricultural Plan recognizes that there may be situations in the future where exclusions may be required to meet community needs, for example employment generating lands. In instances where land conversion is unavoidable, levies or other means be established by the City in order to compensate for the loss of agricultural land. Goal 6 of the Plan discusses the issue of the conversion of agricultural land as follows: The primary goal with respect to larger established farming operations in Maple Ridge is to plan for their retention as farms, rather than watch them languish and deteriorate, so that the community can optimize the rewards and advantages of having agriculture in its midst. Limited to highly specific situations, the secondary goal (if the primary goal is not feasible) is to explore establishing a policy of compensation from development that enables funds to be generated and expended so that the net agricultural capability of the District is enhanced by investment elsewhere. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Agricultural Land Commission The Commission has established guidelines for local governments regarding the timing of application processing. These guidelines are provided by the Commission in their document, the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision And Procedure Regulation. The local government is normally required to address the application within 60 days of its receipt under Section 21.1 of this Regulation, but has an option to hold a public meeting which would extend the application processing time to 90 days. Metro Vancouver The subject property is designated for Agricultural use in the Official Community Plan. If the property was excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve, its Agricultural designation would remain in the Official Community Plan. Any change in permitted uses would require an amendment to the Official Community Plan, which in turn would require the approval of Metro Vancouver to amend the Regional Growth Strategy. This type of amendment would be considered by Metro Vancouver to be a Type 2 Minor Amendment. The bylaw amendment process would include a regional public hearing and a two-thirds weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board. In this instance, the municipal government would apply for the amendment to Metro Vancouver. - 6 - d) Alternatives: The report recommendations follow Council direction as noted earlier in this report. The property has not been identified for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, and is not considered available for urban development in the Regional Growth Strategy. On this basis, this application could be considered not supportable. CONCLUSION: This application for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve has been considered in the context of the policies of the Official Community Plan, and the Agricultural Plan. On review of this context, this application is found to be not supportable. However, the report recommendation has been prepared in accordance with previous Council direction for applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve. “Original signed by Diana Hall” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA (Planning), MCIP Planner II “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, MCP, MCIP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by Frank Quinn” for _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Photo Appendix C – Development Sketch prepared by Applicant. DATE: Sep 26, 2016 FILE: 2016-299-AL BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT AL/045/04 (EXCLUDED) 2016-009-RZ (41 UNIT RM-1 PROPOSAL) 2016-298-AL (IN PROGRESS) SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 12176 237 STREET Legend Stream Ditch Centreline ALR City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Aug 9, 2016 FILE: 2016-299-AL BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:3,784 12176 237 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7283-2016 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 _______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016." 2.Appendix D. TEMPORARY USE PERMITS, Section TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AREA is amended by deleting Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area Location No.2 in its entirety and renumbering subsequent locations accordingly. 3.Appendix D. TEMPORARY USE PERMITS, Section TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AREA is amended by the addition of the following, in sequential numeric order: Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area Location No. 4 Purpose: To permit a temporary taxi dispatch office and taxi parking located at 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road. Location: Those parcels or tracts of land shown on Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area No. 5 map, and known and described as: Lot 4 Except: Westerly 81.1 feet; District Lot 401 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 7863 is hereby designated to permit a temporary commercial use for a taxi dispatch office, for the lesser of a three-year maximum period or in the event of an offence to any City bylaw. The time period becomes effective upon adoption of this bylaw. 4. Appendix D. TEMPORARY USE PERMITS, Section TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AREA is amended by the addition of the attached Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area Location No. 4 map, in sequential numeric order. 1001 5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.7060-2014 as amended, is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 20th day of September, 2016. READ a second time the 6th day of December, 2016. PUBLIC HEARING held the 17th day of January, 2017. READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 . ___________________________________ _____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7292-2016 A Bylaw to amend the text 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 City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7292-2016." 2.That PART 2 INTERPRETATION be amended with the addition of the following definition after MEDICAL MARIHUANA, COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION: MICROBREWERY, WINERY AND DISTILLERY means premises on which beer, ale, cider, wine or sprits are manufactured using traditional methods, often in small or seasonal batches. This use includes accessory retail display and sales as well as sampling and lounge spaces, provided that the combined floor area allocated to such accessory uses does not exceed the manufactur ing floor area. 3.That PART 7 – COMMERCIAL ZONES be amended by the addition of the following commercial zone following H-1 HERITAGE COMMERCIAL: 714 HAMMOND VILLAGE COMMERCIAL H-2 1)PURPOSE 1. This zone is intended for mixed-use development within Hammond’s historic commercial area and is specific to sites designated Hammond Village Commercial in the Hammond Area Plan. 2)PRINCIPAL USES 1.The following principal use and no other shall be permitted in this zone: (a)apartment (see Section 10, OTHER REGULATIONS in this zone); (b)assembly; (c)convenience store; (d)financial services; (e)indoor commercial recreation; (f)liquor primary establishment; (g)licensee retail store; (h)microbrewery, winery and distillery; (i)personal services; (j)personal repair services;1002 (k)professional services; (l)restaurants; (m)retail sales; (n)off-street parking, permitted on those parcels included on attached Schedule “J” Hammond Commercial and Off-Street Parking; (o)vehicle and equipment repair services, permitted on the following parcel: 20657 Lorne Avenue Lot 697 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 3)ACCESSORY USES 1.The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted principal use in this zone: (a) boarding, accessory to an apartment use; (b) home occupation, accessory to an apartment use; (c) outdoor display or sales area. 4)LOT AREA & DIMENSIONS 1.Minimum lot area and dimensions shall not be less than: (a) net lot area;191.0 square metres (b) lot width;6.0 metres (c) lot depth.27.0 metres 5)LOT COVERAGE 1.The lot coverage of all buildings and structures shall not exceed 90%. 6)SETBACKS 1.No building or structure shall be sited less than: (a) from a front lot line;0 metres (b) from a rear lot line;1.5 metres (c) from an interior lot line; 0 metres (d) from an exterior lot line. 4.5 metres 7)HEIGHT 1.No building or structure shall be less than 11 metres. 2.No building or structure shall be greater than 15 metres. 3. Notwithstanding clauses 1 and 2, the following height restrictions on properties identified on Schedule ‘J’ Hammond Commercial and Off-Street Parking shall be as follows: (a) No building or structure shall be less than 3.6 metres; (b) No building or structure shall be greater than 11 metres. 8) PARKING & LOADING 1. Off-street parking and off-street loading shall be sited to the rear of the building, inside a building or structure, or underground; 2. Off-street parking and off-street loading shall be provided in accordance with Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, as amended. 9) OTHER REGULATIONS 1. For properties identified on attached Schedule “K”, Hammond Ground Floor Commercial Required, an apartment use shall be limited exclusively to storeys above the first storey of a building. 2. An apartment use: (a) shall provide a minimum of 5% of the lot area as useable open space which may be provided in balconies, terraces, patios, rear yards, courtyards or roof decks. (b) shall provide a balcony for all dwelling units which are not ground-oriented and shall be a minimum of 5% of the dwelling unit size or 4.6 square metres per dwelling unit, whichever is greater; (c) shall have a separate public entrance from the ground floor front elevation if located in a building or structure with other uses except that on a corner lot access may be from the ground floor exterior side elevation; (d) shall be permitted only if the site is serviced to the standard set out in Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw. 3. All persons carrying out a permitted use shall conduct the business or undertaking within a completely enclosed building except for accessory outdoor display, seating, or sales area and off-street parking and loading. 4. A home occupation use shall comply with the regulations of Section 402 (4). 4. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 795 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 Lot 797 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 PID 007-226-551 Lot 793 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 Lot A District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 10059 Lot B District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 10059 Lot 789 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 Lot 790 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 Lot A District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 12703 Lot B District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 12703 Lot 1110 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 52216 PID 003-435-181 Lot 697 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 Lot 726 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 and shown on Map No. 1698 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to H-2 (Hammond Village Commercial). 5. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 695 District Lot 278 New Westminster District Plan 114 and shown on Map No. 1698 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to P-4 (Church Institutional). 6. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 29th day of November, 2016. READ a second time the 29th day of November, 2016. PUBLIC HEARING held the 17th day of January, 2017. READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 206 ST.CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYM APLE C R. LORNE AVE. M ELVILLE ST. LORNE AVE.206 ST.BATTLE AVE. 114 AVE.114 AVE.207 ST.113 AVE.WARESELY ST.205 ST.DARTFORD ST.207 ST.MAPLE CR. 113 AVE.DARTFORD ST.205742068511381 2072011318205912074720618/201129511312 207042064511415 20575205122073920523207101127120582 2068320603/112063120631205822074211315 /88 20606/12206242052011405 2054020660/6411391 20732205362058211280 11428 20575206832065711236 11304 113101132820614 20540206752065820574205312072120621/232070511314 206802053011240205832055611266 2062411288 207201127320583 11240 206682056520617/251132920656 11260 1128120586/90206061131520478 11267206572064111386 11252 2073311410 11233/9 11232 112642060720561206062045711317 2065611230 20427 11391 2061720622206142060011395 11243/5 2073311278 2058111339 2073411277 112891134820561 2060511295 11261 1124920541 11239 1125320591 11246205311132920515206232053120675 2064320674/84206651123520615 207332052411414 2058020673205652055420711207322063620623205831133811407 11339 2051211334 2074820665206062054011230 /70 2062220557206652061611202 1131220670 206232064111296 112722063111224 1130220464 1120820541 206602063111384 11365 11417 2061511258 20433 11352 11376 2067511291/93 11250 11406 20564205232050720627/3911226 11311 20661205912073820676B A 1 Rem 2 1 B 746 A 741 S 1/2 780 623 743 2 690 710 2 Rem 790 672 7901 B 619 S 1/2 2 669 629 733 730 1 314 B 2 847 E 1/2 78912 627 A 727 748 1122 2 1 A 705 616 * 762 * * 749 1110 2 702 3 646 700638 696 761 697 Rem 639 632 1186 781 17 C A N A D IA N P A C IF IC R A IL W A Y N 1/2 5 615 B 645 686 640 A 1 667 688 3 4 Rem 1 620 626 711 633 763 & 766 642 693 752 1 726 117 673 692 5 625 574 5 687 698 728 767 621 753 2 B 671 755 S 1/2 636 Rem N 90' 675 644 756 315 846 631 A/24 1115 738 795 * 10 618 719 635 745 643 634 1 720 648 722 14 * * Rem 313 9 742 630 617 715 1114 666 759 3 6 647 691 674 751 628 4 716 2 774 & 775 1 734 786 & 787 1 713699 1 C A S 30' 778 8 3 725 A 5 1123 764 & 765 1113 637 Pcl. A 736 721 758 N 1/2 624 B 797 2 695 612 729 724 768 & 769 714 770 of Rem 754 13 Rem * 737 E 21' S 1/2 * 701 S 1/2 668 771 180 Rem 1 1043 N 1/2 689 723739 763 & 766 PARK 694670 6 179 Pcl. B * A 6 575 1 12 1042 * A 3 622 S 1/2 651 641 * 764 712 * 765 P 8262 P 10601 1419 LMP 469 *PP044 P 9549LMP 1131 P 114 P 10818 *PP044 EPP 35 548 LMP 12217 RP 64119 P 60497 *PP044 P 10601 P 2180 P 114 P 10601 P 114P 55777SK 3398EPP 37013 P 4008P 3034A P 114 P 23319 P 114 P 41103LMP 1857 P 12703 P 48437P 12165P 70943 P 114 *LMP 16828 P 114 RP 7316P 114P 11457 P 55931 SK 2405P 8318P 11457 *P P044 P 114 RP 5103P 2180 LMS P 23319P 2180 *PP044 SK 492 BCP 7202 P 64192 RP 84831 EP 4672 P 2180 P 43556P 10601 P 80557 P 8654 P 114 P 2180 P 10818 P 60497P 10059 P 6366SK 1840 P 51275EPP 36837 P 74209 P 114 *PP044*PP044 LMS 629 SK. 1503 P 114 P 60497 P 52216 P 114P 20107S K . 1 5 0 3 *PP044 *PP044 P 114 P 2180 P 9549 P 908P 36414RW 51276 RP 76645 RW 60498 RW 71976 RW 60222 RW 88025 EPP 35547 RW 70942 LMP 49167EP 26083RW 71990 P 51277EPP 36841 RW 52217 RW 71974 RW 52217 EP 47222RW 65007 EPP 23405RW 72041 E P 7 2 9 5 3 ´ SCALE 1:3,000 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) H-2 (Hammond Village Commercial)P-4 (Place of Worship Institutional) 7292-20161698 Schedule "J" DATE: Oct 27, 2016 BY: DT PLANNING DEPARTMENT206 ST.CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYLORNE AVE. BATTLE AVE.207 ST.113 AVE.DARTFORD ST.207 ST.MAPLE CR.20574206852059111312 206452057520523207101127120582 2068320603/112063120631113152052020540 1128020582 11236 11304 11310 20540206582057420621/232070511314 206802053011240205832055611266 2062411288 2072011273 11240 206682056520617/2511329 11260 1128120586/902060611315 11267 11252 11233/9 11232 112642056120606 2065611230 2061720622206142060011243/5 11278 2058111339 11277 1128920561 2060511295 11261 11249 11239205411125320591 112462053111329205152067520531 206432066511235 20580206732055420636206232058311339 1133420512 11230 2061611202 1131220670 206232064111296 11272 11224 11302 11208 20660206312061511258 11291/93 11250 205642050720627/3911226 11311 2066120676B 1 Rem 2 1 746 A 741 S 1/2 780 743 2 710 Rem 790 7901 B S 1/2 2 733 730 1 B 2 E 1/2 789A 727 748 1122 2 1 762 749 1110 2 761 Rem 1186 781 N 1/2 B A 1 3 4 711 763 & 766 752 726 728 767 753 B 755 S 1/2 Rem N 90'756 A/24 1115 738 795 * 719 745 1 720 722 Rem 742 715 1114 759 3 1 751 716 774 & 775 734 1 786 & 787 713 1 C A S 30' 778 725 A 5 1123 764 & 765 1113 Pcl. A 736 721 758 N 1/2 B 797 2 729 724 768 & 769 714 770 of Rem 754 Rem 737 E 21' S 1/2 * S 1/2 771 180 Rem 1 1043 N 1/2 723739 763 & 766 179 * A 1 1042 A S 1/2 764 712 * 765 1419 LMP 469 *PP044 P 9549LMP 1131 EPP 35548 LMP 12217 RP 641 1 9 P 6 0 4 9 7 *PP044 P 2180 P 114 P 114 SK 3398EPP 37013 P 4008P 3034A LMP 1857 P 12703 P 48437P 12165P 114 *LMP 16828 RP 7316P 114P 11457 SK 2405P 8318*P P 0 4 4 P 114 RP 5103LMS P 23319*PP044 BCP 7202 P 64192 RP 84831 EP 4672P 43556P 2180 P 8654 P 114 P 2180 P 60497P 10059 LMP 30576 SK 1840 P 51275P 74209 *PP044*PP044 LMS 629 SK. 1503 P 52216 P 114 *PP044 P 908P 36414RW 51276 RP 7 6 6 4 5 RW 6 0 4 9 8 RW 71976 RW 60222 RW 88025 EPP 35547 EP 26083RW 7 1 9 9 0 P 51277RW 52217 RW 71974 RW 52217 RW 65007 EPP 23405RW 72041 ´ Scale: 1:2,500 Bylaw No. 7292-2016 Schedule "J" Hammond Commercial and Off-Street Parking Schedule "K" DATE: Oct 27, 2016 BY: DT PLANNING DEPARTMENT206 ST.CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYLORNE AVE. BATTLE AVE.207 ST.113 AVE.DARTFORD ST.207 ST.MAPLE CR.20574206852059111312 206452057520523207101127120582 2068320603/112063120631113152052020540 1128020582 11236 11304 11310 20540206582057420621/232070511314 206802053011240205832055611266 2062411288 2072011273 11240 206682056520617/2511329 11260 1128120586/902060611315 11267 11252 11233/9 11232 112642056120606 2065611230 2061720622206142060011243/5 11278 2058111339 11277 1128920561 2060511295 11261 11249 11239205411125320591 112462053111329205152067520531 206432066511235 20580206732055420636206232058311339 1133420512 11230 2061611202 1131220670 206232064111296 11272 11224 11302 11208 20660206312061511258 11291/93 11250 205642050720627/3911226 11311 2066120676B 1 Rem 2 1 746 A 741 S 1/2 780 743 2 710 Rem 790 7901 B S 1/2 2 733 730 1 B 2 E 1/2 789A 727 748 1122 2 1 762 749 1110 2 761 Rem 1186 781 N 1/2 B A 1 3 4 711 763 & 766 752 726 728 767 753 B 755 S 1/2 Rem N 90'756 A/24 1115 738 795 * 719 745 1 720 722 Rem 742 715 1114 759 3 1 751 716 774 & 775 734 1 786 & 787 713 1 C A S 30' 778 725 A 5 1123 764 & 765 1113 Pcl. A 736 721 758 N 1/2 B 797 2 729 724 768 & 769 714 770 of Rem 754 Rem 737 E 21' S 1/2 * S 1/2 771 180 Rem 1 1043 N 1/2 723739 763 & 766 179 * A 1 1042 A S 1/2 764 712 * 765 1419 LMP 469 *PP044 P 9549LMP 1131 EPP 35548 LMP 12217 RP 641 1 9 P 6 0 4 9 7 *PP044 P 2180 P 114 P 114 SK 3398EPP 37013 P 4008P 3034A LMP 1857 P 12703 P 48437P 12165P 114 *LMP 16828 RP 7316P 114P 11457 SK 2405P 8318*P P 0 4 4 P 114 RP 5103LMS P 23319*PP044 BCP 7202 P 64192 RP 84831 EP 4672P 43556P 2180 P 8654 P 114 P 2180 P 60497P 10059 LMP 30576 SK 1840 P 51275P 74209 *PP044*PP044 LMS 629 SK. 1503 P 52216 P 114 *PP044 P 908P 36414RW 51276 RP 7 6 6 4 5 RW 6 0 4 9 8 RW 71976 RW 60222 RW 88025 EPP 35547 EP 26083RW 7 1 9 9 0 P 51277RW 52217 RW 71974 RW 52217 RW 65007 EPP 23405RW 72041 ´ Scale: 1:2,500 Bylaw No. 7292-2016 Schedule "K" Hammond Ground Floor Commercial Required 1 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7279-2016 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 _____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS Section 477 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedules “A”, “B”, and “C” to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Hammond Area Plan Bylaw No. 7279-2016.” 2.Schedule “A”, Table of Contents is amended as follows: a.To add the following after 8.12 Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines: “8.13 Hammond Development Permit Area Guidelines” b.To add the following after 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan: “10.5 Hammond Area Plan” 3.Schedule “A”, Chapter 6, Employment, sub-section 6.3.8 Historic Commercial is amended as follows: a.To add the following sentence to the end of policy 6 - 38: “Specific land uses and policies to guide long range planning and development for Hammond and Port Haney are within their respective Area Plans, the Hammond Area Plan and the Town Centre Area Plan, which are imbedded in the Official Community Plan in Chapter 10, Area Planning.” 4.Schedule “A”, Chapter 10 Area Plans is amended as follows: a.To add “Hammond Area Plan” to Section Title Page after Town Centre Area Plan b.By the addition of the Hammond Area Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this bylaw as Schedule 1 in correct numerical order. 1003 2 5. Schedule “A”, Chapter 8, Development Permit Area Guidelines, is amended as follows: a. To add “Wildfire” and “Hammond” to Section Title Page after Town Centre; b. To add the following paragraph in Section 8.2 Application and Intent, after item 7, as follows: "8. Hammond Development Permit Area Guidelines pursuant to Section 488(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(h)(i)(j) of the Local Government Act for property within the Hammond Area as identified on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan. The Hammond Development Permit applies to Low Density Multi-Family, Medium Density-Multi-Family, Infill General Employment, and Hammond Village Commercial land use designations and development.” c. By the addition of the Hammond Development Permit Area Guidelines, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw as Schedule 2 in correct numerical order. 6. Schedule “A”, Appendix E, Figure 6, Area Plans, is hereby deleted and replaced with Schedule 3, which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw. 7. Schedule “B” is hereby deleted and replaced with Schedule 4, which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw. 8. Schedule “C” is hereby amended for those parcels or tracts of land known and described as: Group 1, Dedicated Park & 63221, District Lot 280, NWD, Plan NWP63218 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 933, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby amended by adding “Conservation”. 9. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan bylaw No. 7060-2014 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 20th day of September, 2016. READ a second time the 29th day of November, 2016. PUBLIC HEARING held the 17th day of January, 2017. READ third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 . _____________________________ _____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO.7187-2015 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS the Local Government Act empowers a local government to adopt or amend an Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7187-2015." 2.Section 8.4 Development Permit Area Exemptions, Item 4 is replaced with the following: “4. A Wildfire Development Permit is not required under the following circumstances: a)For an addition or renovation to any existing building in the municipality where the value of the work indicated on the building permit application does not exceed 50% of the assessed value of the improvements on the property on the date of the building permit application. For the purposes of this section the value of the building on the date of the building permit application is deemed to be the value as shown on the most recent assessment, by the British Columbia Assessment Authority, where such an assessment is available. b)For interior renovations to an existing lawfully constructed, or legally non-conforming, building or structure wholly contained within, and not projecting beyond, the foundation. c)For a single family home or a subdivision resulting in the creation of not more than two residential lots. A restrictive covenant detailing building design and landscaping requirements will be required for these types of developments within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. d)For non-residential farm buildings, located on lands where a farm use is being practiced, as defined in the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation B.C. Reg. 171/2002 or its successor, provided that they are sited at least 10 metres away from any residential building(s) and wildfire interface. If within 10 metres, then a restrictive covenant detailing building design and 1004 landscaping requirements will be required for these types of developments within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. e) For public works and services and maintenance activities carried out by, or on behalf of, the City. f) For any construction of a building or structure or any alteration of land that does not require a permit from the City.” 3. Section 8.12 Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines, Subsection 8.12.1 Key Guideline Concepts and 8.12.2 Guidelines, Items A -D are replaced with the following: “Intent The Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines are intended for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk of wildfire and where this risk, in some cases, may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. A Development Permit will be required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for areas identified as Wildfire Risk Areas identified on Map 1: Wildfire Development Permit Area. A Development Permit may not be required under certain circumstances indicated in the Development Permit Exemptions, Section 8.4, Item 4. These Development Permit Guidelines are to work in concert with all other regulations, guidelines and bylaws in effect. 8.12.1 Key Guideline Concepts The intent of the Key Guideline Concepts is to ensure that development within the Wildfire Development Permit Area is managed to minimize the risk to property and people from wildfire urban interface hazards and to further reduce the risk of potential post -fire landslides and debris flows. Applications for Wildfire Development Permits will be assessed against the following key guideline concepts: 1. Locate development on individual sites so that, when integrated with the use of mitigating construction techniques and landscape management practices, the risk of wildfire hazards is reduced; 2. Mitigate wildfire impacts while respecting environmental conservation objectives and other hazards in the area; 3. Ensure identified hazard areas are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land development process; and 4. Manage the interface forest fuel components, including vegetation and structures, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire suppression, containment and minimize adverse impacts. 8.12.2 Guidelines The design and construction of buildings and structures located within the boundaries of the Wildfire Development Permit Area shall be in accordance with the following key guidelines. Additional details can be found in the BC Wildfire Service FireSmart manuals. The City may consider alternative design and construction solutions if the alternative solution meets the intent of these guidelines. A. Subdivision Design and Construction 1. The development building face should be located a minimum of 10 metres away from the adjacent forest interface. This 10 metre distance (Priority Zone 1) should be created between all sides of the foundation and the forest interface (vegetat ion shall be modified to mitigate hazardous conditions within 10 metres of the foundations prior to the start of construction). The treatment within Priority Zone 1 may include: treating fuel on the existing parcel; developing a trail as a part of the Pri ority Zone; or including an environmental and geotechnical setback, if such treatment is mutually beneficial to the intent of the setback areas and FireSmart principles. 2. Priority Zone 1 may incorporate cleared parks, roads, or trails to meet the 10 metre distance requirement. 3. Development shall be set back a minimum of 10 metres from the top of ridgelines, cliffs or ravines. Variations may be considered if a wildfire hazard assessment can justify a change in the setback distance. 4. Where the City requires fire hydrants within a development, these must be fully functional prior to construction above the foundation level. 5. For subdivisions where a secondary access is not provided and an emergency Utility Vehicle (UTV) trail system is planned as an alternative, the trail access must be constructed with a 1.5 metre trail width and a minimum height and width of 2 metres cleared of vegetation, with pullouts for passing and turnaround every 500 metres, where appropriate. In areas where a 30 metre environmental setback is required, the City may consider including the trail within the 30 metre setback; however, it must be located outside of a 15 metre watercourse setback from the top of bank. Trails or turnaround points must consider appropriate design measures for protecting environmentally sensitive and/or geotechnical sensitive areas. 6. Access points suitable for evacuation and the movement of emergency response equipment must be provided. The number of access points and their capacity should be determined during subdivision design. Two means of access are preferred for subdivisions in a Wildfire Development Permit Area. If two access points are not possible, then the single access must have the capability of accommodating two fire trucks - each with a width of 2.9 metres – safely passing each other at strategic locations. B. Building Design and Siting 1. Locate building sites on the flattest areas of the property and avoid gullies or draws that accumulate fuel and funnel winds. 2. Steep roofs and closed or screened gutters are preferred in order to prevent the collection of leaves or needles, and to reduce the risk of ember shower accumulation. 3. Buildings must comply with the requirements listed below. Accessory buildings located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area must meet the same building standards as the principal residence. Roofing Materials a) Roof materials shall have a Class A or B fire resistance rating as defined in the current British Columbia Building Code, as amended. Examples of typical Class A or B roofing products include, but are not limited to: asphalt shingles, metal, concrete tile, clay tile, synthetic, slate, and hybrid composite materials. Note: Wood shakes and shingles are not acceptable, unless certified to Class A or B. Exterior Cladding a) Exterior cladding on elevations adjacent to the wildfire interface shall be constructed of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials such as: stucco, metal siding, brick, cement shingles, cement board, concrete block, poured concrete, concrete composite, rock and logs or heavy timber. b) Decorative construction features, such as fascia, trim board materials and trim accents, are exempted from this requirement, to a maximum of 10% per elevation. Overhanging Projections and Cantilevered Floors a) Overhanging projections attached to buildings and their support (i.e. decks, balconies, porches, structural columns, and beams) shall be constructed of heavy timber construction, ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials, similar to those allowed in the “Exterior Cladding” section above. b) The underside of all exposed floors (i.e. underside of balconies, decks and porches) shall be sheathed or skirted with fire-resistant materials, similar to those allowed in the “Exterior Cladding” section above. c) The underside of all cantilevered floors (i.e. bay windows, hutches, and window seats) shall be protected with fire-resistant materials and have the floor system fire-blocked at the exterior wall plane. d) Areas under overhang projections must be kept clear of debris. Exterior Doors and Windows a) Exterior doors and garage doors shall be constructed of non -combustible materials (i.e. metal clad, solid core wood or have a 20 minute fire protection rating), and must meet the requirements of the North American Fenestration Standard (NAFS). b) Exterior windows and glazing within doors exposed to the wildfire interface and skylights shall be tempered glass, multi-layer glazing, or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes, and must meet the requirements of the NAFS. Openable windows shall be covered with non-combustible, corrosion-resistant screens. Eaves, Soffits and Vents a) All eaves and ventilation openings in exterior walls, roofs, and soffits shall be covered with non-combustible, 3 millimetre corrosion-resistant wire mesh, or be designed to prevent flame or ember penetration into the structure. b) Eaves and soffits shall be constructed of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials. Chimney a) Spark arrestor screens are required on all wood-burning appliances. C. Landscaping and Open Spaces 1. Landscaping within the 10 metre Priority Zone 1 should be designed based on FireSmart landscaping standards to ensure minimal fuel loading within the landscaped areas and provide ongoing resistance to wildfire. The type and density of fire resistive plantings incorporated within landscaped areas will assist in mitigating the wildfire hazard. 2. Removal of all debris (wood and vegetation) after land clearing for development must be completed prior to the approval of any new subdivision plan. 3. A landscaping security may be required for landscaping works in accordance with the Maple Ridge Landscape Security Policy No. 6.28.” 4. Subsection 8.12.2 Guidelines, Item E be renumbered accordingly. 5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 26th day of July, 2016. READ a second time the 6th day of December, 2016. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the 17th day of January, 2017. READ a third time the day of , 201. ADOPTED, the day of , 201. ______________________________ ______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICE R CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7233-2016 A Bylaw to amend the Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 ____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge Development Procedures Amending Bylaw. No. 7233- 2016”. 2.Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 be further amended by replacing the Development Application Submission Checklist for Schedule J - Wildfire Development Permit Application with the following: “Schedule J WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION The City will provide the opportunity for applicants to meet with staff from the appropriate departments early in the application process. Applications for Wildfire Development Permits are to be made to the Planning Department, and must include the following: 1)A completed application form with the prescribed fee. 2)A Certificate of Title and a Consent Form (if the applicant is different from the owner shown on the Certificate of Title) plus copies of any restrictive covenant documents registered against Title. 3)A Site Profile. 4)A Site Plan prepared by a certified BCLS including: i.Topography and natural features; ii.Parcel boundaries; iii.Adjacent streets and Rights-of-Way; iv. Existing structures and infrastructure; v.Location of watercourses, wetlands, ponds, etc. and approved environmental protection setback and geotechnical setback areas for steep slopes; vi. Proposed tree retention areas; vii. Proposed subdivision plan or lot layout; viii. Building envelopes, driveways, parking areas and impervious surfaces; 1005 - 2 - ix. Servicing infrastructure such as water, sewage disposal systems, stormwater detention, and surface drainage; and x. The extent of the proposed site clearing and lot grading. 5) A Wildfire Hazard Assessment, prepared by a Registered Professional Forester, qualified by training or experience in fire protection engineering, with at least two years of experience in fire protection engineering and with assessment and mitigation of wildfire hazards in British Columbia (see Wildfire Hazard Assessments Guidelines). The Wildfire Hazard Assessment will also need to include: i. A Comprehensive Plan indicating proposed modifications to retained interface areas; new plantings; proposed enhancement planting works for adjacent park land; trees to be retained and protected; and trails on or adjacent to the site. A cost estimate for the proposed works must be included. The cost estimate amount will be used to determine the security amount taken for the Wildfire Development Permit. ii. A plan for ongoing landscaping maintenance for park areas must also be provided, including a cost estimate. The amount will be used to help determine a Local Area Service Bylaw fee. iii. A summary of proposed exterior building materials exposed to the wildfire interface. Reference Documents:  BC Wildfire Service: bcwildfire.ca/Prevention/firesmart.htm  FireSmart Homeowner’s Manual – FireSmart Begins at Home  FireSmart – Protecting Your Community from Wildfire  National Fire Protection Association 1141 Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Developments in Suburban and Rural Areas  National Fire Protection Association 1144 Standard for Reducing Structure Ign ition Hazards from Wildland Fire” READ a first time the 26th day of July, 2016. READ a second time the 26th day of July, 2016. READ a third time the day of , 2016. ADOPTED the day of , 2016. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 17, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-350-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COUNCIL SUBJECT: Final Reading Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227-2016 Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015 24341 112 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227-2016 and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015 for the subject property, located at 24341 112 Avenue, have been considered by Council and at Public Hearing and subsequently were granted third reading. The applicant has requested that final reading be granted. The purpose of the rezoning is to permit the subdivision into 9 lots not less than 372 m² (4,000 ft²). Council granted first reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015 on January 12, 2016. Council granted first and second reading for Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227- 2016 and second reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015 on April 5, 2016. This application was presented at Public Hearing on April 19, 2016, and Council granted third reading on April 26, 2016. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1.That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227-2016 be adopted; and 2.That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015 be adopted. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Council considered this rezoning application at a Public Hearing held on April 19, 2016. On April 26, 2016 Council granted third reading to Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227-2016 and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015 with the stipulation that the following conditions be addressed: i)Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii)Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedule "A", Chapter 10.2 Albion Area Plan, Schedule 1: Albion Area Plan, and Schedule “C” iii)Park dedication and removal of all debris and garbage from park land; 1006 - 2 - iv) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical Report, which addresses the suitability of the subject property for the proposed development; v) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Stormwater Management; vi) Removal of existing buildings; vii) In addition to the site profile, a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject property. If so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a contaminated site; and viii) That a voluntary Community Amenity Contribution be provided in keeping with the direction given by Council with regard to amenities. The following applies to the above: i) The Rezoning Servicing Agreement has been registered as a Restrictive Covenant and the security deposit has been received; ii) Official Community Plan Schedule "A", Chapter 10.2 Albion Area Plan, Schedule 1: Albion Area Plan, and Schedule “C” will be amended with final approval of these bylaws; iii) Park dedication and a letter assuring the removal of all debris and garbage from the park land has been provided; iv) A Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical Report has been registered; v) A Restrictive Covenant for Stormwater Management will be registered at the Subdivision stage; vi) The existing buildings have been demolished; vii) A disclosure statement has been submitted by a Professional Engineer advising that there is no evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject property; and viii) A voluntary Community Amenity Contribution in the amount of $45,900.00 has been provided in keeping with the Council Policy on the Community Amenity Contribution Program. - 3 - CONCLUSION: As the applicant has met Council’s conditions, it is recommended that final reading be given to Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227-2016 and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197- 2015. “Original signed by Michelle Baski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227-2016 Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015 Appendix D – Proposed Subdivision Plan DATE: Nov 19, 2015 2015-350-DP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 24341 112 Ave 2011 Image Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Indefinite Creek River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7227-2016 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 _______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedules "B" & "C" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7227-2016 2.Schedule "A", Chapter 10.2 Albion Area Plan, Schedule 1: Albion Area Plan is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 Section 15 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 77744 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 921, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by re-designating from “Low Medium Density Residential” to “Conservation.” 3.Schedule “C” is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 Section 15 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 77744 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 922, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adding Conservation. 4.Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 5th day of April, 2016. READ a second time the 5th day of April, 2016. PUBLIC HEARING held the 19th day of April, 2016. READ a third time the 26th day of April, 2016. ADOPTED, the day of ,20 . ___________________________________ _____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B 1006.1 243482435524358243592436324374112 8 9 112 9 7 24403244082440524410244142441324445244532445824442244662425011268 11273 2429524309243412437224385113 0 5 243952440224406244152444211258 2432624346243652437324375112 9 9 243642440424407244102442124439244412425511274 11251 11261 11256 11266 2432511263 2435024354112 9 5 244012442724426244292444911265 11252 2429611250 11260 24351 2 4 3 5 3 243412440724430244502446211219 11267 11276 2431724349112642435824361 112 6 9 112 8 5 2440324402244192443724457244652446311262 242632428124291243012433124360112 3 5 112 6 5 112 7 5 113 1 5 24411244132441424422244432444611257 2433611235 24362112 2 5 24405244062440924412244092441124415244162442324438243 ST.243A ST.243B ST.243B ST.112 AVE.244 ST.244 ST.113 AVE. 112 AVE.243 ST.112B AVE.112B AVE. 112A AVE. 113 AVE.112 AVE.4 EPP 54924EPP 5492428 41 EPP 54924 38 EPP 3127731 2 EPP 31277 29 24 73 P 61001 P 22387 81EPP 441817475 3 P 50696 Rem 18 8 6 31 16 17 30 29 EP 30021 2 EPP 3127725 EPP 31277 15 51 50 79 P 23217 EP 15693 35 14 19 43 40 P 77744 22 A 3 EPP 27594 7 30 33 18 23 80 76 EPP 44181 69 3 9 7 13 33 42 20 39 1 24 32 19 54 21 71 EPP 44181 B 78 60 P 43601 P 68166 2 A 34 P 77744 1 25 4 PARKEPP 3127737 53 47 14 63 82 61 P 809 5 10 36 2 EPP 54924 18 EPP 54924 5 9 10 26 12 49EPP 37274 16 13 66 68 Rem 11 1 1 11 12 EPP 54924 15 26 6 EPP 31277 17 11 28 22 62 67 45 32 27 21 23 8 27 20 EPP 37274 48 52 64 72 65 P 23217 Rem A 77 70 C EPP 27594 EPP 44335 EP 77745 EPP 44335EPP 42088EPP 54925EPP 42088 EPP 48794 RW 61287EPP 44335 EPP 31383EPP 54927EPP 44335EPP 31383EPP 54925 BCP 49216EPP 54925EPP 54925EPP 54925EPP 31383 EPP 54926EPP 31383EPP 44335 RW 66747 112 AVE. SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: Low/Medium Density Residential Conservation 7227-2016921 243482435524358243592436324374112 8 9 112 9 7 24403244082440524410244142441324445244532445824442244662425011268 11273 2429524309243412437224385113 0 5 243952440224406244152444211258 2432624346243652437324375112 9 9 243642440424407244102442124439244412425511274 11251 11261 11256 11266 2432511263 2435024354112 9 5 244012442724426244292444911265 11252 2429611250 11260 24351 2 4 3 5 3 243412440724430244502446211219 11267 11276 2431724349112642435824361 112 6 9 112 8 5 2440324402244192443724457244652446311262 242632428124291243012433124360112 3 5 112 6 5 112 7 5 113 1 5 24411244132441424422244432444611257 2433611235 24362112 2 5 24405244062440924412244092441124415244162442324438243 ST.243A ST.243B ST.243B ST.112 AVE.244 ST.244 ST.113 AVE. 112 AVE.243 ST.112B AVE.112B AVE. 112A AVE. 113 AVE.112 AVE.4 EPP 54924EPP 5492428 41 EPP 54924 38 EPP 3127731 2 EPP 31277 29 24 73 P 61001 P 22387 81EPP 441817475 3 P 50696 Rem 18 8 6 31 16 17 30 29 EP 30021 2 EPP 3127725 EPP 31277 15 51 50 79 P 23217 EP 15693 35 14 19 43 40 P 77744 22 A 3 EPP 27594 7 30 33 18 23 80 76 EPP 44181 69 3 9 7 13 33 42 20 39 1 24 32 19 54 21 71 EPP 44181 B 78 60 P 43601 P 68166 2 A 34 P 77744 1 25 4 PARKEPP 3127737 53 47 14 63 82 61 P 809 5 10 36 2 EPP 54924 18 EPP 54924 5 9 10 26 12 49EPP 37274 16 13 66 68 Rem 11 1 1 11 12 EPP 54924 15 26 6 EPP 31277 17 11 28 22 62 67 45 32 27 21 23 8 27 20 EPP 37274 48 52 64 72 65 P 23217 Rem A 77 70 C EPP 27594 EPP 44335 EP 77745 EPP 44335EPP 42088EPP 54925EPP 42088 EPP 48794 RW 61287EPP 44335 EPP 31383EPP 54927EPP 44335EPP 31383EPP 54925 BCP 49216EPP 54925EPP 54925EPP 54925EPP 31383 EPP 54926EPP 31383EPP 44335 RW 66747 112 AVE. SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. Purpose:To add to Conservation on Schedule C 7227-2016922 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7197-2015 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 City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7197-2015." 2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 Section 15 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 77744 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1654 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) 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 12th day of January, 2016. READ a second time the 5th day of April, 2016. PUBLIC HEARING held the 19th day of April, 2016. READ a third time the 26th day of April, 2016. ADOPTED the day of , 20 _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX C 1006.2 243482435524358243592436324374112 8 9 112 9 7 24403244082440524410244142441324445244532445824442244662425011268 11273 2429524309243412437224385113 0 5 243952440224406244152444211258 2432624346243652437324375112 9 9 243642440424407244102442124439244412425511274 11251 11261 11256 11266 2432511263 2435024354112 9 5 244012442724426244292444911265 11252 2429611250 11260 24351 2 4 3 5 3 243412440724430244502446211219 11267 11276 2431724349112642435824361 112 6 9 112 8 5 2440324402244192443724457244652446311262 242632428124291243012433124360112 3 5 112 6 5 112 7 5 113 1 5 24411244132441424422244432444611257 2433611235 24362112 2 5 24405244062440924412244092441124415244162442324438243 ST.243A ST.243B ST.243B ST.112 AVE.244 ST.244 ST.113 AVE. 112 AVE.243 ST.112B AVE.112B AVE. 112A AVE. 113 AVE.112 AVE.4 EPP 54924EPP 5492428 41 EPP 54924 38 EPP 3127731 2 EPP 31277 29 24 73 P 61001 P 22387 81EPP 441817475 3 P 50696 Rem 18 8 6 31 16 17 30 29 EP 30021 2 EPP 3127725 EPP 31277 15 51 50 79 P 23217 EP 15693 35 14 19 43 40 P 77744 22 A 3 EPP 27594 7 30 33 18 23 80 76 EPP 44181 69 3 9 7 13 33 42 20 39 1 24 32 19 54 21 71 EPP 44181 B 78 60 P 43601 P 68166 2 A 34 P 77744 1 25 4 PARKEPP 3127737 53 47 14 63 82 61 P 809 5 10 36 2 EPP 54924 18 EPP 54924 5 9 10 26 12 49EPP 37274 16 13 66 68 Rem 11 1 1 11 12 EPP 54924 15 26 6 EPP 31277 17 11 28 22 62 67 45 32 27 21 23 8 27 20 EPP 37274 48 52 64 72 65 P 23217 Rem A 77 70 C EPP 27594 EPP 44335 EP 77745 EPP 44335EPP 42088EPP 54925EPP 42088 EPP 48794 RW 61287EPP 44335 EPP 31383EPP 54927EPP 44335EPP 31383EPP 54925 BCP 49216EPP 54925EPP 54925EPP 54925EPP 31383 EPP 54926EPP 31383EPP 44335 RW 66747 112 AVE. SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) 7197-20151654 APPENDIX D CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7300-2016 A bylaw to establish the five year financial plan for the years 2017 through 2021 ____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, through a public process in an open meeting the business and financial plans 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 be a process of public consultation under Section 166 of the Community Charter; NOW THEREFORE, the Council for the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7300-2016”. 2.Statement 1 attached to and forming part of this bylaw is hereby declared to be the Consolidated Financial Plan of the City of Maple Ridge for the years 2017 through 2021. 3.Statement 2 attached to and forming part of the bylaw is hereby declared to be the Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure for the City of Maple Ridge. 4.Statement 3 attached to and forming part of the bylaw is hereby declared to be the Capital Expenditure Disclosure for the City of Maple Ridge. READ a first time the 6th day of December, 2016. READ a second time the 6th day of December, 2016. READ a third time the 6th day of December, 2016. PUBLIC CONSULTATION completed on the day of , 20 . ADOPTED , the day of , 20 . _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER ATTACHMENT: Statement 1, Statement 2 and Statement 3 1007 Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 1 Consolidated Financial Plan 2017-2021 (in $ thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 REVENUES Revenues Development Fees Developer Contributed Assets 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Developer Cost Charges 4,478 1,189 5,703 8,906 7,447 Developer Specified Projects - - - - - Parkland Acquisition 200 200 200 200 200 Contributions from Others 1,300 1,338 1,307 1,329 1,321 Development Fees Total 25,978 22,727 27,210 30,435 28,968 Property Taxes 78,526 82,600 86,828 91,255 95,917 Parcel Charges 3,012 3,085 3,181 3,282 3,385 Fees & Charges 40,256 41,793 43,409 44,994 46,664 Interest 1,898 1,913 1,928 1,943 1,958 Grants (Other Govts) 4,500 3,899 3,709 4,168 4,379 Property Sales 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,000 - Total Revenues 155,670 157,517 167,765 177,077 181,271 EXPENDITURES Operating Expenditures Interest Payments on Debt 2,006 1,940 1,815 1,687 1,554 Amortization Expense 19,780 19,780 19,780 19,780 19,780 Other Expenditures 103,333 106,439 109,898 113,589 117,317 Total Expenditures 125,119 128,159 131,493 135,056 138,651 ANNUAL SURPLUS 30,551 29,358 36,272 42,021 42,620 Add Back: Amortization Expense (Surplus) 19,780 19,780 19,780 19,780 19,780 Less: Capital Expenditures 32,952 27,831 24,859 26,520 23,530 Less: Developer Contributed Capital 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 CHANGE IN FINANCIAL POSITION (2,621) 1,307 11,193 15,281 18,870 OTHER REVENUES Add: Borrowing Proceeds 6,000 7,000 - - - OTHER EXPENDITURES Less: Principal Payments on Debt 3,706 3,723 3,803 3,886 3,972 TOTAL REVENUES LESS EXPENSES (327) 4,584 7,390 11,395 14,898 INTERNAL TRANSFERS Transfer from Reserve Funds Capital Works Reserve 3,849 150 150 150 150 Equipment Replacement Reserve 2,298 3,921 2,307 1,671 1,603 Fire Department Capital Reserve 585 - - - - Land Reserve - - - - - Local Improvement Reserve - - - - - Sanitary Sewer Reserve - - - - - Transfer from Reserve Fund Total 6,732 4,071 2,457 1,821 1,753 Less :Transfer to Reserve Funds Capital Works Reserve 1,915 3,364 3,803 2,292 2,626 Equipment Replacement Reserve 2,760 2,893 3,028 3,192 3,358 Fire Dept. Capital Acquisition 783 861 991 1,127 1,267 Land Reserve 5 5 5 5 5 Local Improvement Reserve - - - - - Sanitary Sewer Reserve 30 30 30 30 30 Total Transfer to Reserve Funds 5,493 7,153 7,857 6,646 7,286 Transfer from (to) Own Reserves (74) (271) (826) (1,303) (1,109) Transfer from (to) Surplus (838) (1,231) (1,164) (5,267) (8,256) Transfer from (to) Surplus & own Reserves (912) (1,502) (1,990) (6,570) (9,365) TOTAL INTERNAL TRANSFERS 327 (4,584) (7,390) (11,395) (14,898) BALANCED BUDGET - - - - - Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 2 Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure REVENUE DISCLOSURE Revenue Proportions 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 $ ('000s) % $ ('000s) % $ ('000s) % $ ('000s) % $ ('000s) % Revenues Property Taxes 78,526 48.6 82,600 50.2 86,828 51.8 91,255 51.5 95,917 52.9 Parcel Charges 3,012 1.9 3,085 1.9 3,181 1.9 3,282 1.9 3,385 1.9 Fees & Charges 40,256 24.9 41,793 25.4 43,409 25.9 44,994 25.4 46,664 25.7 Borrowing Proceeds 6,000 3.7 7,000 4.3 - - - - - - Other Sources 33,876 21.0 30,039 18.3 34,347 20.5 37,546 21.2 35,305 19.5 Total Revenues 161,670 100 164,517 100 167,765 100 177,077 100 181,271 100 Other Sources include: Development Fees Total 25,978 16.1 22,727 13.8 27,210 16.2 30,435 17.2 28,968 16.0 Interest 1,898 1.2 1,913 1.2 1,928 1.1 1,943 1.1 1,958 1.1 Grants (Other Govts) 4,500 2.8 3,899 2.4 3,709 2.2 4,168 2.4 4,379 2.4 Property Sales 1,500 0.9 1,500 0.9 1,500 0.9 1,000 0.6 - - 33,876 21.0 30,039 18.3 34,347 20.5 37,546 21.2 35,305 19.5 OBJECTIVES & POLICIES Property Tax Revenue Property tax revenue is the City’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. The Financial Plan includes property tax increases that are as listed below: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 General Purpose 1.90% 1.90% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Infrastructure Replacement 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% Parks & Recreation 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Drainage 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Total Property Tax Increase 3.15% 3.15% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% Additional information on the tax increases and the cost drivers can be found in the most recent 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 as well as grants in lieu of property taxes. Parcel Charges Parcel charges are comprised of a recycling charge, a sewer charge and on some 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 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 2 (cont.) Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure Fees & Charges 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 no more frequently than every five years, was completed in 2008. Minor DCC amendments are done more frequently. Some fees are used 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 when it makes sense, and with caution 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 previously approved borrowing can be found in the most recent Financial Plan Overview report. Other Sources This will vary greatly year to year as it includes:  Development fees which fund capital projects from the DCC Reserve  Contribution from others in relation to capital  Grants which are sought from various agencies and may be leveraged with City funds PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE The 2017 property tax revenue and updated rates will be included in a Financial Plan Amending Bylaw that proceeds the Property Tax Rate Bylaw, as the 2017 property assessed values are not yet finalized. For information purposes the 2016 distribution is included. Property Tax Revenue Distribution Property Class Taxation Revenue Assessed Value Tax Rate Multiple ('000s) ('000s) ($/1000) (Rate/Res.Rate) 1 Residential 56,532 78.3% 12,918,297 91.2% 4.3761 1.00 2 Utility 541 0.8% 13,516 0.1% 40.0000 9.14 4 Major Industry 591 0.8% 17,291 0.1% 34.1952 7.81 5 Light Industry 2,760 3.8% 232,323 1.7% 11.8801 2.71 6 Business/Other 11,565 16.0% 973,520 6.9% 11.8801 2.71 8 Rec./ Non-Profit 39 0.1% 2,577 0.0% 15.2783 3.49 9 Farm 164 0.2% 4,852 0.0% 33.7082 7.70 Total 72,192 100% 14,162,376 100% Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 2 (cont.) Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE Objectives & Policies Property taxes are the City’s largest source of revenue and are contained by efficient business practices. Annual business planning practices are the mechanism for resource allocation decisions. The City’s Financial Sustainability Policy section 6 discusses the necessity of diversifying the tax base. Development of employment-related properties is one method of diversification; therefore a key performance measurement in Strategic Economic Initiatives 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 stay 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 reduced to negate the market increases. 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, as the types of businesses in each class are similar. In 2016, the increase was reduced from 3.15% to 1.85% to reduce the relative property tax burden for these properties. A review was done on the Major Industry Class rates and the recommendation from the Audit and Finance Committee and Council was a 5% property tax reduction in both 2009 and 2010 to support additional investments in the subject property and to keep rates competitive. In 2014 and 2015, property taxes charged to major industrial class properties were reduced by $70,000 in each year. In reviewing tax rates to ensure competitiveness, absolute rates, tax multiples and overall tax burden are considered. The impact that assessed values have when comparing to other geographical areas must be considered in a comparison of tax rates. Permissive Tax Exemptions Council has set policies around the use of permissive tax exemptions. These are Council Policies 5.19 through 5.24. These 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 Program The Employment Land Investment Incentive Program is designed to encourage job creation by supporting private investment in buildings and infrastructure on identified "employment lands". More information on this tax exemption can be found on our website. Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 3 Capital Expenditure Disclosure The sole purpose of this statement is to meet legislative requirements and highlight the value of the DCC program; no other conclusions should be drawn from the figures as the information could be misconstrued. This disclosure is required under the Local Government Act s. 560 (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 2035 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 2022 through 2035. Projects in these years typically exceed likely funding available. Capital Works Program for 2022 – 2035 (in $ thousands) Capital Works Program 336,703 Source of Funding Development Fees Development Cost Charges 145,877 Parkland Acquisition Reserve - Contribution from Others 3,304 149,181 Borrowing Proceeds - Grants 42,664 Transfer from Reserve Funds 18,792 Revenue Funds 126,066 187,522 336,703 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7301-2016 A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Council Procedures Bylaw No. 6472-2007 ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Council Procedures Bylaw No. 6472-2007 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Council Procedure Amending Bylaw No. 7301-2016.” 2.That Maple Ridge Council Procedure Bylaw No. 6472-2007, be amended as follows: a)That Part 13 – Voting at Council Meetings, be amended by: Adding to - Recording of Votes, the following: “37.1 When a resolution is released by Council from Closed status, and unless otherwise resolved by Council, the names of any members who voted in the negative will be released as decided on a case by case basis.” READ a first time the 6th day of December, 2016. READ a second time the 6th day of December, 2016. READ a third time the 6th day of December, 2016. ADOPTED the day of , 2017. _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 1008 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7291-2016 A Bylaw for Highway Closure & Dedication Removal within the Municipality. WHEREAS Council may, in the same bylaw, close all or part of a highway and remove the dedication of a highway; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge Highway Closure & Dedication Removal Bylaw No. 7291-2016". 2.Attached hereto and forming part of this Bylaw is a copy of Reference Plan EPP65494 dated September 21, 2016 and prepared by Michael Bernemann, Terra Pacific Land Surveying, a B.C. Land Surveyor, and marked as Appendix “B”. 3.That portion of public highway comprised of 666m2 identified as ‘Lane’ outlined in heavy black line on the aforementioned described Reference Plan is hereby declared stopped and closed to public traffic and shall cease forever to be dedicated as public highway. 4.The portion of the public highway outlined in heavy black line and identified as “Lane” on the Reference Plan attached to and made part of this Bylaw has its dedication as a highway removed. 5.Council shall, before adopting this Bylaw, cause Public Notice of its intention to do so to be given by advertisement once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper published or circulating in the City of Maple Ridge and posted at the public posting places as required by Sections 40 and 94 of the Community Charter. READ a first time the 6th day of December, 2016. READ a second time the 6th day of December, 2016. READ a third time the 6th day of December, 2016. ADOPTED the day of , 2016. _________________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER ________________________________ CORPORATE OFFICER 1009 Appendix “B” City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-434-AL FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Application to Subdivide Land within the Agricultural Land Reserve 11680 252 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received under Section 21 (2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to subdivide 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Applicant’s submission conforms with the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission. This report evaluates the merits of this subdivision proposal within the policy context of the Official Community Plan and the Agricultural Plan. Based on this analysis, the recommendation is not to support this application for subdivision within the Agricultural Land Reserve. On this basis, the recommendation is not to forward the application to the Agricultural Land Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That Application 2012-107-AL not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission based on the considerations as outlined in this report, dated January 9, 2017. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Justin Endresen Legal Description: Section: 14, Township: 12 OCP : Existing: Agricultural Proposed: No Change Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: No Change Surrounding Uses North: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Agricultural South: Use: Park Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Park 1101 - 2 - East: Use: Park Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Park West: Use: 2 Properties, Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Agricultural Existing Use of Property: Agriculture & Rural Residential Proposed Use of Property: No Change Site Area: 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) Access: 252 Street Servicing: Water, on site septic b) Project Description: The applicant wishes to subdivide the 2.5 hectare (6.2 acre) subject property into 3 parcels to develop into smaller lot hobby farms. This proposal conforms with the minimum parcel sizes of the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Zone which is 0.8 hectares (2 acres) where municipal water is available. Kanaka Creek traverses the site at its eastern property line. If this application is forwarded by Council, and receives Agricultural Land Commission approval, the applicant will have to apply for a subdivision through the municipality. Through this process, the applicant will have to demonstrate that all of the proposed lots will have on-site septic capability to current standards. All new parcels must comply with municipal requirements with respect to lot geometry, servicing, road frontage and parcel size. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan The property is designated Agriculture in the Official Community Plan, which contains policies in support of agriculture. On December 16, 2009 Council adopted an Agricultural Plan to support agriculture within the rural area and the Agricultural Land Reserve. The merits of this application will be viewed within this policy context. Section 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture Policy 6-12 states: Maple Ridge will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by: a) adopting a guiding principle of ”positive benefit to agriculture” when making land use decisions that could affect the agricultural land base, with favourable recognition of initiatives including but not limited to supportive non-farm uses, infrastructure improvements for farmland, or the inclusion of land elsewhere in the Agricultural Land Reserve; b) requiring agricultural impact assessments (AIAs) and Groundwater Impact Assessment of non-farm development and infrastructure projects and identifying measures to off-set impacts on agricultural capability; c) preserving larger farm units and areas by using appropriate buffers such as roads, topographic features, watercourses, ditching, fencing, or gradually reduced residential densities on properties adjacent to agricultural land; - 3 - d) discouraging the subdivision of agricultural land into smaller parcels, except where positive benefits to agriculture can be demonstrated; e) reinforcing the concept that the Agricultural Land Reserve is intended for agricultural use by increasing the minimum lot size for ALR properties that are zoned Rural Residential; f) encouraging the amalgamation of smaller parcels of farmland into larger, more cohesive parcels. Policy 6-12 emphasizes the importance of discouraging the subdivision of agricultural land into smaller parcels, increasing the minimum parcel size of ALR properties with Rural Residential zoning, and amalgamation to create larger farm parcels. Reasons for discouraging subdivision within the Agricultural Land Reserve include minimizing incentives for land speculation in the Agricultural Land Reserve, which increases the market value of farmland, and exacerbates the issue of economic barriers to entry for legitimate farming interests. Section 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy. Policy 6-6 of the Official Community Plan describes alternatives to subdivision such as leaseholds that could ensure greater utilization and retain larger parcels, as follows: Maple Ridge will develop an Agricultural Plan that: a) maintains an inventory of local agricultural products and agricultural land use; b) develops and maintains a database of farm businesses and operators; c) promotes leasing opportunities of agricultural land; d) promotes agricultural heritage initiatives; e) identifies appropriate land uses within agricultural areas and at the rural/urban interface; f) promotes urban agriculture; g) recognizes the positive role that agricultural lands have on the environment; h) will identify a variety of mechanisms to assist farm operators and to protect agricultural lands, including but not limited to the creation of trusts, endowments, and life-leases; i) includes an assessment of the agricultural land base; and j) develops Development Permit area guidelines to direct non-agricultural development at the urban/rural interface. One reason for promoting alternative tenures (Policies 6-6 c and h) relates to the high cost of land, which is a known barrier for new farmers wishing to start an agricultural business. By supporting other forms of tenure that can delay or avoid the need for this capital investment by individual farmers, the municipality can improve its agricultural potential, and bring more of its agricultural land into full production. For the above noted reasons, this application does not comply with the Agricultural policies of the Official Community Plan. - 4 - Agricultural Plan Issue 5 of the Agricultural Plan notes concerns with the loss of the agricultural land base, describing the following situations that are pertinent to this application: • Many small parcels • High level of rural residential incursion into Agricultural Land Reserve • Non-farmed areas of the Agricultural Land Reserve tend to be smaller parcels • Continued conversion pressure from the District of Maple Ridge’s urban growth • Financial pressure on farming The Plan also notes that more recent priorities given to food safety, food security, and climate change, includes the development of a local food system. Towards this end, the community would benefit from greater certainty that the agricultural land base is not undermined by incremental land use decisions. The Plan makes the following recommendations that pertain to this application: b) Continue to implement the OCP policies to protect the agricultural land base by creating guidelines for reviewing applications for non-farm use, exclusions, fill applications, transportation and utility applications, subdivisions, and government applications;… g) Explore retention of lots 2 ha (5 acres) and larger in the Agricultural Land Reserve. Currently, the minimum parcel size in the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Zone is 0.8 hectares (2.0 acres) where community water is available. This zone pertains to most of the land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve, including the subject property. The RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone pre-dates the creation of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Although designated for Agriculture, there is a concern that this historic zoning contributes to the perception that farming is not the primary use of this zone. The Agricultural Plan recommends that 2.0 hectares (5 acres) is a more appropriate minimum parcel size for lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Ministry of Agriculture Research provided by the Ministry of Agriculture in their most recent inventory work validates concerns raised in the Agricultural Plan about small lot sizes1. Conclusions drawn from this region wide information have been summarized by Metro Vancouver, as follows: Evidence exists that small parcels are less likely to be farmed and therefore further subdivision of parcels in the ALR is not warranted and will only encourage more non-farm use of ALR land. Currently 75% of the parcels less than 2 ha (5 acres) are not farmed. The average size of parcels not used for farming is 3 ha (7.4 acres), while the average size of parcels used for farming is 7 ha (17 acres).2 1 Maple Ridge was a project partner for the Ministry of Agriculture inventory work in 2011 2 Metro Vancouver, Farming in Metro Vancouver, Metro Facts in Focus | Policy Backgrounder, 2014 - 5 - Figure 1 Source: Metro Vancouver, Farming in Metro Vancouver, Metro Facts in Focus | Policy Backgrounder, 2014 Based on Ministry data, the above table demonstrates the connection between parcel size and farming activity. This information indicates that the subdivision of this property will significantly increase the probability that the 3 new parcels created will not be used for farming. d) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department The Engineering Department would review this proposal for its servicing requirements as part of the municipal subdivision application should Commission approval be granted. It should be noted that the subject property has unconstructed access to 252nd Street. Road construction would be required to serve all properties. Water connection to each parcel would be required and septic capacity to current municipal standards for each parcel would need to be determined by a qualified professional. e) Alternatives: If Council decides not to forward this application to the Commission, it will be considered denied and will not proceed further. However, if Council decides to forward this application to the Agricultural Land Commission, the Commission will evaluate the merits of this application, and make their decision accordingly. - 6 - CONCLUSION: This application has been evaluated for its consistency with the policies of the Official Community Plan, and its implications for the Agricultural Plan, and is found not to comply with this policy framework. On this basis, the recommendation is that this application for subdivision not be supported. “Original signed by Diana Hall” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA (Planning), MCIP, CIP Planner 2 “Original signed by Christine Carter” _____________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Photo Appendix C – Subdivision Sketch prepared by Applicant DATE: Nov 29, 2016 FILE: 2016-434-AL BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 252 ST116 AVE ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11680 252 STREETLegend Stream Ditch Centreline Edge of River Indefinite Creek Lake or Reservoir River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Nov 4, 2016 FILE: 2016-434-AL BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11680 252 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015 APPENDIX B SUBJECT PROPERTY:PCL. 30; SEC. 14; TWP. 12; LD. 36; PL. 68686 PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS86 METERS86 METERS86 METERS70 METERS 122 METERS FLOWS INTO KANAKA CREEKPROPOSED LOT 1 PROPOSED LOT 2 PROPOSED LOT 3 TENNIS COURT POOL HOUSECONNECTS TO 252ND STREET117 AVENUE ( 0.8 HA ) ( 0.8 HA ) ( 0.9 HA ) Te UNCLEARED LAND WITH DECOMISSIONED ROAD #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10+11 APPENDIX C City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-398-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016 12178 and 12192 227 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to allow for the future development of 12 townhouse units. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. The subject properties are within the Town Centre Area Plan and therefore are exempt from the Community Amenity Contribution Program. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016 be given first reading; and That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D and E of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: George (Guangping) Du Legal Descriptions: Lot 65 of the west half of Section 20, Township 12, NWD Plan 19921 Lot 66, Section 20, Township 12, NWD Plan 19921 OCP: Existing: GOMF (Ground-Oriented Multi-Family) Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family 1102 - 2 - South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family West: Use: Single Family Residential, and School Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), and P1 (Park & School) Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family, and Institutional/Park Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Multi Family Residential Site Area: 0.26 ha. in total (0.65 acres) Access: new lane to be created in rear Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: The subject properties, located at 12178 and 12192 227 Street, (see Appendix A and B) are approximately 0.65 acres in total. The properties are generally flat, and are currently bounded by single family residential properties to the north, east, south and west, with 227 Street to the west , the Eric Langton Elementary School to the southwest. To the north, on the corner of 122 Ave and 227 Street an application is at third reading, to rezone to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential) to subdivide into 3 single family residential lots. c) Project Description: The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to permit future development into approximately 12 townhouse units (see Appendix C). Access for the townhouse development is proposed to be from a new lane in the rear, with temporary access off of 227 Street, until such time that the lane can be connected to the public road and the temporary access can be closed off. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to second reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The subject properties are located within the Town Centre Area Plan and are currently designated Ground Oriented Multi Family. The Ground Oriented Multi Family designation is intended to provide housing options that range from a low density attached form to a medium-high density attached form of ground-oriented housing that will generally be a maximum of three (3) storeys in height with ground level access to each unit. The development forms include townhouse, rowhouse, and stacked townhouse. For the proposed development no OCP amendment will be required to allow the proposed RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zoning. - 3 - Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit the future development into approximately 12 townhouse units. The minimum lot size for the current zone is 668 m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed zone is 557m2. The total site area is 2660 m2. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. The applicant is proposing buildings located at 4.5m from both rear and front lot lines. Staff is prepared to support a variance to allow a reduced front and rear lot line setback, from 7.5m to 4.5m. Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.11 of the OCP, a Town Centre Development Permit application is required for all multifamily residential, flexible mixed use and commercial development located in the Town Centre. Advisory Design Panel: The Town Centre Development Permit will be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to second reading. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is required for this application. Prior to second reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. e) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after first reading, comments and input, will be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department; and e) Canada Post. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. We anticipate that this evaluation will take place between first and second reading. - 4 - f) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999 as amended: 1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C); 2. A Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Application (Schedule D); and 3. A Development Variance Permit Application (Schedule E). The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. CONCLUSION: The development proposal is in compliance with the OCP, therefore, it is recommended that Council grant first reading, subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. It is recommended that Council not require any further additional OCP consultation. “Original signed by Therese Melser” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Therese Melser Planning Technician “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016 Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan DATE: Oct 18, 2016 2016-398-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES 227 ST´ Scale: 1:2,000 12178 & 12192 227 StreetLegend Stream Indefinite Creek River Major Rivers & Lakes 2011-157-RZ APPENDIX A DATE: Oct 18, 2016 2016-398-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES 227 STFLETCHER ST´ Scale: 1:2,000 12178 & 12192 227 Street Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7302-2016 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 City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7302-2016." 2.Those parcel (s) or tract (s) of land and premises known and described as: Lot 65 of the West half of Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 19921; Lot 66 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 19921; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No.1700 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM-1 (Townhouse 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 day of , 20 READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX C 122 AVE. 121 AVE. 122 AVE. HINCH CRES. 12192 1221822609 12178 12139 12141226101225022652 12208 12240 12230 12222 12130 12184 12214 12193 12090 12239 12147 12263 12166/6822611 12157225872259222612 12102 12264 12128 12194 12153 12221 1223112270 12216 12281 12244 12230 12211 12152 12177 12195 1218722590 12203 12208 1215422580 12126 12275 12254 12114 12257 2262012162226172257712178 12219 12119 12253 2263212284 12136 12148 12272 2258212142 12261 12179 12136 12131 12228 12101 12243 1216722579 12185 121702264222589 12120 12111 12271 12260 175 S 1/2 A N 50' 5 N 1/2 10 309 340 228 13 226 1 1 331 334 308 130 331 S. 52.5' 2 230 2 122259 121223 231 246 N 1/2 A 336 N 1/2 9 197 148 S 1/2 10 Rem. 5 221 332 9 S1/2 16 131 7 402 280 Rem. 64248 222 21 338 227 127 1 2 147 4 3 A 2 337 10252 2 N1/2 16 247 1 B S 1/2 9 333 A 5 6 Rem. A 260 A 8 245 1 249 198 Rem 2 254 265 330 279 355 251 Rem 224 1 250 229 2 225 66 Pcl. A 2 261 353 2 2 65 123 1 339 253 1 264 232 354 Rem.P 11845P 32642P 14396 LMP 6030P 70504P 45792 P 66473 P 40082 LMP 1034RP 56793 P 11200 P 11845P 7948 P 38897 PARK P 66473BCS 569 P 9944P 39918P 7219 *PP090 P 58171P 42772P 42134 LMP 4065P 21417P 68638P 11845P 56987P 39649P 62211 P 14396P 56893P 62578 P 67081P 28497P 71970 P 82923 P 42134 P 28939 P 57607 P 42134 P 28579P 19921P 11845P 23392 P 11845P 44381BCP 23946 RP 16335 PARK P 72365P 42134P 23392 P 14396RP 84324 RW 18394RW 41758 EPP 66005HINCH CRES. 122 AVE.227 ST.122 AVE.FLETCHER ST.´ SCALE 1:2,000 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) 7302-20161700 APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-411-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading 21188 Wicklund Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 21188 Wicklund Avenue, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into two single family residential lots. As the application does not align with policies within the Official Community Plan (OCP), the recommendation is to not support this development proposal. This application proposes the creation of fewer than 3 new lots; therefore, it is exempt from the requirements under the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Policy 6.31. RECOMMENDATION: That the subject application not be given first reading. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Anita Chowdhury Legal Description: Lot 119 District Lot 242 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 47383 OCP: Existing: Urban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Designation: Urban Residential South: Use: Residential Zone: RG (Group Housing Zone) Designation: Urban Residential 1103 - 2 - East: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 969 m² (0.24 acres) Access: Wicklund Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: The subject property is 969 m² (0.24 acres) in size and is bound by single family residential lots to the north, west and east, and townhomes to the south. The subject property is flat with a row of hedges to the rear of the property and a few trees located in the front and rear yards. There is an existing house on the property that will require removal. c) Project Description: The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District), to permit future subdivision into two single family residential lots not less than 371 m². It is noted that the proposed lot sizes are larger than the minimum R-1 (Residential District) requirements. Staff had a pre-application meeting with the applicant advising that an application to rezone and subdivide to the R-1 (Residential District) zone would not be supported. Alternative development options were discussed noting that either Duplex or Triplex housing that would achieve similar density and would be in compliance with the OCP. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the OCP and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made if Council supports the proposal and once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to second reading, should Council support this development. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The subject property is currently designated Urban Residential-Neighbourhood Residential. The Neighbourhood Residential designation allows for single detached dwellings and other housing forms, subject to the Neighbourhood Residential Infill policies. The rezoning and subdivision of this property into two single family residential lots and, specifically, use of the R-1 (Residential District) zone is not in compliance with the OCP, as per Policy 3-19 (a) (i), which states: - 3 - The proposed lot area and widths should be not less that 80% of the lot area and width prescribed under the predominate or adjacent zoning in the surrounding neighbourhood. During the OCP review, the above noted policy was created stemming from conversatio ns with residents, who advised that infill developments need to fit the character of a neighbourhood. It was acknowledged that slightly reduced lot sizes were considered appropriate in older, larger lot neighbourhoods; however, there was recognition that the reduction in lot size should be nominal, and that compatible lot width was key to preserving the character of a neighbourhood. For that reason, the policies were written to allow for a lot width not less than 80% of the zoning in the surrounding area. In addition, residents noted a preference to a Duplex or Triplex form, instead of subdivision, to achieve similar density, noting that the lot area and width would remain unchanged. The current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone requires a minimum lot area of 668 m² and lot width of 18 m. The proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone would result in a lot area of 371 m² and lot width of 12 m. Under this policy, the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone would be considered the appropriate zone, with a minimum lot area requirement of 557 m² and a lot width of 15 m; however, the applicant can not achieve the minimum lot area required for two RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zoned lots. It has been suggested to the applicant that a Duplex or Triplex housing form could be alternative options to achieve additional density, without subdividing. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject property, located at 21188 Wicklund Avenue, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into two single family residential lots. The minimum lot size for the current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone is 668m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone is 371 m2. The surrounding neighbourhood is made up of predominantly RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zoned lots, with the exception of two properties north-east of the subject property, and two properties to the west, which are zoned RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential). Alternatives: That staff be directed to prepare a Bylaw in support of the development application to the R-1 (Residential District) zone. Should Council support this development application, it should be noted that it would not be referred to the Advisory Design Panel or is a Development Information Meeting required, as it is for a two lot single family subdivision. Comments and input will need to be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies and a complete rezoning and subdivision application would be required. The other alternative would be that the application be deferred, and the applicant be requested to revise the application pending direction from Council. - 4 - CONCLUSION: The development proposal is not in compliance with the OCP, as per Policy 3-19, and an amendment to such is not supportable, therefore, it is recommended that this application be denied. “original signed by Adam Rieu” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adam Rieu Planning Technician “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Oct 21, 2016 FILE: 2016-411-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENTFOREST PL.GLENWOOD AVE.212 ST.WICKLUND AVE. 122 AVE.212 ST.NOLAITY ST.12069 2122021170210971221912216 12240 12047 12245 2114521133211912111112115 211422116012116 12230 2111212243 12156 12239 1 2 0 2 0 12090 12056 12218 2110221111211582115321137211342113621210121122114612101-53 2113221151211062120721116211072108812098 121111222921195 12089 12061 2124012234 2117021101211552117821149120502119821103 2119312086 12 12200 120732117521188211662113912 2 3 1 2124712105 120702116112208 210962117512242 2115012128 2108921200211542118921152211472112812070 211122112312225 12217 121162112012222 211012109712062 12186 12050 12037 12038 12213 12219 1210621211211752112021196/9812145 212822118812138 12227 1223 9 211992111921190/92211021223512209 2110221178212412114412212 21201212302118512196 212002123121146120442110412203 18 12081 12209 2116521124211672122112101 12161 12171 21190211612114921127SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,000 21188 WICKLUND AVENUE APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Oct 21, 2016 FILE: 2016-411-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENTFOREST PL.GLENWOOD AVE.212 ST.WICKLUND AVE. 122 AVE.212 ST.NOLAITY ST.12069 2122021170210971221912216 12240 12047 12245 2114521133211912111112115 211422116012116 12230 2111212243 12156 12239 1 2 0 2 0 12090 12056 12218 2110221111211582115321137211342113621210121122114612101-53 2113221151211062120721116211072108812098 121111222921195 12089 12061 2124012234 2117021101211552117821149120502119821103 2119312086 12 12200 120732117521188211662113912 2 3 1 2124712105 120702116112208 210962117512242 2115012128 2108921200211542118921152211472112812070 211122112312225 12217 121162112012222 211012109712062 12186 12050 12037 12038 12213 12219 1210621211211752112021196/9812145 212822118812138 12227 1223 9 211992111921190/92211021223512209 2110221178212412114412212 21201212302118512196 212002123121146120442110412203 18 12081 12209 2116521124211672122112101 12161 12171 21190211612114921127SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,000 21188 WICKLUND AVENUE Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 APPENDIX B City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-089-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Heritage Revitalization Agreement Amendment Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016 22325 St. Anne Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: For the property located at 22325 St. Anne Avenue (Appendices A and B), a letter has been received (Appendix C) to request a change to the completion date in Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement (the “Agreement”) for the conservation of the Morse/Turnock Residence (“the Heritage Residence”) and the construction of a four (4) storey 66 unit apartment building. The effective date of this Agreement was the bylaw adoption date of January 26, 2016, with the conservation work being completed within 12 months (i.e. by January 26, 2017). It is being requested that the completion date be extended from within 12 months following the effective date to within 30 months of the effective date of the Agreement. This would change the completion date to July 26, 2018. The proposed amending bylaw is attached as Appendix D. The subject property is zoned Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012. Heritage Alteration Permit 2015-287-DP for the conservation work and Development Permit 2011-089-DP for the apartment, have both been approved and issued by Council on January 26, 2016. Building permits are complete and ready for pick up by the applicant from the City for issuance. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016, be given first and second reading and be forwarded to the next Public Hearing. DISCUSSION: Legislative Background: Council is granted the authority to enter into and amend Heritage Revitalization Agreements under Section 610 of the Local Government Act. The specific provision concerning amendments is the following: (4)A heritage revitalization agreement may be amended by bylaw only with the consent of the owner. The authorized signatory for the company that owns the subject site has signed the Agreement thus providing his consent in accordance with Section 610 (Appendix E). 1104 - 2 - Under the Section 52 of the Transportation Act, the bylaw will need to be referred to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (“MOTI”) to be approved before Council considers granting adoption. History: Council adopted the Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-201 on January 26, 2016. The Heritage Alteration Permit 2015-287-DP for the conservation work and the development permit 2011-089-DP for the apartment have both been approved and issued by Council on January 26, 2016. The site plan is attached as Appendix F. The development proposal is two fold. 1. The Heritage Residence is to be adapted into a duplex as part of the conservation work. It will temporarily be moved to one corner of the site while the underground parking structure is built. The heritage residence will then be moved again and placed on its new foundation on top of the underground structure close to the corner of St. Ann Avenue and 223 Street; and 2. A four (4) storey 66 unit apartment building will be built behind the heritage residence. The apartment units may not be occupied until the conservation of the Morse/Turnock Residence is certified by the heritage consultant of record as being in compliance with the Heritage Revitalization Agreement. Agreement Requirements: Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913- 2012 was adopted by Council on January 26, 2016. The bylaw’s adoption date is the effective date of the Agreement. Attached to the Bylaw is the Agreement together with the Heritage Conservation Plan and Relocation Plan, both prepared by Donald Luxton and Associates, Ltd. The timing commitments contained in the Agreement are as follows:  Section 2. The Owners shall, promptly following the Effective Date, commence and complete the restoration, renovation and conservation of the Existing Heritage Building (the “Work”) in accordance with recommendations set out in the Conservation Plan attached as Schedule “C” to this Agreement (the “Conservation Plan”).  Section 8. The Owners shall commence and complete all actions required for the completion of the Work in accordance with this Agreement within 12 months following the Effective Date. Applicant’s Request: The owner has requested and consents to changing the completion date from 12 to 30 months of entering into the original Agreement. The requested amendment to the Agreement would be a change in the completion date from January 26, 2017 to July 25, 2018, allowing 30 months from the effective date to complete the project (Appendix E). The property’s ownership will be transferred shortly, having been sold after being on the market for some time. The change will allow the new owners to have sufficient time to fulfill all the requirements for the conservation of the Heritage Residence once their construction team is assembled. The site continues to be secure and the security measures will be kept in place by the new owners. The City also hold a forfeitable performance security of $100,000 that the Morse/Turnock Residence will be placed on its new foundation and conservation will be completed in accordance with the Heritage Conservation Plan attached to and forming part of the Agreement. - 3 - According to Bylaw and Licensing staff, there have been no reports of break-ins or other complaints concerning the Heritage Residence. The owner confirmed that they continue to retain a security company to patrol and guard the heritage house every night. The existing security measures and the patrol have been successful in preventing problems. The new owners will be obligated to maintain the security requirements in the original Agreement. Assessment and Council Action: A change to the completion dates is considered to be a minor amendment; however, a Public Hearing is necessary. Therefore, Council can consider granting first and second reading, followed by a Public Hearing and third reading. Council may consider adopting the bylaw following approval by MOTI. The security being held by the City is a strong incentive for the conservation work to be completed. Given the complexity of keeping the heritage residence on site while constructing the underground parking building, as well as for adequate time to carefully and safely move and relocated the Heritage House onto its new foundation, the new completion period is more realistic for the construction and conservation work involved for this project. Therefore, proceeding with the attached bylaw authorizing the City to enter into an Amending Agreement to the original Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement is reasonable request. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that Council grant first and second reading to Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016, and advanced this bylaw to the next Public Hearing. “Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski MCIP, RPP, MCAHP Planner II “Original signed by Christine Carter”_________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn”____________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey”____________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C - Letter from Owner/Agent Appendix D – Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016 Appendix E – Agreement Appendix F – Approved Site Plan DATE: Dec 22, 2016 2015-287-DP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:1,500 22325 ST ANNE AVELegend Stream Indefinite Creek River Centreline River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Dec 22, 2016 2015-287-DP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:1,500 22325 ST ANNE AVE Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Indefinite Creek River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B WAYNE STEPHEN BISSKY ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN HEAD OFFICE: 204-22320 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY MAPLE RIDGE BC PH 604-467-8300 FAX 604-467-8305 Attention: Adrian Kopystynski Planning Department Company: City of Maple Ridge Address: 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC, V2X 6A9 Phone: (604) 463-5221 Fax: 604) 467-7329 Date: Thursday, January 5, 2017 RE: Amendments to: File #: 2011-089-RZ Civic: 22325 St. Anne Ave Maple Ridge BC V2X 2E7 Legal: Lot A District Lot 398 Group 1 NWD Plan EPP52747 PID 029-774-071 Description: 1105 - Saint Anne Apartment & HRA Dear Adrian, This letter is a request for several amendments to the approved agreements as follows; 1) To amend the heritage revitalization and tax exemption agreement section 8. timing of restoration from within 12 months following the effective date to within in 30 months of the effective date. Sincerely yours, Wayne S. Bissky BA, C.Ed, MArch, Architect AIBC, MRAIC This message is only intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain informations that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. It the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original to us by mail. Thank-you. Page of 1 1 APPENDIX C CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7306-2016 A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913 -2012 ____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Owner of the land requests and consents to enter into an amendment of the heritage revitalization and tax exemption agreement attached to and forming part of Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012 ; WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the heritage revitalization and tax exemption agreement attached to and forming part of Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012 as provided for in Appendix 1 to this amending bylaw (the “Amending Agreement”): NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Amending Bylaw No. 7306-2016”. 2.The City of Maple Ridge enters into the Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement (as amended by the “Amending Agreement”) with the registered owners of the properties located at 22325 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge and legally described as: PID: 029-774-071 LOT A; DL 398; NWD; PL EPP52747 (the “Property”). 3.The Mayor and Corporate Officer are authorized on behalf of the City of Maple Ridge to sign and seal the Amending Agreement in the form attached as Appendix “1” to this Bylaw. READ a first time the day of , 2017. READ a second time the day of , 2017. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 2017. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , 2017. ADOPTED the day of , 2017. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX D 2 APPENDIX “1” DESIGNATION AND HERITAGE REVITALIZATION AND TAX EXEMPTION AMENDING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the day of , 2017 is BETWEEN: PC MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT INC. 8138 North Fraser Way Burnaby, BC V5J 0E7 (the “Owners”) AND: THE CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, British Columbia V2X 6A9 (the “City”) WHEREAS: A. The City and PC MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT INC. (BC1008087) entered into a Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement (the “Agreement”) setting out the terms and conditions by which the heritage value of the Existing Heritage Building is to be preserved and protected, in return for specified supplements and variances to City bylaws and the exemption of the Existing Heritage Building from City property taxation for a specified term; B. Name of the registered owner in fee simple of the land and all improvements located at 22325 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. and legally described as: PID: 029-774-071 Lot A DISTRICT LOT 398 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN EPP52747 (“the Lands”); and C. The City and the Owner wish to amend the terms of the Agreement to allow the completion date to be extended. APPENDIX E 3 THIS AGREEMENT is evidence that in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) now paid by each party to the other and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt of which each party hereby acknowledges) the Owners and the City each covenant with the other as follows: Amendment 1. The Agreement is hereby amended by deleting and replacing Section 8 by the following: Section 8. The Owners shall commence and complete all actions required for the completion of the Work in accordance with this Agreement within 30 months following the Effective Date. Statutory Authority Retained 2. Nothing in this Amendment Agreement shall limit, impair, fetter or derogate from the statutory powers of the City, all of which powers may be exercised by the City from time to time and at any time to the fullest extent that the City is enabled. Full Force and Effect 3. The City and the Owners hereby agree that the Agreement shall hereinafter be read and construed in conjunction with this Amending Agreement and be regarded as being amended only to the extent herein provided, that all the terms, covenants, provisos, conditions and provisions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, shall continue to be in full force and effect and that nothing herein contained shall operate or be construed to modify or otherwise affect the rights and obligations created by the Agreement as amended hereby. No Waiver 4. No restrictions, requirements or other provisions of this Amending Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by the City unless a written waiver signed by an officer of the City has first been obtained, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City on previous occasions of any default, nor any previous written waiver, shall be taken to operate as a waiver by the City of any subsequent default or in any way defeat or affect the rights and remedies of the City. Headings 5. The headings in this Amending Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement or any of its provisions. APPENDIX F City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-129-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First and Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016 11225 240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received for a site specific text amendment to the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone for the property located at 11225 240 Street (Appendix A and B). The property is already zoned and the purpose of this application is to add additional permitted uses for the proposed mixed use commercial and rental apartment project for the subject site. The proposed 16 dwelling units will be rental in accordance with a Housing Agreement. The proposed uses described in the letters provided by the applicant (Appendix C) have been reviewed by staff and found to be acceptable for a Neighbourhood Commercial Centre to serve the day-to-day shopping needs of the emerging adjacent neighbourhood to the east of 240 Street and the Albion Area to the east. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016 be given first and second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: 0784903 B.C. LTD. Sukhi Sanghe Owner: 0784903 BC LTD Legal Description: Lot A, Section 16, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan EPP25279 OCP : Existing: Commercial Zoning: Existing: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Townhouses Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation: Urban Residential 1105 - 2 - South: Use: Mixed use commercial / rental apartments Zone: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) with site specific text amendment for daycare and rental apartments Designation: Commercial East: Use: Vacant Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low Density Residential, Conservation and Medium Density Residential West: Use: Townhouses Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Mixed use Commercial and Rental Apartments Site Area: 0.478 ha. Access: Kanaka Way and 240 Street Servicing: Urban b) Proposal: A site specific text amendment application has been received, to allow additional Commercial Uses in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone for the property located at 11225 240 Street. This is a vacant property that slightly slopes from the north to the south. This proposal is for a mixed use commercial and rental apartment project in accordance with a Housing Agreement (16 dwelling units). Issuance of the development permit for this project is also being considered at the same meeting of the Committee of the Whole. Based on the information from the applicant’s letters (Appendix C), the requested uses, regrouped by similar categories being proposed are as follows:  Licensee Retail Store / Liquor Store  Professional Services,  Medical Clinic  Dentist  Physiotherapist /Chiropractor  Hearing/Eye Clinic  Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic  Financial Services  Fitness  Pharmacy  Educational Facilities  Restaurant with patio  Coffee Shop c) Planning Analysis Official Community Plan: The subject site is designated Neighbourhood Commercial Centre in the Official Community Plan (OCP). The objective of this designation is to facilitate Neighbourhood Commercial Centres that provide daily convenience shopping to serve residents. With respect to their scale, the following policy applies: 6 - 32 Total commercial space in a Neighbourhood Commercial Centre is typically less than 930 sq. m. (10,000 sq. ft.) in area. The types of uses being requested and the mixed use building in which they will be located conform with both the objective and the size limitation stated in the OCP. - 3 - Albion Area Plan: The subject site abuts the western boundary of the Albion Area across 240 Street. Although not subject to the Albion Area Plan, its close proximity has an influence on the policies it contains. The Albion Area Plan identifies the need to provide sufficient commercial land use opportunities as the community grows. At present there are two areas in Albion with commercial designated lands. The first area is a Village Commercial Area at 102 Avenue and 242 Street. The Albion Area Plan states that this designation is intended to provide for to residents of surrounding neighbourhoods in a compact village form. The second area is designated a Neighbourhood Commercial Centre, just like the subject side and is, diagonally across the corner from the subject site at the southeast corner of 112 Avenue and 240Street. It is the subject of rezoning application (2016-244-RZ) for a portion of the site to be rezoned to C-5 (Village Commercial) Zone, which allows a broader range of uses for convenience shopping and personal services in the same spirit as the objective of the Village Commercial Centre in Albion. With respect to future commercial development in Albion, there is the following policy: 10 - 9 Growth in North East Albion may create a need for Neighbourhood or Village Commercial Centres. Maple Ridge will consider the development of such centres to provide daily convenience needs and services, subject to satisfying Parking Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw requirements, traffic, access, site design, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Thus the broadening the range of uses convenience shopping and personal services being sought on the subject site will complement the Albion Plan development policy to provide for centres that will accommodate broader range of daily convenience needs and services for the emerging neighbourhoods on both sides of 240 Street. Commercial/Industrial Strategy: The Commercial Industrial Strategy: 2012 - 2042 (the Strategy) prepared by GP Rollo and Associates was consulted about applicable factors regarding Neighbourhood Commercial areas and land uses. According to the report, the City has 180 hectares. (445 acres) of OCP designated commercial lands and 140 hectares. (346 acres) of zoned Commercial lands. C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zoned lands constitute a small portion of the zoned lands, about 3.0 hectares. (7.6 acres) or about 2.2% of all Commercial lands (p. 34). The subject site at 11225 240 Street is located in the Core East Commercial Precinct. This precinct includes areas designated in the Official Community Plan for the following:  Community Commercial Node at Dewdney Trunk Road at 240 Street;  Neighbourhood Commercial Centre for three (3) corners of Kanaka Way/112 Avenue at 240 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road at 232 Street; and  Historic Commercial Node at Lougheed Highway at 240 Street (Bruce’s Market). In the Albion Area plan, the two northern corners of 102 Avenue at 242 Street are designated as a Village. - 4 - In considering future demand for uses, the Strategy states: Over 70% of new space demand will be for convenience goods and services (e.g. grocery, liquor, financial and health services, pharmacy) and food and beverage (coffee shop, restaurant, pub). The balance will be limited seasonal demand for comparison goods (tourist apparel and sporting goods), perhaps some indoor recreation space, and automotive goods and services. (p. 54) All of the uses to be part of this site specific text amendment to the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone on the subject site are ones identified in the Strategy for the Core East Area. Zoning Bylaw: The common practice related to commercial areas in most communities is based on a notion that urban centres are arranged in a hierarchical pattern of development, with differing sizes, diversity and functions around a central place. In the case of Maple Ridge, the Maple Ridge Town Centre Area is the central place with subordinate centres such as Rural, Historic, Neighbourhood, General and Community Commercial Nodes and Centres. Historically, in Maple Ridge and in other nearby communities, the smallest cen tres in terms of size, function and range of uses are Neighbourood Centres, offering local conveniences, such as: independent grocery and florist shops, video rentals; and basic personal services such as laundromats and dry cleaning. This is reflected in the intent statement for the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone described in the Section 701 of the Zoning Bylaw as follows: This zone provides for the small scale retailing of commodities of a convenience nature and related uses for household or personal needs in an urban setting. The C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone current allows the following permitted principal uses: a) convenience store; b) restaurant; c) personal services; and d) personal repair services; Comparing the requested uses to the permitted principal uses and definitions already contained in the Zoning Bylaw, the following is noted:  Licensee Retail Store / Liquor Store are both the same use and already defined as a LICENSEE RETAIL STORE means an establishment with a valid Licensee Retail Store License provided by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch that is permitted to sell all types of packaged liquor for consumption off the premise.  Restaurant is already defined and encompasses the applicant’s requested Restaurant with patio and Coffee Shop. The definition is RESTAURANT means an establishment where food and beverages are sold to the public and where provision is made for consumption on the premises. The establishment may be licensed as “Food Primary” under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. - 5 -  For consistency with the existing terminology in the definition of Assembly use “private schools” is proposed to be used in place of the requested Educational Facility.  Medical Clinic, Dentist, Physiotherapist /Chiropractor, Hearing/Eye Clinics and Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic are types of uses in the overarching category of Professional Services proposed by the applicant. To be consistent with the terminology in the Zoning Bylaw, Veterinarians is proposed to be used in place of Animal Hospitals/Veterinary Clinics. Therefore, it is proposed that the Professional Uses specifically state and be limited to those proposed by the applicant.  The remaining two uses are proposed to be their own separate categories – Financial Services, Pharmacies and Fitness Facilities. Staff considered the addition of daycare to the permitted principal uses. There is a demand to provide daycare in the community. However, the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zoned property to the south has already had a site specific text amendment for a daycare use (2015-158-RZ). The project to the south had a site specific text amendment done by the same owner a s the subject site to add daycare. The developer is not pursuing this use because of the transportation and traffic related issues arising from accommodating parking, drop off/pick up and peak demands associated with daycare uses. The main driving factor for this and similar site specific text amendment is that the historically permitted principal uses in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone limits the possible business tenants to a narrow range of potential daily convenience shopping and personal services as supported by OCP policies and the Commercial and Industrial Strategies. Part of the reason for the applicant’s request, is due to the difficulty of finding businesses that fit in within the currently permitted uses in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone. The traditional local convenience-types of business no longer operate. For example, convenience stores are more than a “Mom-and-Pop Store” or florist shops. Consumer demand and technological change have resulted in once numerous video/DVD rental stores to vanish, replaced by vending machines at grocery stores or video services like Netflix. The broadening of the permitted principal uses requested by the applicant will assist to overcome the current market challenges, while still complying with the intent of the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone for neighbourhood commercial centres that are small in scale, convenient in nature and provide for households and personal needs to close by residents in existing and emerging neighbourhoods. CONCLUSION: The proposal to broaden the range of uses for the property located at 11225 240 Street through a site specific text amendment to the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone, aligns with objectives, intent and policies in the OCP, Albion Area Plan, the Commercial and Industrial Strategy and the Zoning Bylaw. - 6 - Therefore, it is recommended that Council grant Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016 (Appendix D) First and Second Reading and advance the bylaw to Public Hearing. “Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski MCIP, RPP, MCAHP Planner II “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Letter from Applicant Appendix D – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016 DATE: Jan 4, 2017 2016-129-RZ BY: DT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11225 240 ST 2016-244-RZ 2015-158-RZ Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Edge of Marsh Indefinite Creek River Centreline Lake or Reservoir Marsh APPENDIX A DATE: Nov 16, 2016 2016-129-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11225 240 ST Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015 Legend Stream River Centreline River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B APPENDIX C CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7303-2016 A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended ____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7303-2016”. 2.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 is hereby amended as follows: Part 7 Commercial Zones, Section 701 Neighbourhood Commercial: C-1, sub-section 1. Permitted Principal Uses is amended by adding the following new clause g) as follows: g) The following uses are permitted specific to the site legally described as Lot A Section 16 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan EPP25279 and PID 029-069-131: i.Licensee Retail Stores ii.Financial Services iii.Professional Services limited to: Medical Clinics, Physiotherapists /Chiropractors, Dentists, Veterinarians and Hearing/Eye Clinics iv. Private Schools v.Fitness Facilities vi. Pharmacies 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 2017. READ a second time the day of , 2017. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 2017. READ a third time the day of , 2017. ADOPTED the day of , 2017. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-350-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 24341 112 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Development Variance Permit application 2015-350-DVP has been received in conjunction with a rezoning and subdivision application to subdivide for the creation of 9 single family lots. The requested variance is to: i.reduce the minimum setback from an interior side lot line from 1.5m (5 ft.) to 0.61m (2 ft.) to the garage, and to 0.46m (1.5 ft.) for the garage roof projection for proposed Lots 4 through 9. Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2015-350-RZ on January 10, 2017. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2015-350-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-350-DVP respecting property located at 24341 112 Avenue. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: Cipe Homes Inc. Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 15, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 77744 OCP: Existing: Low/Medium Density Residential Proposed: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with density bonus to R-1 (Residential District) zoning requirements Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential, with density bonus to R-1 (Residential District) zoning requirements Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential 1106 - 2 - South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: R-1 (Residential District) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential and Conservation West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.43 ha (1 acre) Access: 243B Street and Lane Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Concurrent Applications: 2015-350-RZ/SD b) Project Description: The subject property is located within the Albion Area Plan and is approximately 0.43 ha (1 acre) in size. The subject property is bounded by 112 Avenue to the south, 243B Street to the west, and single family residential lots to the north and east (see Appendices A and B). The applicant has requested to rezone the development site from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with a Density Bonus, in accordance with the Community Amenity Program, which allows for R-1 (Residential District) sized lots. The proposed development consists of approximately 9 R-1 (Residential District) sized lots (see Appendix C), amounting to an Amenity Contribution of approximately $27,900.00. The final number of lots and amenity contribution will be determined at the time of approval of the subdivision. As per Council Policy, this application will also be subject to the City-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program, at a rate of $5,100.00 per single family lot created, which amounts to $45,900.00. c) Variance Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variances and rationale for support are described below (see Appendices D and E): 1. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 601C(9)(c)(ii): To reduce the minimum side yard setback from 1.5m (5 ft.) to 0.61m (2 ft.) for the garage wall and 0.46m (1.5 ft.) for the garage roof overhang for proposed Lots 4 through 9, with no further siting exceptions allowed. The applicant proposes that offsetting the garages would allow for an improved internal floor plan and provide for a more attractive front façade with widened entry ways and front porches. The resulting side yards will be reduced on one side of the lot to a minimal 0.61m (2 feet), essentially limiting rear yard access to one side only. - 3 - In an attempt to ensure long-term maintenance and fire safety, certain safeguards have been required. They are as follows:  The garage will be required to be protected by fire sprinklers, like the home;  An easement on each lot will be required to allow long-term maintenance of the building face, with a 0.61m (2 feet) side yard;  A side-yard fence attached to the home will be required to prohibit access along the reduced side yard. The proposed variance is supported because it is consistent with similar variances previously supported for the area, and will allow development in the area to occur in a consistent manner. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. CONCLUSION: The proposed variance is supported because the housing form is consistent with the overall development, with similar building envelopes and setbacks. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2015-350-DVP. “Original signed by Michelle Baski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng. GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Proposed Subdivision Plan Appendix D – Site Plan Showing Proposed Setback Variance Appendix E – Streetscape Showing Offset Garage Siting Variance DATE: Nov 19, 2015 2015-350-DP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 24341 112 Ave 2011 Image Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Indefinite Creek River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Nov 19, 2015 2015-350-DP BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 24341 112 Ave 2011 Image Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Indefinite Creek River Centreline Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-129-DP 2016-129-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Development Permit and Development Variance Permit 11225 240 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received for a new development permit for a mixed use commercial and rental apartment building to be located at 11225 240 Street and that is zoned C-1 Neighbourhood Commercial. The previously issued development permit (DP/045/09) expired earlier this year. The new development permit includes 16 rental units in compliance with the Housing Agreement registered on title. There is an accompanying development variance permit application to allow the building to be sited closer to Kanaka Way (front lot line) and 240 Street (exterior side lot line). This is to create a stronger street presence to support the pedestrian environment and to strengthen pedestrian connectivity to and from the emerging neighbourhoods near the local commercial node at the intersection of 240 th Street and Kanaka Way (112 Avenue). The applicant has addressed all matters raised by the Advisory Design Panel and is requesting the new development permit and the development variance permit be issued by Council. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign a nd seal 2016-129-DVP respecting property located at 11225 240 Street. That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-129-DP respecting property located at 11225 240 Street. That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign the Cancellation of Charges Application to discharge the previously issued development permits DP/045/09 and DVP/045/09. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Ankenman Associates Architects Inc (Mark Lesack) Owner: 1005467 BC Ltd. Legal Description: Lot A, Section 16, Township 12,New Westminster District Plan EPP25279 1107 - 2 - OCP : Existing: COM (Commercial) Proposed: COM (Commercial) Zoning: Existing: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Proposed: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Surrounding Uses North: Use: Townhouses Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation Urban Residential South: Use: Mixed use commercial / rental apartments Zone: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) with site specific text amendment for daycare and rental apartments Designation: Commercial East: Use: Vacant Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low Density Residential, Conservation and Medium Density Residential West: Use: Townhouses Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Designation Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Mixed use Commercial and Rental Apartments Site Area: 0.478 ha. Access: Kanaka Way and 240 Street Servicing: Urban Previous Applications: b) Project Description: The proposal is to construct a two storey mixed use building with about 955 square metres of commercial space on the first level, 16 rental apartments on the second level and 58 surface parking spaces. The lands are already zoned C-1 Neighbourhood Commercial thus accommodating this proposal. The residential parking and visitor spaces are grouped and separated from the commercial parking. c) Proposed Variances The following variances are requested to Part 7 Commercial Zones, 701 Neighbourhood Commercial: C-1 of the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985: a) Section 6 Size of Buildings and Structures This provision is varied to increase the maximum height from 7.5 metres to 11.0 metres. - 3 - b) Section 7 Sitting a) This provision is varied by decreasing the minimum setback from the front lot line (Kanaka Way) from 7.5 to:  5.99 metres to the building face;  3.3 metres to the face of exterior columns;  3.0 metres to the edge of the roof; and  5.73 metres to the face of the interior columns. No projections into the varied setbacks would be permitted c) Section 7 Sitting d) This provision is varied by decreasing the minimum setback from the exterior side lot line and including the corner truncation line (240 Street) from 7.5 metres to:  5.36 metres to the building face on the second floor to the truncation line;  2.73 metres to the face of the exterior columns (at 240th Street)  2.44 metres to the edge of the roof (at 240th Street); and  4.86 metres to the face of the interior columns;  3.86 metres to the outside face of the louvers from the truncation line. No projections into the varied setbacks would be permitted d) Section 8 Other Regulations f) (iii) This regulation requires that an apartment use be limited exclusively to storeys above the first storey of a building and above a permitted commercial use. The d esign of the building includes an entrance lobby, mail boxes and storage space for the apartment residents on the first level thus sharing a floor with commercial use. Therefore, a variance of this provision is to provide clarity about calculating the floor area. Justification: The rationale for these reduced setbacks includes bringing the building face and storefronts closer to the streets thus creating a stronger pedestrian environment along 240 street and Kanaka Way. It is similar to the reductions for the mixed use building to the south for the same purpose and will begin to create the corner of 240 Street and Kanaka Way /112 Avenue landmark element. Due to the length of the facades, there are column-like elements and roof projections that extend or project beyond the building face to help break up, articulate and create more interesting the building faces. The setback reduction for the semi-circular wall with its projecting canopy at the corner gives the building greater visual prominence on the front onto two streets and better frames this intersection. The following variances are requested to Schedule “A” of the Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 – 1990: a) Section 1.0 d) The Off Street Parking and Loading Bylaw does not have a requirement for apartment parking in the C-1 Zone because an Apartment Use is not a permitted in that zone. If a use is not specifically mentioned, the Bylaw allows the required off-street parking requirement to be the same as for a similar class or use. Section 1.0 d) provides for the most similar use; however, it requires the parking and the visitor parking spaces to be concealed. Given that the apartments are rental units in perpetuity secured by a Housing Agreement, varying the requirement for concealed or underground parking was deemed to be a reasonable trade off in obtaining rental housing. The apartment parking is proposed to be located on a separate portion of the site, identifiable with a distinct surface treatment and attractively landscaped. - 4 - Therefore, Section 1.0 d) is proposed to be varied as follows: BUILDING CLASS OR USE REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES Apartments in the C-1 zone 1.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.2 spaces per dwelling unit designated for visitors Justification: The current regulation does not provide for Apartment Use parking requirement for projects in the C-1 Zone. The most similar parking requirement will satisfy the residential parking demand, but has the added requirement for the parking spaces to be concealed. This variance applies the parking requirement in place for similar apartments above commercial uses to this project without the concealment requirement. This is the same approach as approved by Council for other similar projects and the original project which did not proceed because the permit lapsed. The previous development permit for this site has expired, prompting a new application to issue the necessary permits. This proposal in in accordance with the Rental Housing Agreement registered on title and entered into between the original developer and the City to construct the required sixteen (16) rental units. d) Planning Analysis: The previous development permit issued by Council (DP/045/09) was in conjunction with the rezoning of a larger area of the northwest corner of Kanaka Way and 240 Street into a multi-phased townhouse development that is nearing build out and the subject lands for a mixed use commercial rental apartment building. This mixed use building was proposed to be 3 storey and containing 16 rental dwelling units subject to a Housing Agreement. The mixed use component was not preceded with, prompting this new application because the former development permit has expired. Acquired by a new owner, the application made is in accordance with the Housing Agreement, providing a two storey (no loft level proposed) building with 16 dwelling units on the second floor. The unit mix is proposed to be of 2–two bedroom units and 14-one bedroom plus den units. There is an amenity room on the same floor as the dwelling units for the residents convenience as well as resident bicycle storage and property maintenance equipment storage on the lower level. The proposed site plan and parking layout is very similar to the earlier proposal. The building continues to be sited close to the streets to create a vibrant pedestrian environment. This requires a variance as described in the earlier section above. The proposed variance is similar to the one previously granted; however, the new design has architectural elements like columns and a semi-circular ornamental canopy element oriented to the corner requiring different setback variances. In accordance with City requirements, this canopy is detachable to permit access to utilities in a service easement along Kanaka Way. A central open space with pedestrian amenities has been added, which is interconnected to pedestrian ways on the site, including a direct connection to the townhouse development to the west. Refuse and recycling is contained in an accessory building that borrows elements from the architecture of the mixed use building. This development has also incorporated a three tier storm water management plan as part of the site plan and proposed landscaping. The stormwater management on site has been coordinated between landscape architect and the civil engineer as follows: - 5 - 1. Stormwater bioswales have been proposed on both street frontages, with rainwater leaders from front face of building draining into bioswales. Calculations have been provided by civil engineer and coordinated with the landscape architect for design depth of bioswales. 2. Interior of site, permeable paving has been proposed in parking lot area, with parking drainage coordinated with the civil engineer. All parking lot areas will drain to permeable paving areas. Calculations were coordinated with the civil engineer. As for parking, there are 37 commercial parking spaces (5 more than the minimum requirement) 16 residential and 4 visitor parking spaces. A total of two spaces, one commercial and one residential parking space, are designed for the use of the disabled. Resident parking is reserved and located as a separate landscaped compound in the northern part of the site. Notice on title for the existing development variance permit and the expired development permit is proposed to be discharged. e) Advisory Design Panel: The following explanations describe how each comment from the Advisory Design Panel was addressed by the Architect: 1. Consider stronger corner element feature for greater street presence on 240th and Kanaka Architects response: Canopy revised to form full semicircular shape in plan. Canopy to be constructed with removable sections to address encroachment into easement. Signage and support backing has been pulled forward to align with outside building face for stronger corner definition. Exterior lighting added at columns to provide greater definition/focus in evening. 2. Consider the signage at the corner to be brought forward from building façade and bring additional interest to remaining signage for the exterior facing frontages with perpendicular treatments Architects response: Signage at corner revised per item 1. Signage locations at all elevations revised to create more interesting visual pattern and provide greater visibility. Exterior light fixtures added at building columns. 3. Consider stronger presence for the breezeway entry façade with additional detailing Architects response: Cross-bracing added at breezeway to create stronger presence. Cross- bracing elements are to repeat through length of breezeway. Final spacing are to be determined at time of construction documentation. Staff Comment: The bracing element was also requested and is being provided at the breezeway entrance on the façade facing the parking area. 4. Consider additional glazing for north and south staircase facades Architects response: Additional glazing added at north and west stairs. - 6 - 5. Consider alternate treatments for venting with gable ends Architects response: Gable end venting to be retained. Vent is functional element but also serves decorative element. Form is consistent with desired architectural expression. 6. Support retaining wall detailing to the catch in place concrete with architectural finish Architects response: Retaining wall to be detailed with painted inset reveals. 7. Confirm adjacent trail connections are aligned Architects response: Walkway configurations revised. The north walkway intended originally to tie into the adjacent property was deleted. The west walkway tie-in was relocated to match neighbouring walkway location already built to property line. Final location is to be coordinated with adjacent site condition. Staff Comment: Although the walkway is removed, access to this commercial complex from the townhouses to the north is by way of the sidewalk along 240 Street. f) Citizen/Customer Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. g) Financial Implications: In accordance with Council’s Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security equivalent to 100% of the estimated landscape cost will be provided to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. Based on an estimated landscape cost of $90,373.55, the security will be $90,373.55. CONCLUSION: The proposal is for a mixed-use development consisting of ground floor commercial and 16-unit rental on the second floor. This complies with the with the Official Community Plan, the site’s existing C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) Zone is proposed to be varied, and the 16 rental units under the Rental Housing Agreement with the City. - 7 - Therefore, it recommended that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2016-129-DP and 2016-129-DVP respecting property located at 11225 240 Street, as well as the Cancellation of Charges Application to discharge the previously issued development permits DP/045/09 and DVP/045/09. “Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP Planner “Original signed by Christine Carter” _____________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Aerial Map Appendix C – Architectural and Landscaping Plans Appendix D – Site Plan with Variances DATE: Apr 25, 2016 FILE:2016-129-DP BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11225 240 STREETLegend Stream Ditch Centreline Edge of Marsh Indefinite Creek River Centreline Lake or Reservoir Marsh City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Apr 25, 2016 FILE:2016-129-DP BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11225 240 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015 APPENDIX C 3/3/.$1$.$:$<),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(03/3/7+67),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(0),1*5$'(06&$/(%HHFKHU6W&UHVFHQW%HDFK%&9$$ $QNHQPDQ$VVRFLDWHV$UFKLWHFWV,QF'HYHORSPHQW)RU352326(''(9(/230(176W0DSOH5LGJH$675((76&$3(6$/0257*$*(/,1(/7'$8*867$675((76&$3(7+$675((76&$3(.$1$.$:$<5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $35 5(=21,1* '(9(/230(17$33/,&$7,210/ -81 ,668(')25$'3 0/ $8* 5(9,6('3(5$'3&200(176 0/ 835HHHHHHHHHHHHVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVH2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2OE1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1E1FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFCFCFCFCFPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOE1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1 E1CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CD CD CD CD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDCD CDCDOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOCFCFCFCFCFCFPOCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCD CDCD CD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCD CDCD CDCDCD CDCD CDCDCD CDCD CD CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDCDCD CDCDCDCDCD CDCDBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDRRRRCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDRRRRCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDBOOOOOOCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDOOOOCDOCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPHPHPHROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROPOPOPOPO POPOPOPOPOCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCVR1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1OBBBBBPPPPPPPPVPPPPPPPPPVVBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVOVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVOOVVVVVVVVVVVVVPPPPPPR1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1VVVVVVVVVVVVPPPPPPPR1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1R1POPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOFFFFFFFFFFFFE1FFFCC8359,676067$//6727$/WK675((7.$1$.$:$<606060609,679,67605.0%3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P4.0%4.0%4.6%3.9%4.0%4.0%P72:$//P72:$//P72:$//P72:$//P72:$//P72:$// P3 P5(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(65(6$&&(668372(;,67,1*3$7+:$<P 5(65(672&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&(;,67,1*&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.(;,67,1*&21&5(7(6,'(:$/.+<'52307/$0367$1'$5'7<3,&$/5()(572/$1'6&$3(':*6)2563(&,),&$7,216&85%/(7'2:17<3,&$/P'3P'3P'3P'3PP PP P P P P P P P P P P P 3/$17(53/$17(5/,1(2)%/'*$%29(P6(7%$&.P6(7%$&.6(7%$&.)$&(2)(;7(5,25&2/801723/P6(7%$&.3/$7&251(5&8772%/'*)$&(6(&21')/225'(&25$7,9(:$/.:$<75($70(175()(572/$1'6&$3(':*6P P P (;,67,1*+<'52.,26.(;,67,1*+<'52.,26.)+P P 6(7%$&.('*(2)522)723/6(7%$&.)$&(2),17(5,25&2/801723/6(7%$&.)$&(2)(;7(5,25&2/801723/&21&5(7(81,73$9(5672'(/,1($7(:$/.:$<67<3,&$/&21&5(7(81,73$9(56$75(6,'(17$1'9,6,7253$5.,1*7<3,&$/PP6(7%$&.3/$7&251(5&8772%/'*)$&(*5281')/2256(7%$&.3/$7&251(5&87722876,'()$&(/289(56PP6(7%$&.)$&(2),17(5,25&2/801723/522)/,1(P6(7%$&.)$&(2)522)723/PP5(69,67&%&%&%&%0+0+0+0+0+A1.12 P P P P3 P P P P P P&% P P3.7% &85%P P P P P P P P P P P PP P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P PP P5.2% PP PP P PP P P72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&72&21&)/2256/$%P*(2'(7,&P P P P P P 5(6,'(17$1'9,6,7253$5.,1*21/<%(<21'7+,632,176,*1$*(02817('67((/3267 5(6,'(17$1'9,6,7253$5.,1*21/<%(<21'7+,632,176,*1$*(02817('67((/32676<1236,6=21,1*&&,9,&$''5(667+675((70$3/(5,'*(/(*$/'(6&5,37,21/27$6(&7,2172:16+,31(::(670,167(5',675,&73/$1(336,7($5($6,7($5($Pò6)6,7(&29(5$*(6,7(&29(5$*(PòPò *5266)/225$5($%8,/',1*)/225$5($(;&/8',1*(/(&75,&$/6725$*(6(59,&(52206$0(1,7<$5($'(&.667$,56(/(9$725$1'/2%%<0$,1)/225&200(5&,$/86(Pò6)833(5)/22568,7(6$5($21/<Pò6)0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7352326('35,1&,3$/%8,/',1*P0$; 3$5.,1*5(48,5(0(1765(48,5('352326('67$//3(5Pò[67$//3(55(6,'(17,$/68,7(9,6,725[6(7%$&.6352326('1257+P)73/72%/'*)$&(6287+P)73/72)$&(2)(;7(5,25&2/801P)73/72('*(2)522)P)73/72)$&(2),17(5,25&2/801($67P)73/72)$&(2)(;7(5,25&2/801P)73/72('*(2)522)P)73/72)$&(2),17(5,25&2/801:(67P)73/72522))$&(&251(5&87P)73/$7&251(5&8772%/'*)$&(*5281')/225P)73/$7&251(5&8772%/'*6(&21')/225P)73/$7&251(5&872876,'()$&(2)/289(561(7)/225$5($0$,1)/225Pò6)833(5)/225Pò6)LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]$%&'T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]P P P P P PP P P72:P72:P72:6&$/(%HHFKHU6W&UHVFHQW%HDFK%&9$$ $QNHQPDQ$VVRFLDWHV$UFKLWHFWV,QF'HYHORSPHQW)RU$VLQGLFDWHG352326(''(9(/230(176W0DSOH5LGJH$6,7(3/$1$/0257*$*(/,1(/7'$8*8676&$/( $6,7(3/$1$3$57,$/5(7$,1,1*:$//(/(9&21&5(7(:$//&203/(7(:,7+&$67,13/$&(5(&(66(63$,17('720$7&+%/8(-($13(50$,1%/'*127(:$//&216758&7,2172%(&21),50('&225',1$7(':,7+$'-$&(17'(9(/230(175(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $35 5(=21,1* '(9(/230(17$33/,&$7,210/ -81 ,668(')25$'3 0/ $8* 5(9,6('3(5$'3&200(176 0/ $8* 5(,668(')25'3 0/ T.O. OF SLAB (CRU106-109)89'-5" [27.25 m]LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]ROOF RIDGE123'-10 1/2" [37.76 m]$%&'().+,/*P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P $$3/3/.$1$.$:$<T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]'$78037$9(2)'3'30'$78037$9(2)'3'30P 0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7-/,*+7,1*02817('72&2/801)$&(T.O. OF SLAB (CRU106-109)89'-5" [27.25 m]LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]ROOF RIDGE123'-10 1/2" [37.76 m]$%&'().+,/*P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P $$3/3/.$1$.$:$<T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]'$78037$9(2)'3'30'$78037$9(2)'3'30P0$;%8,/',1*+(,*+7-LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m](T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]P P T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]P 9" 12"4" 12"P LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m](T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]P P LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]P 6&$/(%HHFKHU6W&UHVFHQW%HDFK%&9$$ $QNHQPDQ$VVRFLDWHV$UFKLWHFWV,QF'HYHORSPHQW)RU 352326(''(9(/230(176W0DSOH5LGJH$&2/285('(/(9$7,216$/0257*$*(/,1(/7'$8*8676&$/( $($67(/(9$7,216&$/( $:(67(/(9$7,216&$/( $($67(/(9$7,216&$/( $1257+(/(9$7,216&$/( $:(67(/(9$7,216&$/( $6287+(/(9$7,21 +25,=217$//<,167$//('&(0(17,7,2866,',1*(;326(')$&(&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(%/8(-($1 &(0(17,7,2863$1(/6+$5',%2$5'&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(/,*+7+286( %5,&.9(1((5&2/2857(;785(720$7&+,17(167$7(%5,&.3(:7(560227+( +,*+352),/($63+$/76+,1*/(6&2/285720$7&+,.2&$0%5,'*(+$59$5'6/$7( %8,/783:22')$6&,$&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< 9,1</:,1'2:'225)5$0(:+,7(:,7+:,'(75,0&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(%/8(-($17+(50$//<%52.(1$/80,1806725()5217:,1'2:)5$0(&:'28%/(*/$=,1**/$=,1*&/($5)5$0(&2/285%(1-$0,10225( :528*+7,521 0(7$/%5$&.(7+25,=217$//289(56&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< 6/$77('&('$56,*1$*(%$&.,1*&2/2856$16,1(19,5267$,1&/$66,&$87801*2/'&2$7 +25,=217$/6,*1%$1')/86+02817('&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(:528*+7,521 0(7$/5$,/,1*6<67(0&:0'2,1),/3$1(/&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< /289(5('9(17&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$<0$7(5,$//(*(1'5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $35 5(=21,1* '(9(/230(17$33/,&$7,210/ -81 ,668(')25$'3 0/ $8* 5(9,6('3(5$'3&200(176 0/ $8* 5(,668(')25'3 0/ T.O. OF SLAB (CRU106-109)89'-5" [27.25 m]LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]ROOF RIDGE123'-10 1/2" [37.76 m]5(7$,1,1*:$//P P P P P P P P P P P 3/3/7+67T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]$$T.O. OF SLAB (CRU106-109)89'-5" [27.25 m]LEVEL 2104'-5" [31.83 m]ROOF113'-6" [34.59 m]ROOF RIDGE123'-10 1/2" [37.76 m]P P P P P P P P P P P P P 3/3/7+67T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 112-113)91'-8" [27.94 m]T.O. OF SLAB (CRU 1110-111)90'-5" [27.56 m]$$6&$/(%HHFKHU6W&UHVFHQW%HDFK%&9$$ $QNHQPDQ$VVRFLDWHV$UFKLWHFWV,QF'HYHORSPHQW)RU 352326(''(9(/230(176W0DSOH5LGJH$&2/285('(/(9$7,216$/0257*$*(/,1(/7'$8*8676&$/( $1257+(/(9$7,216&$/( $6287+(/(9$7,21 +25,=217$//<,167$//('&(0(17,7,2866,',1*(;326(')$&(&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(%/8(-($1 &(0(17,7,2863$1(/6+$5',%2$5'&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(/,*+7+286( %5,&.9(1((5&2/2857(;785(720$7&+,17(167$7(%5,&.3(:7(560227+( +,*+352),/($63+$/76+,1*/(6&2/285720$7&+,.2&$0%5,'*(+$59$5'6/$7( %8,/783:22')$6&,$&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< 9,1</:,1'2:'225)5$0(:+,7(:,7+:,'(75,0&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(%/8(-($17+(50$//<%52.(1$/80,1806725()5217:,1'2:)5$0(&:'28%/(*/$=,1**/$=,1*&/($5)5$0(&2/285%(1-$0,10225( :528*+7,521 0(7$/%5$&.(7+25,=217$//289(56&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< 6/$77('&('$56,*1$*(%$&.,1*&2/2856$16,1(19,5267$,1&/$66,&$87801*2/'&2$7 +25,=217$/6,*1%$1')/86+02817('&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(:528*+7,521 0(7$/5$,/,1*6<67(0&:0'2,1),/3$1(/&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$< /289(5('9(17&2/285720$7&+%(1-$0,10225(+&%227+%$<*5$<0$7(5,$//(*(1'5(9 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 %< $35 5(=21,1* '(9(/230(17$33/,&$7,210/ -81 ,668(')25$'3 0/ $8* 5(9,6('3(5$'3&200(176 0/ $8* 5(,668(')25'3 0/ A1.12CHK'D:DRAWN:DESIGN:SCALE:DATE:M2LA PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT:DRAWING NUMBER:REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO. DATE DR.property of M2 Landscape Architects and may not bereproduced or used for other projects without their permission.c Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is theSEAL:Tel: 604.553.0044New Westminster, British Columbia#220 - 26 Lorne MewsV3M 3L7Fax: 604.553.0045Email: office@m2la.com A1.12CHK'D:DRAWN:DESIGN:SCALE:DATE:M2LA PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT:DRAWING NUMBER:REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO. DATE DR.property of M2 Landscape Architects and may not bereproduced or used for other projects without their permission.c Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is theSEAL:Tel: 604.553.0044New Westminster, British Columbia#220 - 26 Lorne MewsV3M 3L7Fax: 604.553.0045Email: office@m2la.com CHK'D:DRAWN:DESIGN:SCALE:DATE:M2LA PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT:DRAWING NUMBER:REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO. DATE DR.property of M2 Landscape Architects and may not bereproduced or used for other projects without their permission.c Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is theSEAL:Tel: 604.553.0044New Westminster, British Columbia#220 - 26 Lorne MewsV3M 3L7Fax: 604.553.0045Email: office@m2la.com CHK'D:DRAWN:DESIGN:SCALE:DATE:M2LA PROJECT NUMBER:DRAWING TITLE:PROJECT:DRAWING NUMBER:REVISION DESCRIPTIONNO. DATE DR.property of M2 Landscape Architects and may not bereproduced or used for other projects without their permission.c Copyright reserved. This drawing and design is theSEAL:Tel: 604.553.0044New Westminster, British Columbia#220 - 26 Lorne MewsV3M 3L7Fax: 604.553.0045Email: office@m2la.com APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-207-DP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Wildfire Development Permit 22650 136 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Wildfire Development Permit application 2015-207-DP has been received in conjunction with the first phase of a four (4) phase single family subdivision that will result in a total number of 100 lots to be created. A Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) is required because the subject property located at 22650 136 Avenue (Appendix A & B) is located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area designated in the Official Community Plan. The Planning Department, Licences, Permits & Bylaws Department and the Fire Department have been monitoring the implementation of the Wildfire Protection Guidelines since they were adopted in 2008. To address some challenges, the original standards upon which the Guidelines were based, Council accepted recommendations in a staff report dated July 25, 2016 and Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 was given second reading on December 6, 2016, to move to the more flexible set of standards contained in the Home Owners FireSmart Manual (B.C. Forest Service Protection Program), referenced in this report as the “FireSmart Standards”. In the meantime, to allow instream application to proceed without delay, the FireSmart Standards are being applied. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-207-DP respecting property located at 22650 136 Avenue DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Paul Hayes Owner: 581600 BC LTD Legal Description: Lot 9, Section 29, Township 12, NWD Plan 9387 OCP : Existing: Eco Clusters, Conservation Zoning: Existing: R-1 (Residential District), RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) 1108 - 2 - Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: R-1 (Residential District) Designation: Eco Cluster, Conservation South: Use: Rural Residential, Agriculture Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural East: Use: Single Family Residential, Park Zone: R-1 (Residential District), R-2 (Urban Residential District) Designation: Eco Cluster, Conservation West: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 11.76 hectares (29.06 acres) Access: 136 Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Concurrent Applications: 2015-207-SD (Phase 1), 2016-239-SD (Phase 2), DP/096/07 (WP/NF) b) Project Description: The property was originally rezoned under application 2013-097-RZ in 2001, and a small southeastern portion is currently under rezoning for Phase 4 for 10 lots (2016-239-RZ). The site is to be subdivided and constructed in four phases. Currently, the Planning Department is processing subdivision applications for developing Phase 1, 30 lots (2015-107-SD) and Phase 2, 24 lots (2016-239-SD) along with a Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit encompassing all four (4) phases (DP/096/07). The development of Phase 1 will include: construction of a sewer main connection between Foreman Drive at 136 Avenue and the Nelson Peak development to the east; dedication of Park on the balance of the site; and construction of a multi-purpose (horse) trail over the sewer right-of-way. Completion of the sewer connection to Nelson Peak will allow removal of a temporary pump station on that site. Phase 1 also includes the last portion of 136 Avenue needed to provide an east -west connection between 224 Street and 232 Street. c) Planning Analysis: Under Section 8.12 of the Official Community Plan (OCP), portions of the City are designated as a Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) Area. The purpose for this is for the protection of life and property in the designated area that could be at risk for wildland fire and where the risk, in some cases, may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. These measures are specified in a Wildfire Protection Development Permit that is based on a qualified consultant’s report. - 3 - Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. prepared the Wildfire Development Permit Assessment for this project. The overall objective of this report is to assess the potential wildfire threat and provide recommendations and tools to reduce this threat to the development site as a part of the Wildfire Development Permit Area application. Specific goals for this project are:  To assess interface fuel hazards using an accepted fuel hazard assessment procedure and present a summary of results;  To map the location of hazardous fuel types relative to the planned subdivision;  Provide a synopsis demonstrating that the proposed development is consistent with the applicable Development Permit Guidelines provided by the City; and  Identify mitigation or compensation measures that may be specified as development permit or rezoning conditions including, but not limited to, recommendations for: o Building materials; o Establishing and maintaining defensible space; o Improving suppression access; o Managing combustible construction debris; o FireSmart fuel treatments to mitigate hazard in existing landscapes and natural areas; and, o FireSmart landscaping for the planned development as well as ongoing maintenance of vegetation fuels. The following is a description of how the recommendations and requirements of the Wildfire Development Permit Assessment Report achieve the WFDP Key Guideline Concepts: 1. Locate development on individual sites so that, in conjunction with the use of mitigating construction techniques, the risk of wildfire hazards is reduced; Structures will be located 8m from the forest edges as per the Zoning Bylaw. The forested areas beyond this point to about 30m will be treated to reduce the fire behavio ur potential of high risk fuels. This treated interface area along with the use of fire resistant construction materials and fuel treatments will reduce the wildfire hazard. 2. Mitigate interface fire hazards without compromising environmental conservation objectives while respecting other hazards in the area; There will be some fuel treatments in Park C of conifer trees. These treatments will include mostly lift pruning of mature trees and removal of some trees along the forest edge. All deciduous trees will remain and overall impacts to the ecological integrity of this forest will be low. 3. Ensure identified hazard areas are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land development process; All forested areas have been assessed and delineated into fuel types. Fire behaviour potential of these areas has been analysed. These findings have driven the recommended fuel treatments. 4. Proactively manage potential fire behaviour, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire suppression and containment, and minimizing adverse impacts. Some low impact fuel treatments will include removal of conifers along the northwest edge of Park C as well as some lift pruning of mature conifers. This will help to create a defensible space for suppression and reduce the risk of a crown fire. - 4 - d) Interdepartmental Comments: The Wildfire Development Permit Assessment was reviewed and all issues identified by the Planning, Parks and Fire Departments were satisfactorily addressed by the consultant. CONCLUSION: The proposed four (4) phase subdivision at 22650 136 Avenue is located in an area designed by the Official Community Plan to be a Wildfire Development Permit (WFDP) Area. Therefore, application 2015-207-DP for a wildfire development permit has been brought forward to Council for consideration and issuance. As discussed in the report, this application has been considered and complies with the requirements of the FireSmart Standards and the Key Guideline Concepts. It is recommended that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-207-DP respecting properties located at 22650 136 Avenue. “Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP Planner “Original signed by Christine Carter” “Original signed by Michael Van Dop” _____________________________________________ ________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Michael Van Dop Director of Planning Assistant Chief, Planning & Prevention “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Air Photo Appendix C – Subdivision Plan DATE: Jul 8, 2015 2015-207-SD BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:4,000 22650-136 Ave Legend !(Ponds \\Wetlands GPS Creek Centrelines Streams & Rivers (Topographic) Feature Type Indefinite Creek Centreline Ditch Centreline River Centreline Rivers & Lakes (Topographic) Feature Type Canal Flooded Land Lake/Reservoir Marsh River APPENDIX A DATE: Jul 8, 2015 2015-207-SD BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY City of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:4,000 22650-136 Ave Legend !(Ponds \\Wetlands GPS Creek Centrelines Streams & Rivers (Topographic) Feature Type Indefinite Creek Centreline Ditch Centreline River Centreline Rivers & Lakes (Topographic) Feature Type Canal Flooded Land Lake/Reservoir Marsh River 2011 photography image APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Note: Item 1131 has been placed in the "Items on Consent" section as Item 702.1 Note: Item 1132 has been placed in the "Items on Consent" section as Item 702.2 Page 1 of 3 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Revision to Policy 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The current Policy 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods requires some housekeeping revisions and staff recommends changes to a current requirement to advertise found property (goods) in a local newspaper two times before they are returned to the finder. In many cases, the cost of advertising exceeds the value of the property. It would be prudent to set a threshold for when found property must be advertised. In addition, the policy requires that unclaimed property be sent to public auction, however this method of disposal is not always the best means to ensure the best value to the City and it would be beneficial to allow for other options such as recycling. RECOMMENDATION(S): That Policy 10.01 – Disposal of Found Goods be revised as outlined in the staff report dated January 9, 2017. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: When property is turned into the RCMP or the City, the property is held for 3 months before it is disposed of. If the item is unclaimed, the current practise is disposal is either though auction or other method as determined by the Manager of Procurement to obtain best value. If the finder of the property is interested in claiming the property it is returned to the finder. Prior to disposal the current policy requires that staff publish a notice in two subsequent weekly local newspapers as per the Community Charter requirement for ‘public notices’ (it should be noted that under the Community Charter publication is not necessary for found goods). The following table identifies the recommended changes and the attached policy shows those changes in context. 1133 Page 2 of 3 Recommend Changes to Policy 10.01 Sections Current Revised Rationale Section 3.0 Unclaimed Property (1) and Claimed 1 Property (1): Reference to Advertising after the hold period. …After that time, notice will be given in accordance with Section 94 of the Community Charter. …After that time, notice will be given in accordance with Section 94 of the Community Charter for lost property with an estimated valued over $500 The purpose of the publication is to attempt to find the owner of the found property. Recent experience is that the City has had few responses to such notices. These notices can be costly, on average $50 per ad. Ads should only be run for higher valued property. Section 3.2: Reference to disposal through public auction. If the property still remains unclaimed, the property will be sent to public auction. If the property still remains unclaimed, the property will be sent to public auction or disposed of in another method that brings best value to the City . Public Auction is not always the most cost effective means of disposing of unclaimed found goods. In some cases the cost to ship the items to auction exceeds the value received from auction. In other instances, the auction company will charge the City for disposing of the goods if they are not sold at auction (disposal is usually into the garbage). The Manager of Procurement could be given the authority to determine the option for obtaining the best value back to the City, such as auction, re-sale, recycling or directly disposing of items in the garbage if there is no other means of reuse – which would reduce the costs to the City that an auction company may charge. Section 1.1 and 2.2: Reference to Property that has come into possession of the RCMP. …has come into the custody and possession of the RCMP …has come into the custody and possession of the RCMP or the Municipality The policy refers to found goods turned into the RCMP. Often items are also turned into the City directly, or picked up by the City during regular operations in the field. 1 “Claimed” in this policy refers to the fact that the finder is interested in recovering the property if the owner is not identified. Page 3 of 3 b) Desired Outcome(s): Revised Policy 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods to reduce costs to City for advertising, provide for other means of disposal other than auction when appropriate to realize better value to the municipality, and include goods turned into or found by the City. c) Strategic Alignment: Changing the policy would follow the strategic alignment of fiscal responsibility. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Individuals who are honest enough to turn in found property will not have to wait extra time to claim low value items while notices have to be advertised. e) Interdepartmental Implications: RCMP support staff have been consulted on the changes. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Found milestone 2017. g) Policy Implications: Revisions to Policy 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods. h) Alternatives: 1) Leave the policy as is, and incur the advertising/auction costs and reduce best value options for disposal of found goods. 2) On the advertising - reduce or increase the threshold recommended for triggering an advertisement. CONCLUSIONS: Policy No. 10.01 Disposal of Found Goods was adopted in 2006 and would benefit from revisions as identified herein. The City could realize better value and provide better customer service through these revisions. “Original signed by Laurie Darcus” Prepared by: Laurie Darcus, MA, MMC, SCMP, CPM Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program “Original signed by Paul Gill” Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer :ld Attachment: Revised Policy 10.01 – Disposal of Found Goods Printed Page 1 of 3 Policy No. 10.01 185333 POLICY STATEMENT City District of Maple Ridge Title: Disposal of Found Goods Policy No : 10.01 Supersedes: REVISED Authority: Council Approval: February 28, 2006 January 17, 2017 Effective Date: March 1, 2006 January 18, 2017 Policy Statement: 1. In accordance with Section 67 of the Community Charter, property that has come into the custody and possession of the RCMP or the Municipality on behalf of a Municipality may be disposed of and the proceeds from that disposal dealt with in accordance with the regulations under the Community Charter if (a) the owner of the property has not been identified after reasonable effort, and (b) a court of competent jurisdiction has not made an order in respect of the property. 2. Property may be disposed of at any time if ( a) the property is a perishable article, ( b) the property has no apparent marketable value, or ( c) custody of the property involves unreasonable expense or inconvenience. Purpose: To provide direction to Municipal and RCMP Staff with regard to property that has come into the possession of the RCMP or the Municipality on behalf of the municipality. Definitions: Printed Page 2 of 3 Policy No. 10.01 185333 PROCEDURE (OPERATING REGULATION) City District of Maple Ridge Policy Title: Disposal of Found Goods Policy Number: 10.01 Supersedes: REVISED Authority: Council Approval: February 28, 2006 January 17, 2017 Effective Date: March 1, 2006January 18, 2017 1.0 POLICY STATEMENT (adopted): 1. In accordance with Section 67 of the Community Charter, property that has come into the custody and possession of the RCMP or the Municipality on behalf of a municipality may be disposed of and the proceeds from that disposal dealt with in accordance with the regulations under the Community Charter if (a) the owner of the property has not been identified after reasonable effort, and (b) a court of competent jurisdiction has not made an order in respect of the property. 2. Property may be disposed of at any time if (a) the property is a perishable article, (b) the property has no apparent marketable value, or (c) custody of the property involves unreasonable expense or inconvenience. 2.0 KEY AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY Action to Take Unclaimed Property 1. The Manager of Procurement will dispose of unclaimed property provided it has been held for 3 months and provided that it is no longer required for police purposes (i.e. evidence or active police file). Claimed Property 2. People who submit lost property to the RCMP or Municipality may also submit a claim for this property to the Municipal Clerk. Responsibility Manager of Procurement Municipal Clerk 3.0 DETAILED ACTIONS Unclaimed Property 1. The lost property will be held for 3 months. After that time, notice will be given in accordance with Section 94 of the Community Charter for lost property with an estimated valued over $500. 2. If the property still remains unclaimed, the property will be sent to public auction or disposed of in another method that brings best value to the Municipality. Municipal Clerk Manager of Procurement Printed Page 3 of 3 Policy No. 10.01 185333 3. Proceeds from the auction will be held for 6 months from the date of sale and will then be transferred to general revenue. Claimed Property 1. The lost property will be held for 30 days months from the date of the claim. After that time, notice will be given in accordance with Section 94 of the Community Charter for lost property with an estimated valued over $500. 2. If, after the notice is given, the item still remains unclaimed by the owner, the item will be returned to the finder. 3. If the estimated value of the item exceeds $3000, staff will report the claim to a closed Council meeting before the item is returned to the finder. 4. If the owner claims the property within this period, the finder will be advised in writing. Manager of Procurement Municipal Clerk RCMP staff Municipal Clerk Municipal Clerk 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Dog Off-Leash Areas – Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Parks and Leisure Services Commission approved the creation of dog off-leash areas in both Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks on the condition that staff provide a report of all compliments or complaints after a six month period of operation, at which time a final determination can be made on the future use of these sites as off-leash areas. Subsequently, these off-leash areas were installed, Westview in November 2015 and Upper Maple Ridge in February 2016, and have been well-received by the dog-owning community. Along with the previously established dog off-leash areas at Albion Fairgrounds and Jerry Sulina Park, these two additional areas have provided dog owners within our community legitimate areas for off- leash activities as well as opportunities to socialize and exercise their pets closer to home while minimizing impacts to other park visitors. RECOMMENDATION: That the trial dog off-leash areas at Westview Park and Upper Maple Ridge Park, be approved as permanent off-leash areas. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: At the January 2015 Commission meeting, staff were directed to create a dog off-leash site at Westview Park, Tolmie Park, and Upper Maple Ridge Park. Staff were also directed to work with nearby residents and park users to identify appropriate areas within each park to be used as an off-leash area and the hours that the off-leash locations are open. Community input was garnered for these three locations and areas in each park were identified. At the May 14, 2015 and July 9, 2015 Parks & Leisure Services Commission meetings respectively, staff was directed to install dog off-leash areas at Westview Park and Upper Maple Ridge Park, on the condition that the Commission be provided with a report of all compliments or complaints after a minimum six month period of operation, at which time a final determination could be made on the future use of these sites as off-leash areas. The Westview and Upper Maple Ridge dog off-leash areas were installed and have proved popular with dog owners seeking off-leash opportunities within our community. Complaints and 1151 2 compliments received, after installation of the dog off-leash areas in November 2015 and February 2016 for the six month period of operation are attached (Attachment A). The complaints have included concerns around noise, odours, cleanliness, proximity to playground and loss of informal use of park area, while compliments have highlighted resident dog owner’s appreciation for the opportunity to exercise their pets. Requests for minor improvements have been received as well, with benches, small dog areas, dog watering station and pathway improvements cited. While these areas are appreciated and well used by the dog owning community, during the period of operation, three requests for additional dog off-leash areas have been received. Many Maple Ridge dog-owning residents value the opportunity to take dogs to parks for exercise and socialization, a healthy activity for both dogs and dog owners. Dog owners are frequent park users and they particularly value the opportunity to exercise dogs off-leash. b) Desired Outcome: To provide suitable permanent dog off-leash opportunities that are safe where dogs can exercise and socialize where this activity does not detract from the enjoyment of other park users. c) Strategic Alignment: In response to the growing demand for dog off-leash areas expressed through multiple requests made to staff and members of Council, identifying suitable locations has been included in the Park and Facilities business plan since 2006. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The off-leash areas are an outcome of the community desire to accommodate additional off- leash opportunities within the park system. Both of these dog off-leash areas in Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks are well used and the feedback we received during the six months has been that these areas offered a great opportunity for dog owners to socialize and exercise their pets while few complaints have been expressed. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Enhancements to these two dog off-leash areas, such as additional signage, pathway improvements, dog watering stations, small dog areas, and seating could be accommodated under current operational budgets over time. f) Policy Implications: Approving these two dog off-leash areas supports the Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Plan (2010) strategic objective to increase the number of dog off-leash areas, and place them strategically to serve as many residents as possible. g) Alternatives: Although tere have been minimal complaints about the actual use of these sites for this purpose, Council could choose not to endorse these sites as permanent off-leaqsh areas, however this is not recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Along with the previously established dog off-leash areas at Albion Fairgrounds and Jerry Sulina Park, the two dog off-leash areas at Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Parks have provided dog owners within our community additional legitimate areas for off-leash activities as well as opportunities to 3 socialize and exercise their pets closer to home while minimizing impacts to other park visitors. Complaints received from neighbours and park visitors during the six month period of operation have been few, but have included concerns around noise, odours, cleanliness, proximity to playground and loss of informal use of park area, while compliments have highlighted resident dog owners’ appreciation for these areas. These areas are well-used in all seasons and provide valued off-leash opportunities. “Original signed by Valoree Richmond” Prepared by: Valoree Richmond, Manager of Park Planning & Operations “Original signed by David Boag” Reviewed by: David Boag, Director Parks & Facilities “Original signed by Wendy McCormick” Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development, Parks, Recreation & Culture “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer :vr Attachment A: Comments received during six month period of operation for Westview and Upper Maple Ridge Dog Off Leash Areas David :•.q From: David Boag Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 11:42 AM To: ' Cc: Valoree Richmond Subject: RE: Dog Park 236 Street Hi I can confirm that upper Maple Ridge Park was approved for use as a dog off leash park by the Parks and Leisure Services Commission. The Commission have typically designated these sites as trial sites for 6 months or more to gauge the use of the park and ensure that if an unforeseen undesirable outcome ensues, that they would have the ability to revisit the placement of the off leash park. This does not mean that the Commission were soliciting additional feedback on this topic or their approval of the park, it simply means that if through the normal operating of the park that any unforeseen circumstances arose that were contrary to their intensions for the off leash park, that this could be addressed effectively. The signs that you have noted are similar in nature to the signs that have been posted at other off leash parks. Some of the feedback that we have received since the opening of the off leash parks, is the view that dog owners should be more respectful of residents who may live near these sites.,This is one of the site attributes that was beneficial in this case because there is a space buffer to nearby residences. I have noted your concerns regarding the smell from dog waste receptacles and have directed staff to increase the frequency of pick up, so that this is not an issue. I have also asked staff to ensure that all off leash parks have cans with lids, which staff have indicated is the case. The cans themselves will be phased out over time, as they do not present a very aesthetically pleasing look in our parks system. What was once considered an economical way to address litter or waste in parks, is changing, however with so many cans (garbage barrels) in the parks system, it will take time to replace them all. I have visited the site and confirmed that Wild Play has locked the gate, which I anticipate is for security reasons in the off season. This memo will confirm that they were granted access to the parking lot for Wild Play, however they do not have exclusive use of the parking lot. The city will take steps to have the parking lot opened for off leash park patrons, Unfortunately I ma not the best person to address the construction truck issue and will pass this comment along to Mr. David Pollock (Municipal Engineer) to address, and I'm sure that he has much more experience and knowledge of the appropriateness of this activity than I could explain. Unfortunately the seasonal blow out of turf areas is not unusual for off leash dog parks. We can over seed in the spring with some success, however it is not 100% effective as a result of the continuous use of the park. If and when the City designates the park as permanent, we may look at the provision of a walking trail within the park, to encourage dog owners to keep on the move with their pets thus reducing the impact on the same part of the site, while another parks are under utilized. The water for the dogs is very important, however we decided to wait the final approval, prior to installing other permanent fixtures such as water service, trail or benches etc. at the park. I was not aware that there was a problem with garbage and that volunteers were feeling burdened with this. As noted above, I have increased the frequency of the pick ups for the cans, and I will also ask staff to monitor the site more closely so that our neighborhood volunteers are not being overburdened. Please feel free to drop me a line if there is a particular group, individual or time of day when this occurs and we will follow up to try to correct this issue. We are very grateful to you and the neighborhood volunteers who assist us to keep our parks and adjacent street clean and tidy. I am surprised to hear that dog feces is being left in the park, as it is our experience that other dog park patrons will call people out of they do not clean up after their pets. Certainly not 100% effective, however it is adhered to at a much higher level within off leash parks. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the social benefits of providing facilities such as this where residents can meet for a chat and exercise their dogs at the same time (without having people telling them to leash their dogs). The off leash sites has been one of the greatest improvements to the social fabric of our communities (and parks) in the lower mainland community in a long time. Thanks so much for taking the time to share your observations about the off leash park site, as this will help us ensure that local neighborhood concerns can be addressed appropriately. Thanks David Boag Director, Parks and Facilities Maple Ridge Parks, Recreation and Culture 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7344 Fax: 604-467-7393 Web Facebook YouTube Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. Survey Email Comments From: Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:22 PM To: David Boag Subject: Re: Dog Park 236 Street David Boag Over the months of the trial period of Upper Maple Ridge Park as a fenced in Dog Park amongst the many signs around the Park none indicated that it was a Trial Park or that feedback was welcome. One sign allowed that the neighbours should be respected, it is beside WildPlay, far away from residents living by the park, the two entrance gates or two of the ugliest, stinking dog poo containers. WildPlay has closed & locked the parking lot, the only remaining toilet & access to the only west gate. Construction trucks continue to use the parking across from the Park on 236 St in front of city owned property, a mess of potholes mud & noise. The grass on the east side of the park is gone, now only mud & dog feces remain. There is no water for the dogs, so numerous plastic jugs, containers are brought to the park & left there. The only maintenance in the Park is a private collection of the dog poo, which in the summer months & heat is a foul smell in the neighbourhood. Other garbage around the poo containers, park or parking around the park is left for the neighbourhood to pick up. That is one couple in their mid nineties, one mid eighties, two mid seventy & myself mid sixties all of us have been doing this for too long. We have tried leaving it, it just attracts more garbage, this is our home & investment in this community. On the upside the Dogs are having fun, happy dogs = happy owners, the owners are talking to each other, these are good things. (does not mean I think taxes should pay for dog ownership, especially when there are so many greater needs, housing, education, hospitals, poverty etc.) Considering the number of dogs & owners the area is too small. People & dogs mostly arrive in their vehicles parking where ever they can on 236 St. then come thru the two east gates & stand in one spot while throwing balls. Between the trucks & the dogs it can get pretty noisy around here. If Dog Parks are to be part of our neighbourhoods i believe an effort from City staff to keep the area clean, provide a parking area like the one on 232 St. that keeps construction trucks away from parks & provides safe parking for park users & their dogs, provide water, odour free poo containers & the area as attractive as possible for both residents & visitors to the Park & area. Thank you for you time & effort. On Mar 15, 2016, at 2:50 PM, David Boag <dboa @maplerid e.ca> wrote: Hi Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding the installation of the off leash park at Upper Maple Ridge Park. I can confirm that the Parks and Leisure Services Commission reviewed supportive comments and also concerns from a variety of interested residents and stakeholders via the feedback portion of the public process that considered this as an off leash location. The Commission after consideration of all of the comments received, approved this location as an off leash site along with 2 others in the community. I believe that you may have confused the installation of the sidewalk fence in December which was an Engineering project as being the off leash park fence. The off leash fencing has just very recently been completed, as the manager of this file left the City to work in another part of the region. The six months trial will be conducted as a "fenced in off leash park", which will allow both nearby residents and park patrons who use this facility to have the opportunity to share their thoughts or concerns about the this activity at upper Maple Ridge Park. The trial period report to Maple Ridge Council will be six months from now, as the fencing has recently been completed. I understand that you do not agree with dog off leash parks, however there are a very large number of residents who do desire these facilities, and have been asking Councils in both Communities for many years to provide an opportunity for their chosen recreational activity, exercising their pets and meeting other people with similar interests. The existing off leash parks continue to meet a large demand in our community where there are approximately 10,000 licensed dogs between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows (Sourced from dog licenses issued). This memo will confirm that I have included this correspondence in the trial period file, for inclusion in the information report for Council's review in approximately 6 months from now. Thanks David Boag Director, Parks and Facilities image001.png> Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7344 Fax: 604-467-7393 Web Facebook YouTube Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. Survey Email Comments From: Sent: Monaay, March 14, 2016 5:45 PM To: David Boag Cc: Nicole Read Subject: Dog Park 236 Street March 15th Dog Park 236 Street to the Dog Park I have always been opposed to it from the beginning but the general use of parkland for dogs as opposed to people. Maple Ridge has more then enough parks for dogs, perhaps we should give them coats boots also. All the neighbours that are distance of this park are opposed to it. The trial period for this fenced area of the park was to be six months for neighbours to have a say, as usual that was never the intention of Parks. The fence went up sometime in December over the winter months when few people are playing sports outdoors. As with the initial neighbourhood survey/input during the short period this three month trial has been on. Community input into this has been a joke, yes we love our dogs but do we want parks for dogs over kids? Do we want to be borrowing 10 million dollars for Parks & Recreation! Do we want to live next door to a dog park. NO!! When I bought this property 24 years ago I envisioned Parkland to be much more valued than Maple Ridge's Council appear to. You continue to devalue my property & lifestyle. Not to mention taking away the only playing field in Silver Valley! At the same time you are making plans to develop what were supposed to be playing fields not in the future, but now. Where are your children going to play? Where do family's go to have a game of baseball, soccer, play frisbee any of the hundreds of things people have done in that park since 1924. where are the playgrounds within five minute walk of all residents in Silver Valley? where are the connecting trail systems joining all greenspace? Where is the greenspace! Maple Ridge has a history of making beautifully worded documents a bit like fairytales. Maple Ridge BC image004.jpg> David Boaq From: Frank Quinn Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 4:27 PM To: David Boag Cc: Paula Melvin; Robin MacNair Subject: RE: Dog bylaw FYI From: Paula Melvin Sent: November 30, 2016 3:22 PM To: Robin MacNair Cc: Frank Quinn Subject: Dog bylaw Hi Robin, I received a call from he may have already called you directly). He is concerned that there are only 4 fields in the community where you can walk your dog off leash. He wants to know where his property taxes and the licensing money goes to. He feels that the sports associations are hostile towards the dog community and that it's not fair treatment. He has been told to leave fields that he has paid for through his taxes. He does not want a call back. Thanks, Paula David Boaq a.;:le.. .. >i .dear.`Y ,.s ia,:... :,sci "'oo, 3i,. vk, .. .n/vsLf. w.,. Y+. .r.'l9% From: Chris Lisowsky on behalf of Parks and Leisure Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 9:06 AM To: ' Cc: Malcolm McDougall; Aaron Billard; David Boag Subject: RE: new dog park 236th Maple Ridge Hello Thank you for your email letting us know you are happy with the new dog park at Upper Maple Ridge Park. We are happy to hear that all of you are enjoying it. I have copied some of the Parks Department staff that were responsible for getting this dog park up and running as they will like to hear from residents such as yourselves. Have a great day! Regards, Chris Lisowsky Clerk II, Business Operations Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services 11925 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-460-6721 clisowsky mapleridge.ca Web Facebook YouTube Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. Survey Email Comments Original Message ----- From: Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:06 PM To: Parks and Leisure Subject: new dog park 236th Maple Ridge Hello, I am just emailing about how much my family and our dog love the new dog park on 236th. It is a lovely place to take your dog for some off leash running, in a safe in closed area. All the other dogs and families we have met there are awesome, and dog owners are very good with picking up after their dogs. Love this park. Thank you for the awesome new park!! David Boaq rie T f t,,. tt:_: fv r z ,, a.. ,,:' h.,r3.a. n,h:F3. to /J, ii,l .+-n„^ „. f, .,, /. s+,., n', .,rY/lfr 1.: .. N. sv: ,+.,ux :;:.b ."1,:.. ,i..fiN-:,GrH 5 /. ^': /:,/ From: Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12:39 PM To: David Poag Subject: Dog Park @ Maple Ridge Upper Park Good Afternoon: I am writing this email as i understand that this new dog park is temporary? I was surprised when i heard this because all of the posts we're cemented into the ground. This is the BEST dog park in Maple Ridge and my two dogs absolutely love it , I take them 2 — 3 times a day. Since this park has opened up i have had nothing but a positive experience with all the dog owners and everyone's dogs. My only complaints are that it needs a second garbage can at the gate ( the 236th gate) and the inside black gates should be replace with the type that we're installed outside gates with the "U" shape lock instead of the black chain. I don't feel the black gate is secure enough. Please consider keeping this park on going because it will be devastating if it's closed at some point!!! I am not happy with the Albion Dog Park at all. I appreciate you taking the time to read my email and again PLEASE keep this park open. Sincerely: Maple Ridge David B•.• Thank you for the response. Saturday, February 13, 2016 9:21 AM David Boag Re: Westview Dog Off Leash Park image001.png Sent from my Samsun- Galaxy smartphone. Original message -------- From: David Boag <dboag@mapleridge.ca> Date: 2016-02-12 12:07 PM (GMT -08:00) To: Cc: Kelly Swift <kswift@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Westview Dog Off Leash Park Hi Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in getting back to you regarding your inquiry, I do recall reading your email quite some time ago, and I'm very surprised to hear that you have not received a response from our department in this regard. It is very unfortunate that your visit to Westview Park was not a good experience for you and your family. We would certainly not condone the behaviour of the dog owner that you have described in your memo below. I understand frorr what you have said that the dog was tied up to a park bench closer to the playground and was not in the off leash park. If this is the case, there are no park regulations that would prohibit the owner of the dog from being there, provided it was on a leash. Having said that, there are bylaws that could potentially be used if a person is causing a nuisance and detracting from other park patrons use of the park. There is no doubt that there continues to be an issue with regard to owners not picking up after their pets which has been a concern for many years and has been discussed at great length by the Commission and Council. Most of the complaints are specific to sports fields, children's play grounds, sport courts and even in water play parks. The City adopted bylaws last year that prohibit dogs from being in or on these areas, and has also authorized parks staff to issue tickets if they observe infractions such as this. This does not mean however that a family cannot bring their pet to the park when they visit with their children. A leash is required in all parks with the exception of designated off leash parks. It is our experience is that the designated off leash areas are much less likely to have this problem, as the dog owner check on each other while in this space, which has been confirmed by the observations of our parks maintenance personnel. The off leash park proposal at West View Park went through a significant neighborhood process and the feedback from the community was shared with both the Parks and Leisure Services commission and Maple Ridge Council prior to be approved. This is not to suggest that there were no concerns raised, however there was also significant support for this initiative. One of the reasons this site was selected was the tree cover and absorption of potential noise from the off leash park. The fence was also placed in a manner that the dogs would not be introduced to the creek within the park. In fairness, other than a large stand of blackberries there was not a lot of ground vegetation below the tree canopy prior to the off leash area being installed. In addition every effort was made to maintain the informal dirt bike track that had previously been located at West View Park. I certainly understand why some of our residents do not agree with the off leash parks, however with 10,000 licensed dogs in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, the desire of families who wish to bring their pet with them when the visit the park or exercise their pet is significant, as they consider their pet to be a member of the family. There are now 6 off leash sites and 2 leash optional trails for pet owners, so there is much less need for dogs being off leash in open park areas where children and other park patrons are using these spaces. I can confirm that the City does not have any current plans to close any of the existing off leash parks, in fact staff have been asked to look for additional sites where this activity could be incorporated, as well as considering off leash areas in any new park developments where there is a request / need in that area. It is very regrettable that you will no longer contribute to your community by volunteering for adopt a block, as this is a very valuable contribution to the community. I certainly understand your decision under the circumstances and thank you for your past efforts to improve your neighborhood through volunteerism. If you have any additional questions regarding this topic or if you have any additional suggestions, please feel free to send me an email or call me at the number listed below. Thanks David Boag Director, Parks and Facilities PARKS& LEISURE SERVICES Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7344 Fax: 604-467-7393 Web Facebook YouTube Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. Survey Email Comments From: Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:03 AM To- Parks and Leisure Cc: Subject: Westview Park - Opposition to Leash Off Area To the City of Maple Ridge Parks and Leisure Department, As a local resident living at who used to regularly frequent Westview Park with my I have to comment on how inappropriate it is to have a dog park adjacent to a children's playground. The location and layout of the park took over space that children and youth have been using as a small bike track for a few years now. Not to mention it was a wonderful urban forest that kids could explore, play hide and seek in or other games kids enjoy without concern for dogs and their owners. Both my and were sorely disappointed to find their favorite local park and playground disrupted by a leash off area. On November 3 and the last day I will visit this park a local resident tied up his dog to a bench immediately adjacent to the playground. The dog would not stop barking which was a major nuisance in itself. As well every time kids or another dog got within 10 feet it would lash out aggressively which was a significant safety concern had the leash gave way or one of the many children playing there got too close. It actually got to the point where I kindly suggested to the owner to go elsewhere with his dog before there is an incident. Unfortunately he declined causing my family to make the decision to leave before we intended to. When children are playing at a municipal playground they should not have to be concerned with unruly dogs displaying hostile tendencies that are congregating at the park. Further pet owners do not always clean up after them and the aroma of dog feces over the summer discouraged my family from enjoying the park and playground during the hotter weather. Now that the cooler weather is upon us we have been recently trying to visit Westview Park as a family. Unfortunately we did feel comfortable at the children's playground we were trying to enjoy due to an irresponsible owner and an unmanageable dog that was in close proximity to where my kids were playing. Although the park is in an urban area, with the stream that runs through, the forest itself and because it is a habitat for many different animals there should be some consideration for the environmental sensitivity. Dogs are notorious for quickly eroding land and it is evident the forest floor in the fenced in area is quickly deteriorating from digging and otherwise. Also the forest used to be very active with various animals and now I noticed this is no longer the case likely since dogs tend to harass wildlife. During my regular strolls through the neighborhood I have noticed the leash off area is not even highly utilized likely due to its discrete location and the lack of awareness by dog owners. More often than not when I am passing by Westview Park there are very few or quite often no one using the leash off area making the location that much more ludicrous considering children previously played in the area regularly on a daily basis. Unfortunately the very few times I have visited Westview Park lately with my family there have always been nuisance dogs and owners there that often make the experience less than enjoyable. It seems a colossal waste of space usage if the leash off area is not regularly utilized by dogs while families who frequented the area are now restricted. After researching dog parks in the Maple Ridge area as well other lower mainland communities I found the locations typically are not in close proximity to children's playground equipment. Other community dog parks I have investigated are placed in areas that do not affect children and families who want to enjoy an area unimpeded by dogs. Most other dog parks I have looked into are either located in rural areas such as Jerry Sulina or Tynehead's leash off areas where they are not impacting people who want to use the facilities. Other dog parks that are in residential areas are intentionally located so as to not interfere with others who are trying to enjoy the space without be hassled by dogs and their owners. It is unfortunate the city has installed another leash off area that has infringed on people who do not want to be bothered by dogs. Apparently no lessons were learned as a result of the fiasco from building a dog park adjacent to a playground at Volker Park. In my opinion Westview Park is not a suitable location for a leash off area for so many reason with the obvious being the liability to the city should an unfortunate incident occur between a dog and a child. Unless the city takes action to remove the leash off area my family will no longer visit Westview Park. We will continue to monitor the situation closely in hopes the dog park is removed so we can once again enjoy the playground and urban forest unimpeded. As community ambassadors who have maintained the area surrounding and including Westview Park through the Adopt Block program for over a year now, my family (will no longer be providing our volunteer services. Although we feel let down by the city and displaced from our favorite local park and playground, we will be more than happy to resume our adopt a block services for Westview park when and if the leash off area is permanently removed. Please ensure this email is directed to the appropriate stakeholders and respond to let us know the status of the leash off area at Westview Park as well as the City's plan moving forward. Regards, City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Operating Agreement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City of Maple Ridge (CMR) and Ridge Meadows Seniors Society (RMSS) have been in discussions to re-negotiate a new Operating Agreement to replace the 2015-17 Agreement. These conversations became a necessity due to the expiry of the Joint Leisure Services Agreement in October 2016. The timing of these discussions also provided an opportunity to restructure the manner in which strata fees are being managed. CMR & RMSS have a long history of working together to improve this operating model and in 2016, met on multiple occasions in this regard. These discussions have led to an agreement in principal that the City will reduce the operating grant by $75,600 and the City will assume ongoing responsibility for all strata related fees. In addition, the City will increase funding to meet increased programming needs by $45,000 as recommended in the 2017-2021 Financial Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to prepare an updated operating agreement with Ridge M eadows Seniors Society that removes RMSS involvement in strata fee management and increases funding for programming by $45,000. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: For many years the Ridge Meadows Seniors Society (RMSS) has provided excellent services to the citizens of Maple Ridge who are fifty-five years and older. The current agreements with the City signed the 1st day of January of 2015 are; an Operating Agreement with the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Commission (The Commission) and a Lease Agreement with the City of Maple Ridge. These agreements have been replaced with the “assumption agreement” that transitions both agreements from The Commission to the City of Maple Ridge. RMSS operates out of the Elderly Citizen’s Recreation Centre (ECRA) on 224th which is a seniors residential tower operating as a Strata Council. RMSS has representation on the Strata Council and as per the Operating Agreement, is responsible for all “Operating Costs” which includes all fees paid to the management company that are related to the Strata, such as gas, water and sewer, snow removal, landscaping, electricity, fire protection and general maintenance. As these fees can and do fluctuate annually, the Strata Council sets an estimated budget, based on the previous year, and invoices the City monthly for the Cit y’s portion and RMSS portion. At the 1152 end of each fiscal year there is a reconciliation process and the City is either invoiced for the outstanding amount or reimbursed for any overpayment. This has placed an ongoing burden on RMSS and hinders their ability to focus on seniors programming , as for a number of years now the reconciliation has resulted in RMSS receiving an invoice for the difference. In order to simplify the process and allow RMSS to focus on programming for seniors, City staff, including Parks, Recreation & Culture and Finance, have held a number of meetings with the RMSS President and Board Executive. This has resulted in an agreement in principal that sees the City retaining $6,300 per month ($75,600 per year) from the operating grant in lieu of payment towards the RMSS portion of the strata fees. This will alleviate the uncertainty for forward planning and eliminate the extra steps of having our Finance Department invoice RMSS accounting for the purpose of returning the Strata costs that RMSS receives back to CMR, who is ultimately responsible for this payment. During these discussions RMSS also expressed the need to hire additional program staff to keep up with the increased membership and activity demands of the demographic they serve. It is clear that Maple Ridge has an aging population and that service demands have and will continue to increase. The Maple Ridge Local Health Area, also known as Ridge Meadows, is experiencing unprecedented population growth. The total estimated population in Ridge Meadows in 2014 was 97,592, 14 percent (13,663) of the residents were age 65 and over. (It is important to note that RMSS membership begins at age 55). In the next ten years it is anticipated the senior’s population in Ridge Meadows will grow by 62 percent, (compared to 53% in the overall Fraser Health Region) adding an additional 8,494 seniors to the area. By 2027, it is projected one in five residents of Ridge Meadows will be over 65 and the older age groups (75+ and 85+) will make up around 8% and 2% of the community’s total population, respectively. This data supports the staff recommendation to increase RMSS funding by $45,000 in the 2017-2021 Financial Plan to provide for increased programming. b) Desired Outcome: To continue to support RMSS in the independent delivery of leisure services for seniors while easing the financial burden to the Association. c) Strategic Alignment: Support of these recommendations aligns with the Safe and Livable Communities Strategic Direction and the Age Friendly Community recommendations. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Proposed changes will ensure that RMSS can continue to provide programs and services. e) Interdepartmental Implications: The proposed restructure of the strata fee management system will reduce the burden on the Finance Department to prepare invoices, reconciliations and other communications w ith RMSS. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The budget reallocation associated with the transition of the management of strata fees from RMSS to the City has no overall impact on the budget. Inflationary costs are anticipated and will be accommodated within the existing financial plan. CONCLUSIONS: RMSS & CMR have had a long standing working relationship that has added tremendous value for people 55 plus in Maple Ridge. The recommendations have addressed concerns raised by RMSS and are supported by staff. The updated operating agreement will allow RMSS to flourish by spending less time on strata fee management and more time on providing quality social and recreational programming for the our senior’s demographic. “Original signed by Tony Cotroneo” Prepared by: Tony Cotroneo, Manager of Community Services “Original signed by Wendy McCormick” Approved by: Wendy McCormick, Director of Recreation and Community Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer :TC