HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-11 Council Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfPage 1
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
July 11, 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 Special Council Meeting of June 23, 2017, the Special
Council Meeting of June 27, 2017 and the Regular Council Meeting of
June 27, 2017
402 Minutes to the Public Hearing of June 20, 2017
500 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
600 DELEGATIONS
601 Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and Katzie, Seniors Network
• Heather Treleaven, Co-ordinator
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
July 11, 2017
Council Chamber
Page 2 of 6
700 ITEMS ON CONSENT
701 Minutes
701.1 Development Agreements Committee – June 27, 2017 and July 5, 2017
701.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
• Active Transportation Advisory Committee – May 31, 2017
• Community Heritage Commission – May 2, 2017
702 Reports
702.1 2017 Business Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 providing information on the municipal
portion of the tax rate assessed to Business Class properties across lower
mainland properties.
702.2 2017 Major Industry Class Property Taxation
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 comparing the City of Maple Ridge’s
current Major Industry Class municipal tax rate in 2017 to other
municipalities in the area.
703 Correspondence
704 Release of Items from Closed Council Status
From the June 13, 2017 Closed Council Meeting
04.01 Discussions with Lisa Beare, MLA, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and
Bob D’Eith, MLA, Maple Ridge-Mission - Press Release
04.03 Licence to Occupy Portion of Sidewalk and On-Street Parking Space
- Chameleon Café – 11965 224 Street
04.04 Fortis BC Community Giving 2017 Nominations
From the June 27, 2017 Closed Council Meeting
04.03 Press Release only re: a Memorandum of Understanding with
Present Occupants of the St. Anne’s Lands
800 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Council Meeting Agenda
July 11, 2017
Council Chamber
Page 3 of 6
900 CORRESPONDENCE
1000 BYLAWS
Bylaws for Adoption
1001 2017-115-RZ, 10181 247 Street
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 recommending adoption
To rezone from R-1 (Residential District) to RS-1b (One Family Urban
[Medium Density] Residential) to rectify the split-zoning that currently
applies to the subject property (this is not creating a new lot)
Adoption
1002 Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on
Accessibility and Inclusiveness Bylaw No. 7344-2017
To establish a committee to advise Council on the enhancement of
accessibility and inclusivity for present and future citizens of Maple Ridge
and Pitt Meadows
Adoption
1100 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Public Works and Development Services
1101 Addendum Report, 2016-100-AL, Cell Tower, 25762 Dewdney Trunk Road
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 recommending that Application 2016-100-
AL for non-farm use in the Agricultural Land Reserve to allow for a cell
phone tower be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission.
1102 2017-198-AL, 21587 128 Avenue, Application to Exclude Land from the
Agricultural Land Reserve
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 providing options for consideration
pertaining to an application to exclude land at 21587 128 Avenue from the
Agricultural Land Reserve as a first step toward an eventual application to
rezone the parcel for a commercial use.
Council Meeting Agenda
July 11, 2017
Council Chamber
Page 4 of 6
1103 2017-221-RZ, 22032 119 Avenue, RS-1 to RT-2
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7355-2017 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to RT-2 (Ground-Oriented Residential Infill) to support the
development of a triplex residential building 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.
1104 Adoption of Corporate Asset Management Policy 9.13
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 recommending that Corporate Asset
Management Policy 9.13 be adopted.
Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Police)
1131 Development Cost Charges Imposition Bylaw
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge
Development Cost Charges Imposition Bylaw No. 7320-2017 be given first
reading and that the proposed stakeholder consultation process outlined in
the staff reported dated July 4, 2017 be endorsed.
Parks, Recreation & Culture
1151 Construction and Operating Agreements for Synthetic Fields on School
District No. 42 Property
Staff report dated July 11, 2017 recommending that the construction and
operating agreements templates be approved and that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to execute the agreements once final terms have
been completed.
1152 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Facilities – Public Engagement Final Report
Report to be circulated separately as an addendum
Administration
1171
Council Meeting Agenda
July 11, 2017
Council Chamber
Page 5 of 6
Other Committee Issues
1191
1200 STAFF REPORTS
1300 OTHER MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
1400 NOTICES OF MOTION AND MATTERS FOR FUTURE MEETING
1500 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Council Meeting Agenda
July 11, 2017
Council Chamber
Page 6 of 6
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.
400 Adoption and Receipt of Minutes
400
401 Minutes of Regular and Special Council Meetings
401
City of Maple Ridge
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 23, 2017
The Minutes of the City Council Meeting held on June 23, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in the
Blaney Room of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for
the purpose of transacting regular City business.
0BPRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Councillor K. Duncan P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor B. Masse F. Quinn, General Manager of Public Works and
Councillor Robson Development Services
Councillor Speirs L. Darcus, Manager of Legislative Services
Councillor Shymkiw
Note: These Minutes are also posted on the City’s Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Note: Councillor Masse joined the meeting via conference call
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
2.0 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
R/2017-252
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda for the June 23, 2017 Special Council Meeting be
approved.
CARRIED
401
Special Council Meeting Minutes
June 23, 2017
Page 2 of 2
3.0 NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING
R/2017-253
It was moved and seconded
That the meeting following this meeting at 6:00 p.m. be closed to the public
pursuant to Sections 90 (1) and 90 (2) of the Community Charter as the
subject matter being considered relates to the following:
Section 90(1)(g) Litigation or potential litigation affecting the
municipality.
Section 90(1)(i) The receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client
privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose.
Any other matter that may be brought before the Council that meets the
requirements for a meeting closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90 (1)
and 90 (2) of the Community Charter or Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
CARRIED
4.0 ADJOURNMENT – 3:05 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
L. Darcus, Corporate Officer
City of Maple Ridge
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2017
The Minutes of the City Council Meeting held on June 27, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the
Blaney Room of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for
the purpose of transacting regular City business.
0BPRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Councillor K. Duncan P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor B. Masse F. Quinn, General Manager of Public Works and
Councillor Robson Development Services
Councillor Speirs L. Darcus, Manager of Legislative Services
Councillor Shymkiw
Note: These Minutes are also posted on the City’s Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.0 CALL TO ORDER
2.0 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
R/2017-254
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda for the June 27, 2017 Special Council Meeting be
approved.
CARRIED
3.0 NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING
R/2017-255
It was moved and seconded
That the meeting following this meeting at 6:00 p.m. be closed to the public
pursuant to Sections 90 (1) and 90 (2) of the Community Charter as the
subject matter being considered relates to the following:
Section 90(1)(d) The security of property of the municipality.
401
Special Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 2 of 2
Section 90(1)(k) Negotiations and related discussions respecting the
proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the
council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in
public.
Any other matter that may be brought before the Council that meets the
requirements for a meeting closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90 (1)
and 90 (2) of the Community Charter or Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
CARRIED
4.0 ADJOURNMENT – 5:05 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
L. Darcus, Corporate Officer
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2017
The Minutes of the City Council Meeting held on June 27, 2017 at 7:15 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.
0BPRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell W. McCormick, Acting General Manager of Parks,
Councillor K. Duncan Recreation & Culture
Councillor B. Masse P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor G. Robson F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor T. Shymkiw Services
Councillor C. Speirs C. Carter, Director of Planning
L. Darcus, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other staff as required
C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental
Services
D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
B. Elliott, Manager of Community Planning
A. Kopystynski, 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 AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
300 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved as circulated.
401
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 2 of 15
400 ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES
401 Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of June 13, 2017, the Regular
Council Meeting of June 13, 2017 and the Special Council Meeting of June
19, 2017
R/2017-256
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of Special Council Meeting
of June 13, 2017, the Regular Council Meeting of June 13, 2017 and the
Special Council Meeting of June 19, 2017 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
500 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
600 DELEGATIONS
601 Project Louisa – Wood Art Proposal
• Andres Schneiter
Mr. Schneiter gave a PowerPoint presentation providing information on
Project Louisa. He illustrated the burl slab and depicted how he would like
to use the wood for an art project for the community.
R/2017-257
It was moved and seconded
That staff prepare a report for a future Council Workshop Meeting related
to Project Louisa, and include any information from the Public Art Steering
Committee on the project.
CARRIED
602 The Tiny House Festival
• Lisa Chessari, Founder/Organizer
Ms. Chessari gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the history and
background information on the Tiny House organization. She outlined how
micro homes can be built and the requirements in terms of zoning to allow
a tiny house community. She introduced Mr. Jerry Purnell who spoke
further to the proposal and indicated he would like to follow up with City
staff to develop a plan.
The Director of Planning indicated that this type of housing will form part of
a staff report on affordable housing slated to come before Council.
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 3 of 15
700 ITEMS ON CONSENT
701 Minutes
701.1 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meeting of May 30,
June 6 and June 14, 2017
702 Reports
702.1 2017 Council Expenses
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 providing an update on Council expenses
to the end of May 2017.
702.2 2017 Home Show
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 providing information on the Ridge
Meadows Home Show held from May 5 to 7, 2017.
702.3 Update on Town Centre Animation Plan
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 providing an update on the key elements
of the Town Centre Animation Plan including the Mobile Food Vendor Truck
(Food Trucks) Pilot Program, the Street Entertainment (Busker) Pilot
Program and the Sidewalk Café/Parklet Program
703 Correspondence – Nil
704 Release of Items from Closed Council Status – Nil
R/2017-258
It was moved and seconded
That Items 701.1, 702.1, 702.2 and 703.2 on the “Items on Consent”
agenda be received into the record.
CARRIED
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 4 of 15
800 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Note: Item 801 was deferred at the June 13, 2017 Council Meeting
801 Follow-Up Report: Funding Strategy for Leisure Centre Renovations,
Synthetic Sports Fields, the Albion Community Centre and additional
surface at Planet Ice
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that Funding Model IV in
the report be supported subject to a Closed discussion on legal
implications of moving forward with the projects.
The General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services reviewed the
staff report. He provided clarification on reserves and borrowing.
MAIN MOTION
R/2017-259
It was moved and seconded
That Funding Model IV outlined in the staff report dated June 27, 2017 be
supported, subject to a Closed Council Meeting discussion on the legal
implications of moving forward with these projects.
R/2017-260
It was moved and seconded
That the main motion be amended to add the following to the end of the
main motion: “…excluding the Albion Community Centre and the additional
surface at Planet Ice; and
That the motion relating to the Albion Community Centre be deferred for a
two week period; and
That staff be directed to bring back a report providing alternative
approaches to developing another ice sheet at the Planet Ice facility and
engage in discussion with RG Properties to that end.”
CARRIED
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 5 of 15
Note: Item 802 was deferred at the June 13, 2017 Council Meeting.
802 Albion Community Centre – Design Contract Award
Staff report dated June 13, 2017 recommending that the Architectural
Design Services Contract for the Albion Community Centre be awarded to
Craven Huston Powers Architects, that a contingency be established and
that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
802.1
R/2017-261
It was moved and seconded
That the staff report dated June 13, 2017 titled “Albion Community Centre
– Design Contract Award” be deferred for two weeks.
DEFEATED
Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Speirs, Councillor Shymkiw -
OPPOSED
802.2
R/2017-262
It was moved and seconded
That the Architectural Design Services contract for the Albion Community
Centre be awarded to Craven Huston Powers Architects (CHPA) at a
contract price of $689,055 (excluding taxes); and;
That a contingency of 20% in the amount of $137,811 (excluding taxes) be
established for the design project; and further,
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
R/2017-263
It was moved and seconded
That the motion be amended to add the text “and further, that no design
work takes place until discussions with the YMCA and the YWCA are held.”
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN
R/2017-264
It was moved and seconded
That the staff report titled Albion Community Centre – Design Contract
Award dated June 13, 2017 be deferred for two weeks.
CARRIED
Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Speirs - OPPOSED
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 6 of 15
900 CORRESPONDENCE – Nil
1000 BYLAWS
Note: Items 1001 to 1005 are from the June 20, 2017 Public Hearing
Bylaws for Third Reading
1001 2017-115-RZ, 10181 247 Street
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017
To rezone from R-1 (Residential District) to RS-1b (One Family Urban
[Medium Density] Residential) to rectify the split-zoning that currently
applies to the subject property (this is not creating a new lot)
Third reading
R/2017-265
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7321-2017 be given third reading.
CARRIED
1002 2016-008-RZ, 11016, 11032 and 11038 240th Street
1002.1 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7326-2017
To designate from Low/Medium Density Residential to Conservation and
Medium Density Residential and to add to Conservation
Third reading
R/2017-266
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7326-2017 be given third reading.
CARRIED
1002.2 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7218-2016
To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential) to permit the future development of 15 townhouse units
Third reading
R/2017-267
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7218-2016 be given third reading.
CARRIED
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 7 of 15
1002.3 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7219-2016
To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity
Residential District) for a future 8 lot subdivision
Third reading
R/2017-268
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7219-2016 be given third reading.
CARRIED
1003 2016-464-RZ, 20185 and 20199 McIvor Avenue
1003.1 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7333-2017
To designate from Agricultural to Urban Residential and to amend the
Urban Area Boundary
Third reading
R/2017-269
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7333-2017 be given third reading.
CARRIED
1003.2 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7308-2017
To rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RS-1b (One Family
Urban [Medium Density] Residential) for a future 9 lot subdivision
Third reading
R/2017-270
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7308-2017 be given third reading.
CARRIED
Note: Councillor Duncan excused herself from discussion of Item 1004 at
8:40 p.m. as she lives in the vicinity of the proposal development
1004 2015-297-RZ, 23025, 23054, 23060, 23070, 23075, 23089 and 23095
Lougheed Highway and 11305, 11383, 11428 and 11438 232 Street
1004.1 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7331-2017
To designate from Conservation and Urban Residential to Urban
Residential, Commercial, Conservation and Park and to remove from
Conservation and add to Conservation
Third reading
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 8 of 15
R/2017-271
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7331-2017 be given third reading.
CARRIED
1004.2 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7183-2015
To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-2 (Urban
Residential District), RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), C-1 (Neighbourhood
Commercial) and P-1 (Park and School) to permit future subdivision of
approximately 89 R-2 lots and 262 townhouse units
Third reading
R/2017-272
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7183-2015 be given third reading.
CARRIED
Note: Councillor Duncan returned to the meeting at 8:46 p.m.
1005 2017-231-RZ
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7339-2017
To regulate supportive recovery homes and other care facilities uses
throughout the City of Maple Ridge
Third reading
R/2017-273
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7339-2017 be deferred until such time as a modified draft
housing agreement is provided for Council discussion and
recommendations to the bylaw are included based on discussion held
today.
CARRIED
Councillor Duncan, Councillor Speirs - OPPOSED
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 9 of 15
Bylaws for Adoption
1006 2014-003-CU, 19975, 19989, 19997 Dunn Avenue
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7064-2014
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending adoption
To provide a Temporary Use Permit to temporarily allow vehicle inventory
storage on the three subject properties zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential)
Adopt
R/2017-274
It was moved and seconded
That Bylaw No. 7064-2014 be adopted.
CARRIED
1100 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Public Works and Development Services
1101 2014-070-RZ, 10470 245B Street and 24589 104 Avenue, RS-2 to RS-1b
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7157-2015 to rezone from RS-2 (One Family
Suburban Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban [Medium Density]
Residential) to permit a subdivision of approximately 16 lots be given first
reading.
R/2017-275
It was moved and seconded
1. In respect of Section 475 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 Improvements District
Boards; and
vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 10 of 15
and in that regard, it is recommended that no additional consultation be
required in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the
proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the City’s website,
together with an invitation to the public to comment;
2. That Bylaw No. 7157-2015 be given first reading; and
3. That the applicant provide further information as described on
Schedules A, B, and F of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–
1999, along with the information required for a Subdivision application.
CARRIED
1102 2016-448-CP, Area 1: 256 Street Land and Area 2: Lougheed Highway
Lands
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7299-2016 to redesignate Area 1:
256 Street Lands from Suburban Residential, Rural Resource and
Institutional to Conservation, Industrial, Park, Estate Suburban Residential,
Suburban Residential and Industrial Reserve be given second reading and
be forwarded to Public Hearing and that Maple Ridge Official Community
Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7335-2017 to redesignate Area 2: Lougheed
Highway from Suburban Residential to Industrial (Business Park category)
and Rural Residential be given first and second reading and be forwarded
to Public Hearing.
R/2017-276
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 the public and stakeholder engagement process, as outlined
in the Employment Lands Consultation Outcomes and Next Step
Options Report, dated May 2, 2017, and Council considers it
unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities except
by holding a Public Hearing on both bylaws;
2) That Bylaw No. 7299-2016 to redesignate Area 1: 256th Street
Lands from Suburban Residential, Rural Resource and Institutional
to Conservation, Industrial, Park, Estate Suburban Residential,
Suburban Residential and Industrial Reserve be given second
reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 11 of 15
3) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7335-2017 to
redesignate Area 2: Lougheed Lands from Suburban Residential to
Industrial (Business Park category), Commercial and Rural
Residential be given first and second reading and be forwarded to
Public Hearing.
CARRIED
1103 2014-106-RZ, 23882 Dewdney Trunk Road, RS-1b to R-2
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7125-2014 to rezone from RS-1b (One Family Urban
[Medium Density] Residential) to R-2 (Urban Residential District) to permit
a future subdivision of approximately11 lots be given second reading and
be forwarded to Public Hearing.
R/2017-277
It was moved and seconded
1) That Bylaw No. 7125-2014 be given second reading, and be forwarded to
Public Hearing;
2) That Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer
to pay to the City an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the
land, as determined by an independent appraisal, in lieu of parkland
dedication in accordance with Section 510 of the Local Government Act;
and,
3) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
i) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Stormwater Management
ii) 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.
iii) That a voluntary contribution, in the amount of $56,100.00 be
provided in keeping with the Council Policy with regard to
Community Amenity Contributions.
CARRIED
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 12 of 15
1104 2016-223-RZ, 20434 Chigwell Street, RS-1 to R-1
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7273-2016 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit a future subdivision of 2
lots be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
R/2017-278
It was moved and seconded
1) That Bylaw No. 7273-2016, as amended, be given second reading,
and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and
2) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
i) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the floodplain report,
which addresses the suitability of the subject property for the
proposed development;
ii) Demonstration of B.C Building Code and Fire Safety compliance
of existing structures, or demolition;
iii) Demolition or relocation of encroaching structures.
CARRIED
1105 Award of Contract ITT-EN17-47: 117 Avenue Multi-Use Path (Burnett Street
to 231 Street)
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that Contract ITT-EN17-
47: 117 Avenue Multi-Use Path (Burnett Street to 231 Street) be awarded
to Triahn Enterprises Ltd., that a contract contingency be approved and
that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
R/2017-279
It was moved and seconded
That Contract ITT-EN17-47: 117 Avenue Multi-Use Path (Burnett Street -
231 Street), be awarded to Triahn Enterprises Ltd. in the amount of
$682,638.00 excluding taxes; and
That a contract contingency of $70,000 be approved for unforeseen items;
and further
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
CARRIED
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 13 of 15
1106 Municipal Equipment Purchase, Four (4) Half Ton Trucks
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that the contract for the
purchase of four (4) half ton trucks be awarded to MR Motors LP DBA
Maple Ridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge and that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to execute the contract.
R/2017-280
It was moved and seconded
That the contract for the purchase of four (4) half ton trucks be awarded to
MR Motors LP DBA Maple Ridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge in the amount of
$150,932.00 excluding tax and further that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to execute the contract.
CARRIED
Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Police)
1131 2016 Annual Report and 2016 Statement of Financial Information
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that the 2016 Annual
Report be received and that the 2016 Statement of Financial Information
be approved.
The Annual Report is available for viewing on the City of Maple Ridge
website at http://www.mapleridge.ca/163/Annual-Report
R/2017-281
It was moved and seconded
That the 2016 Annual Report be received as required by the Community
Charter; and
That the Statement of Financial Information be approved as required by the
Financial Information Act.
CARRIED
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 14 of 15
Parks, Recreation & Culture
1151 Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues (“MACAI”),
Name Change and Bylaw No. 7344-2017
Staff report dated June 27, 2017 recommending that the Municipal
Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues be renamed to the Municipal
Advisory Committee on Accessibility and Inclusiveness (“MACAI”) and that
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on
Accessibility and Inclusiveness Bylaw No. 7344-2017 be given first, second
and third readings.
R/2017-282
It was moved and seconded
That the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues be renamed
to the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility and Inclusiveness
(MACAI) and;
That Bylaw No. 7344-2017 be given first, second and third readings.
CARRIED
Administration – Nil
Other Committee Issues – Nil
1200 STAFF REPORTS – Nil
1300 OTHER MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
1400 NOTICES OF MOTION AND MATTERS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS – Nil
Council Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2017
Page 15 of 15
1500 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Ted Ingram
Mr. Ingram commented on the presentation on the wood art. He advised
that he had expressed concern to the City over the state of the tree to be
used in the wood art prior to it being cut down and that he did not receive a
response. He expressed concern that it appeared that the City may be
complicit in the cutting down of this tree by considering paying for an art
project involving that same tree. He advised that he was also upset at the
hours of conversation spent trying to figure out what had happened to the
tree.
Diane Guthrie
Ms. Guthrie asked whether the Tiny House presentation was just a
presentation for information. She commented on the two plans put
forward by the delegation and asked whether the plans will be run
simultaneously.
Mayor Read advised that the Tiny House Festival was a delegation
providing a presentation to Council and that nothing has been done on the
part of Council to move the project forward. She reiterated the Director of
Planning’s statement that the tiny house concept will be part of a larger
discussion on different types of housing.
1600 ADJOURNMENT – 9:53 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
L. Darcus, Corporate Officer
402 Minutes of the Public Hearing
402
City of Maple Ridge
PUBLIC HEARING
June 20, 2017
The Minutes of the Public Hearing held in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 11995 Haney
Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia on June 20, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
____________________________________________________________________________
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and
Councillor C. Bell Development Services
Councillor K. Duncan P. Gill, General Manager of Finance and Corporate
Councillor B. Masse Services
Councillor G. Robson C. Carter, Director of Planing
Councillor T. Shymkiw C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental
Councillor C. Speirs Services
L. Darcus, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other staff as required
B. Elliott, Manager of Community Planning
S. Murphy, Planner 2
A. Kopystynski, Planner 2
R. MacNair, Manager of Bylaw and Licensing Services
______________________________________________________________________________
Mayor Read called the meeting to order. The Manager of Legislative Services explained the
procedure and rules of order of the Public Hearing and advised that the bylaws will be
considered further at the next Council Meeting on June 27, 2017.
1)2017-115-RZ, 10181 247 Street
Lot 1, Section 3, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan EPP68470
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017
To rezone from R-1 (Residential District) to RS-1b (One Family Urban [Medium
Density] Residential) to rectify the split-zoning that currently applies to the subject
property. This is not creating a new lot.
There being no comment, the Mayor declared this item dealt with.
402
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 2 of 11
2) 2016-008-RZ, 11016, 11032 and 11038 240th Street
Lot 5, Section 10, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 17613;
South Half Lot 4, Section 10, Township 12, New Westminster Plan 17613;
North Half Lot 4, Section 10, Township 12, New Westminster Plan 17613
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7326-2017
To amend Albion Area Plan Schedule 1 from Low/Medium Density Residential to
Conservation and Medium Density Residential
To add to Conservation on Schedule C
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7218-2016
To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
to permit the future development of 15 townhouse units
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7219-2016
To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity
Residential District) for a future 8 lot subdivision
The Mayor called for speakers three times.
There being no comment, the Mayor declared this item dealt with.
3) 2016-464-RZ, 20185 and 20199 McIvor Avenue
Lot 102, District Lot 263, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 50054 Lot 40,
District Lot 263, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan BCP30587
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7333-2017
To amend Schedule “B” of the Official Community Plan from Agricultural to Urban
Residential and to amend the Urban Area Boundary
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7308-2017
To rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban
[Medium Density] Residential) for a future 9 lot subdivision
The Mayor called for speakers three times.
There being no comment, the Mayor declared this item dealt with.
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 3 of 11
Note: Councillor Duncan excused herself from discussion of Item 4 at 7:11 p.m. as she
lives in the vicinity of the application.
4) 2015-297-RZ
23025, 23054, 23060, 23070, 23075, 23089 and 23095 Lougheed Highway and
11305, 11383, 11428 and 11438 232 Street
Lot 31 District Lots 402 and 403 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 61595;
Lot 32 District Lots 402 and 403 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 61595;
Lot 27 Except: Part on Statutory Right of Way Plan 71204; District Lot 403 Group 1
New Westminster District Plan 44493;
Lot 28 Except Part in Highway Plan 71204, District Lot 403 Group 1 New
Westminster District Plan 44493;
Lot 29, Except: Part on Statutory Right Of Way Plan 71204, District Lot 403 Group 1
New Westminster District Plan 44493;
Lot 3 Section 16 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 17222;
Parcel "M" (Reference Plan 681) District Lot 403 Group 1 New Westminster District;
Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 8328) of Parcel "J" (Reference Plan 3829) Except:
Part on Statutory Right of Way Plan 71204; District Lots 402 And 403 Group 1 New
Westminster District;
Parcel "D" (Reference Plan 1017) South West Quarter Section 16 Township 12 New
Westminster District;
Parcel "L" (Reference Plan 3957) of Parcel "J" (Reference Plan 3829), Except: Firstly :
Part on Statutory Right of Way Plan 4834; Secondly: Part Lying South of Road Shown
on Statutory Right of Way Plan 4834; Thirdly : Part on Statutory Right of Way Plan
71204; District Lots 402 and 403 Group 1 New Westminster District;
Part (.015 Acres Plan 3041) of Parcel J (Reference Plan 3829) District Lot 403 Group
1 New Westminster District.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7331-2017
To amend Schedule “B” of the Official Community Plan from Conservation and Urban
Residential to Urban Residential, Commercial, Conservation and Park
To amend Schedule “C” of the Official Community Plan to remove from Conservation
and to add to Conservation
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7183-2015
To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-2 (Urban Residential
District), RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) and P-1
(Park and School) to permit future subdivision of approximately 89 R-2 lots and 262
townhouse units
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 4 of 11
AND
PART 7 COMMERCIAL ZONES, SECTION 701, SUB-SECTIONS 1 AND 8
NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMERCIAL C-1 is amended by adding additional site specific
uses and regulations to accommodate development as proposed in Bylaw No. 7183-
2015.
The Manager of Legislative Services advised that correspondence in favour of the
application was received from (add names)
The Mayor called for speakers for first call
Robert Berbeck
Mr. Berbeck stated that he and his wife are in favour of the development application as it
will help to decrease the fire hazard in the area. He felt that the proposed development is a
smart mix of both townhouses and stand-alone homes and allocated a sufficient amount of
green space for park and recreation.
Zachary Betts
Mr. Betts stated he has lived in Maple Ridge for 24 years. He advised on his educational
background and his future plans to return to Maple Ridge. He spoke in favour of the
application in that the proposed development will allow for affordable living.
Meryl Herberts
Ms. Herberts advised on why she and her husband moved to Maple Ridge. She spoke in
favour of the application due to its central location and its pricing structure as it will support
young families to integrate into the City.
The Mayor called for speakers for second and third calls.
There being no further comment, the Mayor declared this item dealt with.
Note: Councillor Duncan returned to the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
5) 2017-231-RZ
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7339-2017
To amend Part 2 Interpretation, Part 4 General Regulations, Part 6 Residential Zones
and Part 9 Institutional Zones of the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 – 1985 to
regulate supportive recovery homes and other care facility uses throughout the City.
The Bylaw defines a number of care facility uses which includes: “Assisted Living
Residence”, “Community Care Facility”, “Supportive Recovery Home” and
“Transitional Housing” and amends the existing definitions of “Elderly Citizen
Residential”, “Family” and “Private Hospital” to align with the newly defined care
facility uses. The Bylaw permits care facility uses in the RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, RS-1c,
RS-1d, RS-2, and RS-3 zones, but only on properties with a minimum lot area of 557
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 5 of 11
square metres (approx. 5,995 square feet) and where such care facility uses contain
10 or fewer residents and staff combined. The Bylaw prescribes that care facility
uses where the combined number of residents and staff exceed 10 are to be located
on properties in the P-2 Institutional zone.
The Bylaw establishes a set of general regulations for care facility uses with 10 or
fewer residents and staff in the permitted residential zones: being contained in a
single family residential dwelling; satisfying minimum setbacks from other care
facility uses, schools, child care centres, and family day cares; requiring notification
or approval from the applicable Health Authority; cannot be on the same property as
a secondary suite use, detached garden suite use, boarding use, or temporary
residential use; cannot be strata-titled; cannot be on a property in a floodplain; and
requiring that a Housing Agreement with the City be completed. A Housing Agreement
template has been prepared to demonstrate what an Agreement might include, such
as: a set of definitions; the obligations of the owner; the requirements of the care
facility use; the conditions of residency; the obligations of the operator; and other
miscellaneous provisions. NOTE: The Housing Agreement does not form part of Maple
Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7339-2017.
The Director of Planning provided clarification on an ad placed into the Maple Ridge Pitt
Meadows News. She advised that the ad was not placed by the City. She advised on details
of the current bylaw and reasons for the proposed amendments to the bylaw.
S. Murphy, Planner gave a power point presentation providing the following information:
• Background
• Assisted Living Residences
• Community Care Facilities
• Unlicensed Unregistered Unregulated Care Facilities
• Challenges
• Process
• Option 1: Regulate Use
• Proposed Zoning Amendments
• Housing Agreement Highlights
• Other Municipal Comparisons
• Capping the Number of Facilities
• Initial operator feedback
• Summary
• Table comparing the draft bylaw and the current bylaw
• Next steps
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 6 of 11
The Manager of Legislative Services advised that speaking notes were received from Jim
Reilly and correspondence was received from Darrell Pilgrim of the Salvation Army terming
the bylaw a positive step but expressed concern over the language used in terms of exit plan
and the release of private information to the City and the RCMP.
The Mayor called for speakers at first call.
Jim Reilly
Mr. Reilly addressed comments provided by the Director of Planning. He advised on a letter
sent to the City with a legal opinion putting forward that the existing bylaw is being
misinterpreted. He also advised that a response has not been received from City Hall
despite repeated requests.
Mr. Reilly read from the speaking notes provided to Council. He expressed that the matter
of the location of supportive recovery homes is a land use issue and applicants should be
vetted by appearing before Council at a Public Hearing.
Liliya Rhodes
Ms. Rhodes spoke in opposition to the bylaw. She stated that she lives next door to a
supportive recovery home and outlined issues and problems she is having at her residence
which she feels result from this home. She expressed concern with this particular recovery
home being in the vicinity of an elementary school and a liquor store particularly in the
access to the liquor store for recovering alcoholics. She asked whether checks on
supportive recovery homes will be made to ensure regulations are being followed. She
asked Council to think about the residents living next door to these types of facilities.
Elizabeth Taylor
Ms. Taylor is pleased to see that community care facilities are exempt within the proposed
bylaw. She provided a history of community living facilities and compared the difficulty of
opening such facilities in residential areas years ago to the current events. Ms. Taylor
advised on lengths of time to go through detox and a recovery program and felt that
supportive recovery homes are necessary as supports within the community. She expressed
concern over the division within the community pertaining to shelters and supportive
recovery homes.
Ken Blogg
Mr. Blogg asked how a residence can be permitted to house 10 people while being
connected to a septic system which is only built to accommodate 5 people and is located
beside a creek. He expressed concern that residents in Whispering Falls were not been
asked about a recovery house in their neighbourhood.
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 7 of 11
Christine MacIntosh – Fraser River All Nations Aboriginal Society (“FRANAS”)
Ms. MacIntosh spoke in favour of supportive recovery facilities. She expressed that the type
of persons who would use such care facilities would be somebody’s child, father, mother etc.
and that it takes a village to raise a child. She asked for the support from the community to
help those who are unable to help themselves and support facilities which will allow persons
to get treatment.
Caroline Cass
Ms. Cass felt that a supportive recovery facility can be a welcome addition to a
neighbourhood. She described the positive interaction between the neighbourhood she
lives in and the Hope for Freedom Society facility and its residents. She suggested that the
Hope for Freedom Society be contacted and used as example to set a standard for Maple
Ridge on how such facilities can embrace all members of a community. She advised she
also has someone living in Tent City and asked for all to understand the difference between
a human being and their behaviour.
Bob Asher
Mr. Asher expressed concern with the stipulation in the proposed bylaw of a 250 m distance
from specific facilities and felt this distance is not enough. He also expressed concern with
the term ‘staff’ and requested clarification on the required qualifications for staff at
supportive recovery type facilities. He asked whether staffing in the Bylaws Department will
be increased to deal with these types of facilities and whether any action taken by the
Bylaws Department will be complaint based.
Mayor Read advised that the proposed bylaw is an effort to increase regulations on
supportive recovery type homes and facilities in Maple Ridge.
Cathy Pring
Ms. Pring asked for the success rate of the Abbotsford recovery homes versus the success
rate in Surrey on capping the number of homes in the city.
Mayor Read advised that she did not know whether the City of Abbotsford is in a position to
assess the success or failure of a particular recovery home.
Ms. Pring asked whether municipalities talk between themselves. She expressed concern
that the City of Maple Ridge is attempting to bring in recovery homes and asked for
information on issues the City is trying to regulate. She asked why the proposed bylaw was
coming forward at this time when the City has another problem to deal with. She requested
a definition of recovery homes.
The Director of Planning provided clarification on definitions.
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 8 of 11
Tracy Hill
Ms. Hill expressed concerns with a house in her neighbourhood which was bought as
investment property and was then rented by a group of people taking in other people. She
spoke to the many negative impacts on her home and the neighbourhood as a result. She
stated that she is in favour of a bylaw to regulate such houses and would like to see heavy
licensing put on these homes. Ms. Hill spoke positively about the wording in the proposed
bylaw speaking to property owner approval of a facility.
Susan Carr
Ms. Carr spoke in favour of the intent of the proposed bylaw. She cautioned that should
Maple Ridge pursue the bylaw further, the City will have to ensure that staffing in Bylaws to
enforce the new regulations is appropriate. She stated that there are many supportive
recovery homes and treatment facilities throughout Maple Ridge and that these need to be
regulated. Ms. Carr felt that further work is needed prior to third reading being given to the
proposed bylaw by speaking with successful recovery homes, obtaining more input to allow
all to understand what is expected and be making resources available to allow City staff to
find the locations of currently unregulated care facilities. She felt that the proposed bylaw
is not ready to be given third reading.
Mark Steele
Mr. Steele felt that concerns being expressed are with transitional type of persons and lack
of regulations, not with challenged persons. He also felt that it is the responsibility of the
Provincial Government, not municipalities, to provide regulation for supportive recovery
homes and other such facilities to ensure all get appropriate treatment. He expressed
concern with staffing at such facilities in terms of qualifications and the distance between
facilities in the proposed bylaw. Mr. Steele encouraged Council to push back at the
Provincial Government to do their jobs and regulate these types of properties. He stated
that more dialogue is needed.
Sandy McDougall
Mr. McDougall advised on a meeting of the Housing Committee with both new MLA’s. HE
spoke about alcoholism and how communities have to find a way of dealing with addictions.
He cited the success of the Maple Ridge Treatment Centre and the importance of a sense of
family and involvement in the community. Mr. McDougall requested that it be ensured that
licences are not transferable and that street parking be taken into account.
Adele Carado
Ms. Carado wished to advocate for her children. She asked whether the proposed bylaw
was at Public Hearing to allow for the opening of more facilities or to allow the City to
regulate the existing facilities.
The Director of Planning provided clarification on the intent of the proposed bylaw. She
advised that certain facilities will be allowed to open however the City will have the ability to
control operator and resident expectations. She also advised that the proposed bylaw will
also assist the Bylaws Department.
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 9 of 11
Ms. Carado expressed concern that she can no longer go to certain areas in the Maple Ridge
due to behaviours which she feels may negatively impact her children.
Marvin Cavanagh
Mr. Cavanagh advised on his experience in the recovery field and stated that he has six
recovery houses in Vancouver. He advocated for regulation and staff who are professionals
who will be in the facilities 24/7. He provided information on how the houses he operates
are run, stipulating that residents are screened, there are rules and regulations and if they
are not adhered to, residents are told to move on and that the police are involved if need be.
Melissa TeBoekhorst – Alouette Addictions Services
Ms. TeBoekhorst provided information on the housing program operated by Alouette
Addictions. She advised on the number and types of persons supported by the program and
how they have progressed since being housed and going through the transitional program.
Ms. TeBoekhorst feels that regulations are necessary however she expressed concern over
the cost of 24 hour staffing and two meals per day. She advised that Alouette Addictions
Services would like to be part of the process to discover what may work for the whole
community. She also advised that many different types of persons are housed by the
organization, not just those with addictions.
The Mayor called for speakers at second call.
The Mayor called for speakers at third call.
Anna Mieszkowski
Ms. Mieszkowski asked how a cap on the number of houses such as the one in Surrey works
and what the advantage of having such a cap in Maple Ridge would be. She also asked if
the number of recovery homes in Maple Ridge is not currently known and new ones are
brought in, how will the City know how many there are and how many persons are coming in
from outside the community to take advantage of the facilities. She questioned how it can
be ensured that residents of Maple Ridge have access to such services rather than people
coming to the City from other communities.
The Director of Planning provided clarification on the process in Surrey. She advised that
the number of supportive recovery or transition homes in Maple Ridge is currently not known
and to ascertain the number and locations will be a lengthy process.
Ms. Mieszkowski asked how the City can determine the number of homes.
The Director of Planning provided information on the process followed to date and indicated
that a staff report will be provided to Council with further details on capping the number of
homes in the community.
Ms. Mieszkowski asked whether a cap for Maple Ridge will be proportional.
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 10 of 11
Mayor Read advised that staff will provide further information on the subject in a future
report to Council.
Judy Dueck
Ms. Dueck expressed concern with the proposed housing agreements and asked whether
consideration will be given within the housing agreements to allow for differences between
residential and industrial zones. She explained that she sees facilities such as the Salvation
Army and Alouette Addictions as different providers in the community compared to a
residential staffed facility.
The Manager of Community Planning Brent clarified that future housing agreements will be
tailored on a site by site and case by case basis.
Ms. Dueck felt that many residents are in favour of some form of regulation. She asked
whether a discussion on capping the number of recovery facilities in Maple Ridge can be
held as information comes in and when the proposed bylaw is reviewed. As Maple Ridge is
much smaller than the City of Surrey, Ms. Dueck indicated the community did not need 55
recovery homes and that the City of Maple Ridge should take care of its own. She suggested
that the Salvation Army and Alouette Addictions may be able to assist in identifying those
homes in the community not currently known. She stated that support for persons should
be provided however rules and regulations are necessary.
Marvin Cavanagh
Mr. Cavanagh addressed the topic of a cap on the number of recovery homes in the
community. He explained how his recovery homes in Vancouver are operated, offered to
provide assistance with the issue of such facilities in Maple Ridge and invited Council to visit
one of the facilities he owns.
Elizabeth Taylor
Ms. Taylor commented on the regulation of recovery type housing and stated that many such
homes are not funded. She expressed concern over the future of recovery type houses
should they be required to pay for licencing and standards. She asked that care be taken
not to regulate and licence these facilities out of the community.
Stacy Choeack
Ms. Chomeak encouraged regulation of recovery homes. She expressed concern with the
opening of a supportive recovery house next to her home, advising that there are 10 men
living in the facility and it is not been clear as to the number and qualifications of staff
support. She advised on the negative impact this has had to peace of mind, stated she
wished to be a good neighbourhood but more communication and respect is required on
both sides.
Public Hearing Minutes
June 20, 2017
Page 11 of 11
Heide Smith
Ms. Smith identified herself as an outreach worker with Fraser River All Nations Aboriginal
Society (“FRANAS”). She advised that she has worked at the local shelter and spoke to the
difficulty in finding people with addictions housing. She provided positive examples of
clients with addictions who did receive housing from local recovery houses. She supported
recovery homes within the City.
Jim Reilly
Mr. Reilly referred to the conversation around capping and the number of recovery homes
around the community. He felt that recovery homes, treatment facilities, transition
programs should come before Council on an individual merit basis through a rezoning
process to an individual property. He expressed concern that the current structure
regarding the bylaw amendment is a Pandora’s Box as homes cannot be regulated currently
through the Bylaws Department. He put forward that such facilities are the responsibility of
the Provincial Government.
Name of Speaker not provided
The speaker felt that the majority of citizens are caring people however many such as
herself are frustrated by the constant break-ins and the costs associated with those break-
ins. She asked that the police deal more harshly with drug dealers. She recounted that she
was told by police when filing a victim impact statement that charges would be pointless.
The speaker asked if persons who are homeless receive a portion of income.
Mayor Read advised on funds received.
The speaker expressed her feeling that persons in recovery and shelters should receive
vouchers rather than cash to prevent funds from going to drugs. She reiterated that many
residents are frustrated with the negative impact of shelters and recovery housing.
There being no further comment, the Mayor declared this item dealt with.
Having given all those persons whose interests were deemed affected by the matters
contained herein a chance to be heard, the Mayor adjourned the Public Hearing at 9:00 p.m.
____________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
______________________________
L. Darcus, Corporate Officer
700 ITEMS ON CONSENT
700
701 Minutes
701
701.1 Development Agreements Committee
701.1
701.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
701.2
702 Reports
702
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2017
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Regular Council
SUBJECT: 2017 Business Class Property Taxation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
It is the practice of the City to annually review our property tax rates to make sure they are
competitive with other lower mainland municipalities.
In 2016, the Financial Plan was amended to include a reduction in the property tax increase within
the business and light industrial classes. For 2017, the property tax increase of 3.15% levied against
the Residential Class was also applied to business and industrial classes.
This report examines the municipal portion of the tax rate assessed to Business Class properties
across lower mainland municipalities.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is provided for information only. No resolution is required.
DISCUSSION:
We looked at the municipal portion of the property tax rate assessed to Business Class properties by
reviewing three indicators:
1.Municipal Tax Rates
The Maple Ridge Business Class municipal tax rate and how it compares to eighteen
municipalities in the lower mainland. While this type of analysis is straightforward to
accomplish, it does not account for the differences in assessed property values from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
2.Business Class Multiples
The Maple Ridge Business Class multiple and how it compares to eighteen municipalities in
the lower mainland. The multiple is calculated by taking the Business Class municipal tax
rate and dividing it by the Residential Class municipal tax rate. While this method looks at the
relative tax burden among the property classes, it does not account for the variability in
assessed property value changes.
3.Sample Properties
There are eight sample commercial properties from various locations within Maple Ridge that
we follow the yearly percentage change in assessed property values and municipal property
taxes.
702.1
Page 2 of 8
This report looks at the Maple Ridge Business Class municipal property tax rate from these three
perspectives.
1. Municipal Tax Rates
In Maple Ridge, Business Class and Light Industry Class properties have the same tax rate and are
treated as a composite class when setting the tax rates. This is done because the types of
businesses in each of the property classes are very similar. This alignment was achieved over a long
period of time with small incremental adjustments. Not all municipalities follow this practice.
As shown in Figure 1, in 2017, the Maple Ridge Business Class municipal tax rate of $10.9322 per
$1,000 of assessed property value ranks as fifth highest of the nineteen lower mainland
municipalities that were surveyed.
Figure 1: Business Class Municipal Tax Rates – highest to lowest
Municipality
2015 2016 2017
Business
Rate
Business
Rate
Business
Rate Rank
Mission 14.37490 14.27840 13.56327 1
Coquitlam 13.34520 12.46530 11.81700 2
Abbotsford 12.49189 11.61393 11.47816 3
New Westminster 12.92410 12.34260 11.33850 4
Maple Ridge 12.30380 11.88010 10.93220 5
Port Coquitlam 11.46280 11.09220 10.54470 6
Pitt Meadows 11.18660 11.15130 10.25440 7
Chilliwack 10.28317 9.77783 9.34863 8
Delta 10.76928 10.51092 9.268142 9
Langley, Township 9.96950 9.37150 8.75520 10
Langley, City 8.79470 8.95290 8.47240 11
Port Moody 9.95770 8.69510 8.08740 12
Burnaby 9.12440 8.46530 7.49000 13
North Vancouver, City 8.42034 8.20134 7.38566 14
North Vancouver, District 8.27863 8.14620 7.07029 15
Surrey 7.02465 7.05860 6.32140 16
Vancouver 7.34590 6.61254 5.79012 17
Richmond 6.94287 6.66368 5.60635 18
West Vancouver 4.31540 4.36470 3.79620 19
Generally speaking, municipal tax rates increase as we move from west to east, which is to be
expected given the decreasing assessed values as we move up the Fraser Valley. This is confirmed
with West Vancouver, which at $3.7962 per $1,000 of assessed property value has the lowest
municipal tax rate, and with Mission, which at $13.56327per $1,000 of assessed property value has
the highest municipal tax rate. There are some anomalies, however. New Westminster and
Coquitlam have municipal tax rates that are relatively close to the municipal tax rate in Maple Ridge
Page 3 of 8
even though assessed property values are likely higher in those areas. In addition, the municipal tax
rate in Chilliwack is lower than some of the communities located to its west where assessed property
values are likely higher.
2. Business Class Tax Multiples
The tax multiple is one way that the tax rates between property classes are compared. To calculate
the Business Class multiple, the Business Class tax rate is divided by the Residential Class tax rate
and the resulting number is the Business Class tax multiple.
In 2017, the Maple Ridge Business Class municipal tax rate is 10.9322 and the Residential Class
municipal tax rate is 3.3412. The multiple is 3.27 (calculated as 10.9322 ÷ 3.3412). In other words,
the business taxpayer’s rate is 3.27 times higher than that of a residential taxpayer. Figure 2 shows
what our Business Class tax rates, Residential Class tax rates and the tax multiples have looked like
over the past several years.
Figure 2: Maple Ridge Business Class, Residential Class, Tax Multiple
Year Business Residential Multiple
2013 12.2307 4.2833 2.86
2014 12.7314 4.4625 2.85
2015 12.3038 4.4713 2.75
2016 11.8801 4.3761 2.71
2017 10.9322 3.3412 3.27
Figure 3 shows the effect of market value on Residential Class and Business Class municipal tax
rates and the Business Class multiple since 2013. The market change in each of the property
classes differs from year to year, and this affects the tax multiple.
Figure 3: Effect of Market Value on Municipal Tax Rates and Business Class Multiple
Residential 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Market change -0.02% -1.20% -1.24% 2.77% 5.40% 35.00%
Approved Tax Increase 4.88% 3.50% 2.95% 2.97% 3.15% 3.15%
Tax Rate 4.0888 4.2833 4.4625 4.47130 4.37610 3.34120
Tax Rate Change 4.90% 4.76% 4.18% 0.20% -2.13% -23.65%
Business 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Market change 8.04% -0.56% -1.10% 6.56% 5.50% 13.00%
Approved Tax Increase 4.88% 3.50% 2.95% 2.97% 1.85% 3.15%
Tax Rate 11.7510 12.2307 12.7314 12.3028 11.8801 10.9322
Tax Rate Change -2.92% 4.08% 4.09% -3.37% -3.44% -7.98%
Business Class Multiple 2.87 2.86 2.85 2.75 2.71 3.27
The largest variance in market change occurred in 2017, when there was an increase of 35% in the
Residential Class, and an increase of 13% in the Business Class. In 2017, we required an additional
3.15% in funding to meet the approved budget. As the Residential Class market value increased far
Page 4 of 8
more than the Business Class, there was a greater decrease in the Residential Class tax rate and
this is why our tax rate multiple has increased.
Figure 3 shows that in the years when the market changes are similar for both property classes, as in
2013 and 2014, there is little change in the Business Class multiple. In the years where there is
more of a difference in the market changes between the property classes, as in 2017, there is a
more noticeable change in the Business Class multiple.
Variability in market changes between the property classes in any given year means that there will be
variability in the tax rate changes between the property classes. This has a direct impact on the
Business Class multiple, as seen in 2017. Due to residential assessments increasing by nearly three
times the amount of Business Class properties, the Business Class multiple has increased by 21%
this year.
As shown in Figure 4, in 2017, the Maple Ridge Business Class tax multiple is 3.3 (3.27 rounded),
and ranks as sixth lowest of the nineteen surveyed municipalities. Our multiple is below the average
multiple of 3.8.
Figure 4 Business Class Tax Multiples, Based on General Municipal Rates – lowest to highest:
Municipality
2015 2016 2017
Multiple Multiple Business
Rate Multiple Rank
Chilliwack 2.0 2.0 9.34863 2.3 1
Langley, City 2.3 2.6 8.47240 3.0 2
Abbotsford 2.4 2.3 11.47816 3.1 3
West Vancouver 2.6 3.0 3.79620 3.1 4
Port Moody 2.9 2.7 8.08740 3.1 5
Maple Ridge 2.8 2.7 10.93220 3.3 6
Surrey 2.8 2.9 6.32140 3.3 7
Pitt Meadows 2.8 2.9 10.25440 3.4 8
Langley, Township 3.0 3.0 8.75520 3.5 9
Richmond 3.2 3.2 5.60635 3.6 10
Mission 2.9 3.0 13.56327 3.6 11
Delta 2.9 3.1 9.26814 3.8 12
Port Coquitlam 3.0 3.2 10.54470 3.9 13
North Vancouver, City 3.3 3.5 7.38566 4.1 14
New Westminster 3.5 3.6 11.33850 4.1 15
North Vancouver, District 3.5 3.9 7.07029 4.4 16
Vancouver 4.2 4.2 5.79012 4.6 17
Burnaby 4.0 4.2 7.49000 4.7 18
Coquitlam 4.2 4.5 11.81700 5.5 19
Figure 5 shows what the average Business Class multiple has looked like in BC from 1990 to 2016.
In recent years, the overall trend is that the gap between the Business Class and the Residential
Class is getting smaller, just like in Maple Ridge and the majority of the surveyed municipalities.
Page 5 of 8
Figure 5: Business Class Multiple – BC Average
In recent years, this issue has attracted a lot of attention in Vancouver. Figure 6 shows what the tax
multiples look like for Vancouver over the same period as Figure 5. Also shown is the median for
Metro Vancouver and where Maple Ridge fits. Even with the increase in the multiple for 2017, we
continue to trend below the median for the region.
Figure 6: Business Class Multiple – Metro Vancouver
The basic taxation system that we have is one whereby properties are taxed on their value. Property
values are determined by BC Assessment. Municipalities set the tax rates. When we set tax rates, we
Page 6 of 8
try to neutralize the impact of market value changes. We don’t have to do this; we can focus on tax
rate multiples.
A multiple of 2:1 could be achieved by reducing the taxes collected from the Business Class. Moving
about $5 million of revenue to the Residential Class would do this, and would equate to an 8.5%
increase from the current municipal tax rate for the Residential Class.
At the end of the day, budgets are balanced; however, benefits to one property class are at the
expense of another. This is illustrated in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Scenario – Existing Method vs 8.5% Increase
Scenario 1 - Existing 2017 Tax Rate Revenue
Residential 3.34120 59,827,000
Business 10.9322 15,108,000
Ratio 3.27:1 74,935,000
Scenario 2 – 8.5% Increase 2017 Tax Rate Revenue
Residential 3.6254 64,914,244
Business 7.2507 10,020,756
Ratio 2:1 74,935,000
3. Sample Properties
There are eight sample commercial properties from various locations within Maple Ridge that we
follow the yearly percentage change in assessed property values and the municipal property tax.
Samples include:
1. Commercial office in a stratified building
2. Retail store
3. Convenience store with gas station
4. Small commercial building with a coffee shop and two other commercial units
5. Coffee shop
6. Family restaurant
7. Bank
8. Big box retail store
There are numerous subsets of BC Assessment’s Business Class, which includes the property types
listed above. While assessed property values in one of the subsets may experience an increase in
values, other subsets may experience a decrease. Figure 8a shows the percentage change in
assessed property values for the sample properties from 2013 to 2017.
Page 7 of 8
Figure 8a: Sample Commercial Properties – Change in Assessed Property Values
There is a very wide variation in the yearly changes. In their news release on January 3, 2017, BC
Assessment reported that most owners of commercial and industrial properties in the Fraser Valley
would see changes in their 2017 Property Assessments ranging from 10% to 35%. For the most
part, changes in the assessed values for the sample commercial properties reflect this range, with
those properties falling below the 10% threshold less than 1% off BC Assessments range.
Figure 8b, shows the percentage change in the municipal portion of the property taxes for the
sample properties. As there is variability with the changes in assessed property values, there is also
variability with the changes in municipal property taxes. Local governments do not have the
legislative authority to equalize tax increases among properties.
From 2016 to 2017, municipal property tax changes range from a decrease of 0.6% for the coffee
shop to an increase of 9.8% for the commercial office. It is important to note that while some of the
sample properties may experience the same percentage tax rate increase, the tax bills will vary
depending on the assessed property values.
Figure 8b: Sample Commercial Properties – Change in Municipal Property Taxation
This table shows that even though our tax rate multiple increased significantly, there was not a large
increase in taxes to individual commercial properties.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
1 Commercial Office-Strata 2.2%0.0%-1.8%3.2%19.3%
2 Retail Store 3.8%0.0%0.0%0.0%10.2%
3 Convenience Store/Service Station 4.2%0.0%21.1%13.5%12.3%
4 Small Commercial Building w/Coffee Shop & 2 Other Units 0.0%-1.6%4.4%25.3%11.4%
5 Coffee Shop 3.1%0.0%8.9%7.9%9.4%
6 Family Restaurant -3.8%3.6%7.1%6.1%9.5%
7 Bank 0.0%-28.7%-10.0%43.7%16.2%
8 Big Box Retail Store 0.0%-3.6%4.2%4.4%9.7%
Total 0.2%-6.8%3.7%12.7%11.3%
Description
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
1 Commercial Office-Strata 6.3%4.1%-5.1%-0.4%9.8%
2 Retail Store 8.1%4.1%-3.4%-3.4%1.4%
3 Convenience Store/Service Station 8.5%4.1%17.0%9.5%3.3%
4 Small Commercial Building w/Coffee Shop & 2 Other Units 4.1%2.4%0.8%21.0%2.5%
5 Coffee Shop 7.3%4.1%5.3%4.2%0.6%
6 Family Restaurant 0.1%7.8%3.6%2.4%0.8%
7 Bank 4.1%-25.7%-13.0%38.8%6.9%
8 Big Box Retail Store 4.1%0.4%0.7%0.8%0.9%
Total 4.3%-3.0%0.3%8.9%2.4%
Description
Page 8 of 8
CONCLUSION:
It is important for the City of Maple Ridge to review our municipal tax rates to make sure they are
reasonable in relation to other municipalities. This is not a simple task and each indicator has its
own strengths and weaknesses. This is why we look at a variety of indicators over a period of time.
The City’s Business Class municipal tax rate in 2017 is fifth highest of the nineteen surveyed
municipalities. This is not unexpected as most municipalities in the survey group have higher
assessed property values. It is noteworthy that tax rates in Coquitlam and New Westminster are
higher than ours, even though those communities likely have assessed property values that are
higher than those in Maple Ridge.
The City’s Business Class tax multiple continues to rank lower than the average. This is despite
seeing an increase in the 2017 multiple, attributable to a greater increase in Residential Class
property values than experienced by Business Class properties.
With respect to assessed property values and municipal taxes, we looked at the yearly percentage
change in property assessments and the municipal portion of property taxes from 2013 to 2017 for
eight sample properties within Maple Ridge. As there is some variability with the percentage change
in assessed property values for these properties, there is also some variability around the
percentage change in municipal property taxes.
Overall, our data indicates that Maple Ridge’s Business Class municipal tax rates are competitive
when compared to other lower mainland municipalities.
“Original signed by Daniel Olivieri”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Daniel Olivieri
Research Technician
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: E.C Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:do
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2017
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Regular Council
SUBJECT: 2017 Major Industry Class Property Taxation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Finance Department provides Council with reports on property assessments and taxation. This
information allows Council to see how our taxes compare to those of other municipalities in our area.
A report on Residential Class property taxes was provided in June, and it concluded that Residential
Class property taxes in Maple Ridge remain competitive within the region.
In Maple Ridge, the only Major Industry Class properties are the cedar mill properties.
The City has been reviewing the tax burden to the Major Industry Class for several years, with the aim
of bringing our rate more in line with others in our region. To achieve this goal, in 2009, 2010, 2014
and 2015 the tax burden was reduced for properties in the Major Industry Class.
Since 2016 the Major Industry Class has received the same property tax rate increase as the
Residential Class.
The purpose of this report is to see how our current Major Industry Class municipal tax rate in 2017
compares to other municipalities in our area.
RECOMMENDATION:
This report has been provided for information only. No resolution is required.
DISCUSSION:
In Maple Ridge, the only Major Industry Class properties are the cedar mill properties. In 2009 and
2010, the municipal portion of the property taxes for the Major Industry Class was reduced by 5%. In
2011, 2012, and 2013, the Major Industry Class received the same property tax increase as the
other property classes. For 2014 and 2015, Council authorized a reduction in the tax burden for
Major Industry Class properties by $70,000 each year.
Since 2016 the Major Industry Class has received the same property tax rate increase as the other
classes.
702.2
Page 2 of 4
The impact of efforts to reduce the tax burden on the Major Industry Class is evident when
comparing the 2012 tax burden to that of 2017, as seen in Figure 1. Even considering the tax rate
increase for 2017, the municipal tax burden remains over $30,000 lower than 2012.
Figure 1: Maple Ridge Major Industry Class - Year to Year Comparison
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 % Change 2017
Assessed Value $17,628,000 $18,016,100 $17,774,100 $17,230,000 $17,291,000 34.82% $23,311,000
Municipal Tax Rate 36.3418 37.2342 34.9163 33.2682 34.1952 -23.49% 26.1634
Tax Rate Multiple 8.9 8.7 7.8 7.4 7.6 2.39% 7.8
Municipal Taxes $640,633 $670,815 $620,606 $573,211 $591,269 3.15% $609,895
As in previous years, in this report we will look at two indicators to determine how the Maple Ridge
Major Industry Class municipal tax rate compares to other lower mainland municipalities.
1. Municipal Tax Rate Comparison:
This indicator looks at the municipal tax rate in our municipality and compares it to the municipal tax
rate for the same class in other municipalities. While the data for this indicator is fairly easy to
obtain, it is problematic in that similar properties in one community may be valued very differently in
other communities.
As shown in Figure 2, in 2017, the City’s Major Industry Class 4 municipal tax rate is $26.1634 per
$1,000 of assessed value. Among the fourteen surveyed municipalities, our municipal tax rate ranks
as the fifth lowest, while in 2016 it ranked as the eleventh lowest.
Figure 2: Major Industry Class Municipal Property Tax Rates – lowest to highest
2014 2015 2016 2017
Municipality Major Industry
Rate
Major Industry
Rate
Major Industry
Rate
Major Industry
Rate Rank
Langley, Township 8.76410 9.49430 9.30400 7.86620 1
Surrey 11.56272 11.20174 11.23883 11.19892 2
Richmond 13.71527 12.87490 13.50329 12.57288 3
West Vancouver 15.26860 16.04540 16.82040 17.67350 4
Maple Ridge 34.91630 33.26820 34.19520 26.16340 5
North Vancouver, City 27.50000 27.50000 27.50000 27.50000 6
North Vancouver, District 29.33316 30.97096 28.40825 28.40825 7
Coquitlam 28.85520 28.87690 28.85070 28.92700 8
New Westminster 29.51880 30.13070 30.19100 29.42230 9
Delta 35.21332 33.92342 31.70120 30.24958 10
Vancouver 33.77460 33.68465 33.90142 34.51349 11
Pitt Meadows 40.27550 37.06480 38.68840 34.93870 12
Burnaby 47.10730 45.24490 44.94800 38.59390 13
Port Moody 68.54770 71.30020 72.69800 78.01500 14
Page 3 of 4
It is important to remember that not all assessed property values are comparable across the lower
mainland. The Major Industry classification by BC Assessment can be very broad, and includes a
wide variety of major industry types, including saw mills, cement and asphalt plants, grain elevators,
oil refining plants, docks and wharves, shipyards and more.
Additional factors beyond the control of local governments also influence Major Industry rates. For
example, West Vancouver may have a lower tax rate, but the assessed values for a waterfront
property similar to those owned by Interfor in Maple Ridge would likely be much higher in that
community.
For a more equitable comparison between municipalities we should look at another indicator, such
as the municipal tax rate multiple.
2. Municipal Tax Rate Multiple Comparison:
This indicator looks at the relative tax rate on one class, as a ratio of the tax rate charged to another
property class. The “other” class used in this analysis is the Residential Class. As outlined in previous
reports to Council, the main weakness of this indicator is that it is greatly affected by varying market
value fluctuations between the property classes.
As shown in Figure 3, in 2017, the Maple Ridge Major Industry Class municipal tax rate multiple of
7.8 ranks as third lowest among the fourteen municipalities, bettering its standing from 2016 and
2015. In 2017, our multiple remains below the average tax rate multiple of 14.4.
Figure 3: Major Industry Class Municipal Property Tax Rate Multiples – lowest to highest
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Municipality
Langley, Township 3.5 3.5 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.2
Surrey 5.3 5.2 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.6 5.9
Maple Ridge 11.3 10.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 8.7 7.8 7.4 7.8 7.8
Richmond 3.7 4.3 4.2 6.0 7.2 6.8 6.1 5.9 6.6 8.0
New Westminster 7 7.7 7.4 8.2 8.6 8.1 7.9 8.1 8.8 10.7
Pitt Meadows 9.5 9.3 8.9 9.8 9.5 9.6 10.0 9.4 10.2 11.5
Delta 8.7 8.9 8.6 9.1 10.0 10.1 9.8 9.3 9.4 12.4
Coquitlam 19.9 19.8 18.9 16.4 9.6 9.6 9.0 9.2 10.3 13.4
West Vancouver 6.2 6.2 5.6 6.4 7.3 8.2 8.6 9.5 11.4 14.5
North Vancouver, City 12.5 11.9 11.0 11.5 11.6 11.2 11.0 10.9 11.7 15.2
North Vancouver, District 19.5 19.4 17.1 17.2 17.4 15.5 12.0 13.0 13.4 17.7
Burnaby 17.5 17.9 17.2 18.4 21.2 20.1 20.1 19.7 21.2 24.3
Vancouver 13.3 14.2 14.3 14.8 15.8 17.4 18.3 19.0 21.7 27.4
Port Moody 16.3 16.7 14.7 17.9 18.7 19.2 19.5 20.6 22.6 30.3
This year nine of the fourteen municipalities saw increases in their multiples and four experienced
decreases. Since 2007, our multiple in this class has dropped from 15.6, making it one of the most
significantly improved of the surveyed municipalities. This is due to changes in the assessed property
values and Council’s direction of trying to ease the tax burden on this property class.
Page 4 of 4
CONCLUSION:
Maple Ridge’s position in terms of Major Industry Class municipal property tax rates and multiples
has improved from 2013 levels as a direct result of direction from Council. Our Major Industry Class
municipal tax rate is fifth lowest when compared to the fourteen surveyed municipalities, and our
Major Industry Class municipal tax rate multiple ranks as third lowest, below the average municipal
tax rate multiple.
We will continue to review the tax burden against our other property classifications to ensure we
maintain an equitable balance.
“Original signed by Daniel Olivieri”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Daniel Olivieri
Research Technician
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill
GM: Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:do
"Original signed by Daniel Olivieri"
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
"Original signed by E.C. Swabey"
1000 Bylaws
1000
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2017-115-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Final Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017
10181 247 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017 has been considered by Council and at Public Hearing and
subsequently was granted third reading. The applicant has requested that final reading be granted
for the subject property, located at 10181 247 Street. The purpose of the rezoning is to rectify the
split-zoning that currently applies to the subject property and it is not creating a new lot. The split-
zoning occurred as a result of a change to the subdivision plan after the Zoning Bylaw had gone to
Public Hearing, revising the lot layout and making one larger lot rather than two smaller lots of two
different zones, as originally proposed.
Council granted first and second reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017 on May 9, 2017.
This application was presented at Public Hearing on June 20, 2017, and Council granted third
reading on June 27, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017 be adopted.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
The purpose of the rezoning is to rectify the split-zoning that currently applies to the subject property,
located at 10181 247 Street, and it is not creating a new lot. The split-zoning occurred as a result of
a change to the subdivision plan after the Zoning Bylaw had gone to Public Hearing, revising the lot
layout and making one larger lot rather than two smaller lots of two different zones, as originally
proposed.
Council considered this rezoning application at a Public Hearing held on June 20, 2017. On June 27,
2017 Council granted third reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017 with no conditions to
be addressed prior to final reading, therefore the Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017 can be
adopted.
1001
- 2 -
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that final reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7321-2017.
“Original signed by Michelle Baski”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Michelle Baski
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 – Zone Amending Bylaw No.7321-2017
DATE: Mar 29, 2017FILE: 2017-115-RZ BY: LM
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:1,500
10181 - 247 ST
Legend
Stream
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7321-2017
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. 7321-2017."
2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 1 Section 3 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan EPP68470
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1709 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 9th day of May, 2017.
READ a second time the 9th day of May, 2017.
PUBLIC HEARING held the 20th day of June, 2017.
READ a third time the 27th day of June, 2017.
ADOPTED the day of , 20
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX B
103A AVE.102B AVE.247 ST.103 AVE.103 AVE.247B ST.JACKSON RD.248 ST.101B AVE.McEACHERN ST.102A AVE.ROBERTSON ST.2469610307
1 0 1 0 2 24673102561 0 1 3 6 2476124725
101402464224680103262466510166
10181
10130 247852466624745
101092465910298
10321
10146
1 0 1 7 0 247452475010303
2474110336
2461610295
10138
10309
10319
24602246081016524723
10115
10326
2465310302
1015124672
1 0 1 2 6
101592466210339
10278
10327
2469110312
10318
10163
10173 2477010172
10275
2474024622247802464710355
10190
2462724683101181025024685103151026510118
10289
1010610340
10152
24735
10175 2476010286
10125
10336
246511029224688
10178
1 0 1 6 6 2475110128
1016024731
1 0 1 5 8 247302464310272
10331
1 0 1 5 2
10306
10129
10332
10330
247712463310148
1
0
2
6
2
101392466710268
10312
247512466110296
1 0 1 1 2
24765
1010324632 10343
2465210154 24790101172473524720
24755
10102 2477510145
10295
10333
24656246931 0 1 4 8
1 0 1 7 8 2467510180
1011624699
2463710322
10155
10306
247952477510316
1
79
120
12
3
5
44
67
80
25
47
4
Rem 20
10
84
8
4
126
18
15
46
94
41
5
3
3
93
9
2
105
4 123
1
107
9 PARK1
6
14
68
77
6
9
2
6
122
2
92
40
10
85
66
70
2
6
18
127
PARK
69 17
89 88
16
5
103
26
65
73
38
96
1
102
62
81
1
7
71
13
13
3
115
Rem N 1/2 of NE 1/4
82
33
78
27
PARK1001
76
14
8
4
6
117
58
83
59
106
PARK
101
75
20
97
91
118
Section 3 Township 12
7
12
63
42
17
45
19
95
119
4
PARK
90
60
116
104
3
87
39
64
5
15
11
2
5
121
16Rem S.
1
/
2
OF N.E.
1
/
4
SEC.
3
74
7
43
7
86
19
29
72
8
61
BCP 47688
BCP 23574
BCP 23574
BCP38265
BCP 17387P 29247BCP 20685EPP 50527 BCP 17387BC P 34635NWP 6502
BCP 20685
BCP 17387
EPP 68470EPP 57751BCP 20685EPP 53452BCP 17387
EPP 53452
EPP 53452EPP 50526EPP 577
51
BCP 23574
EPP 53786
EPP 68470BCP 40804
BCP 23575
EPP 60123E
P
P
5
0
4
6
9
EPP 55706BCP 23575 BCP 17390EPP 50469EPP 68856EPP 60122EPP 53583EPP 53584
B C P 3 8 2 6 6BCP20686
EPP 51111
EPP 53584E
P
P
5
3
5
8
5
´
SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No.From:
To:
R-1 (Residential District)
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
7321-20171709
1 | P a g e
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7344-2017
A Bylaw to establish a Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee
on Accessibility and Inclusiveness
WHEREAS the Councils of the City of Maple Ridge and City of Pitt Meadows considers that it is in the
public interest to have a Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility and Inclusiveness to advise
Council on the enhancement of accessibility and inclusivity for present and future citizens of Maple
Ridge and Pitt Meadows.
NOW THEREFORE, the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
CITATION
1.This Bylaw shall be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Municipal
Advisory Committee on Accessibility and Inclusiveness, Bylaw No. 7344-2017”.
DEFINITIONS
2.For the purpose of this Bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires,
“Maple Ridge” means the City of Maple Ridge;
“Pitt Meadows” means the City of Pitt Meadows;
“Council” means the Councils of Maple Ridge and of Pitt Meadows;
“Committee” means Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility and Inclusiveness.
MANDATE
3.The purpose of the Committee is to advise and/or inform the Council of Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows, municipal departments, community agencies and general public on accessibility
and inclusiveness.
COMMITTEE COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT
4.The Committee shall be comprised of the following voting members:
One Council liaison from the City of Maple Ridge
One Council liaison from the City of Pitt Meadows
One member nominated by School District No. 42 School Board
One member nominated by Fraser Health
One member nominated by Ministry of Children and Family Development
One member nominated by Ministry of Social Development and Innovation
1002
2 | P a g e
One member nominated by Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living
One member nominated by Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Community Services
One member nominated by Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Family Education and
Support Centre
One member nominated by BC Special Olympics (local representative)
One member representing service provision in the area of poverty reduction
One member representing Maple Ridge Youth
One member representing Pitt Meadows Youth
One member representing Ridge Meadows Seniors Society
One member representing the LGBTQ2S Community
A minimum of two members at large from each community, to a maximum of eight
members at large
5. The members at large shall be appointed by resolution of the Council of the City in which the
member resides. They shall serve for a term of two years commencing on January 1 and
terminating two years later on December 31. In order to stagger the terms of appointment to
the Committee, four of the first members-at-large will be appointed for a term of one year
commencing on January 1 and terminating on December 31 of the same year. Subsequent
appointments shall be for a term of two years.
6. Council may choose to appoint members in a different configuration than listed if an
applicant meeting the specific membership description cannot be found to fill a vacancy, or if
an application is received from an alternate applicant without the specific membership
description but who would be considered an asset to the Committee.
7. Council may choose to remove a member from the Committee for consecutive non-
attendance at three meetings (unless previously approved by the Committee) or for any other
reason Council believes warrants such removal.
8. The Chairperson shall advise Council immediately in writing of any member who has been
absent from meetings of the Committee for three consecutive meetings without prior leave of
absence having been granted by the Committee. A leave of absence greater than three
consecutive meetings may through a majority vote from the Committee be granted; when the
request for the leave of absence is received in writing, prior to the said leave taking place.
9. The members of the committee shall serve without remuneration.
PROCEDURES
10. The Committee will:
a) Appoint one of their members to act as Chair of the Committee and another member to
act as Vice-Chair of the Committee on an annual basis;
b) Hold bi-monthly meetings, with no meetings in July or August, with additional meetings
called at the discretion of the Chair;
c) Hold subcommittee meetings between regular committee meetings;
3 | P a g e
d) Operate in accordance with the standard operating procedures applicable to all
Committees and Commissions of Council with regard to records keeping, holding closed
meetings, conflict of interest, financial management and such other practices, policies
and procedures which may be established by Council from time to time (including the
Council Procedure Bylaws of each City).
11. The presence of a majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum.
12. Meetings are open to the public.
DUTIES
13. The Committee will:
a) Advise and/ or inform Council, City departments, community agencies and organizations
and the communities on accessibility and inclusiveness by:
a. Identifying best practices;
b. Implementing a community wide survey on accessibility and inclusiveness once every
three years (or as directed by Council);
c. Advising and/or informing Council of relevant legislation.
b) Provide leadership and advocacy through City and community partnerships which
emphasize community awareness of accessibility and inclusiveness by:
a. Responding and/or directing community enquiries and/or concerns;
b. Recognizing existing and/or future community barriers and advise Council
accordingly.
c) Recognize leadership, innovation and champions within the City, agencies and
organizations and the community by:
a. Hosting annual “ Accessibility and Inclusiveness Awards”;
b. Providing annual community promotions pertaining to the MACAI committee and
accessibility and inclusiveness best practices.
SUBCOMMITTEES
14. Time duration subcommittees can be established by the Chair focused on a specific purpose
and is inclusive of individuals and representatives that bring an informed voice (local and
external experts) to the subject matter being explored. The subcommittees will be designed
to support specific bodies of work of the Committee and will report to the Committee on a
regular basis.
MEDIA CONTACT
15. Staff Liaison or Chairperson, or designate shall act as the spokesperson.
4 | P a g e
REPEAL
16. Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Bylaw No. 5845-1999, as amended, is
repealed.
READ a first time the 27th day of June, 2017.
READ a second time the 27th day of June, 2017.
READ a third time the 27th day of June, 2017.
ADOPTED the day of , 2017.
1100 Reports and Recommendations
1100
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-100-AL
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council
SUBJECT: Addendum report – Cell Tower 25762 Dewdney Trunk Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 13, 2017 Council deferred authorizing non-farm use application 2016-100-AL from being
forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission. This application was for a cell tower at 25762
Dewdney Trunk Road, a property that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Council was familiar
with the proposal, the required consultation process, and neighbourhood concerns. The proponent
had earlier prepared a presentation and attended the October 3, 2016 Committee of the Whole
Meeting for Council’s information. The proponent has also followed the required protocol for public
consultation.
Council’s specific request for information on June 13, 2017 included the following:
The distance from the proposed cell tower to the school
If Mobley Creek was a fish bearing creek
This addendum report has been prepared in collaboration with staff from the Property Management
division of the Clerks Department who were responsible for working with cell tower providers, and for
administering and ensuring compliance with the City’s Consultation Protocol guidelines.
This report will answer these questions as requested by Council. In addition, this report will outline
the process for required public notification. The requirement for the proponent to address relevant
concerns as defined by Industry Canada will be clarified. The separate process for non-farm
approval will also be discussed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Application 2016 -100-AL be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and
further;
If the application is app roved by the Agricultural Land Commission, that staff be directed to
acknowledge satisfactory completion of the Public Notification process by Cypress Land Services
on behalf of TELUS, noting that there were numerous objections to the proposed cellular
communications tower for this location.
1101
- 2 -
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Cypress Land Services Inc.
Owner: Stephen & Susan Proudman
Legal Description: Lot: 11, Section: 13, Township: 12, Plan: NWP39026
OCP:
Existing: AGR (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: Farm and Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation Agricultural
East: Use: Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation Agricultural
West: Use: Farm and Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation Agricultural
Existing Use of Property: Rural Residential
Proposed Use of Property: No change
Site Area: 1.2 Ha (3 acres)
Access: Dewdney Trunk Road
Servicing: Storm and municipal water, on site septic.
b) Project Description:
The details of this proposal are attached as Appendix A.
c) Planning Analysis:
Property Management Staff follow -up – Cell Tower Protocol / Notification.
Following the June 13, 2017 Council deferral, Property Management staff have provided the
following additional information.
- 3 -
Required Notification Process. Local governments have the right to develop their own public
notification protocols and are supported by Industry Canada in this initiative.1 Industry Canada also
has a default process for proponents to use if the land use authority has not developed one.
Wireless providers are now required to consult the public on all tower locations, regardless of height.
Wireless providers must also build the tower within three years of the consultation.
Addressing Public Concerns. As a result of the required consultation process, proponents are
required to respond to and if possible resolve the concerns that Industry Canada would consider
relevant. The distinction between concerns that are considered relevant and those not considered
relevant are outlined in the following excerpt from the Industry Canada website:
The factors that will determine whether a concern is reasonable or relevant according to
this process will vary but will generally be considered if they relate to the requirements of
this document and to the particular amenities or important characteristics of the area
surrounding the proposed antenna system. Examples of concerns that proponents are to
address may include:
Why is the use of an existing antenna system or structure not possible?
Why is an alternate site not possible?
What is the proponent doing to ensure that the antenna system is not accessible
to the general public?
How is the proponent trying to integrate the antenna into the local surroundings?
What options are available to satisfy aeronautical obstruction marking
requirements at this site?
What are the steps the proponent took to ensure compliance with the general
requirements of this document including the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA), Safety Code 6, etc.?
Concerns that are not relevant include:
disputes with members of the public relating to the proponent's service, but
unrelated to antenna installations;
potential effects that a proposed antenna system will have on property values or
municipal taxes;
questions whether the Radiocommunication Act, this document, Safety Code 6,
locally established by-laws, other legislation, procedures or processes are valid
or should be reformed in some manner.
Link: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html#sec4.2
Additional information about safety requirements from the Industry Canada Website (link
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic-gc.nsf/eng/07422.html) is pasted below:
1 The City of Maple Ridge has developed and approved such a protocol, and this required process was followed by the
proponent.
- 4 -
All antenna towers have to satisfy Industry Canada's general and technical requirements
and comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6, which imposes strict limits on the radio
frequency energy sent out by any antenna tower. Industry Canada routinely audits the
radio frequency energy at tower sites.
As Industry Canada maintains that these requirements address health risks, public consultation
concerns raised about health impacts of antennae structures are not considered to be relevant
concerns. However, site specific concerns about environmental impacts are considered relevant.
Telus Presentation to Council. Representatives for Telus attended the October 3, 2016 Committee
of the Whole Meeting to outline industry trends, present their proposal, and discuss their recent
consultation processes. Topics included:
Responding to relevant concerns. It was revealed at this meeting that to reduce the
visibility of the proposed antennae structure, the proponent had moved the proposed
antennae to its current location to be amongst trees and less visible.
Adherence to Safety Code 6. It was noted that exposure is reduced significantly with
increased distance from the antennae.
Proximity to Websters Corners School. The proponents affirmed that the distance
from the proposed antennae would result in the school’s exposure being significantly
less than the maximum permitted under Health Canada regulations.
Response to Council Question.
The closest distance, measured from the school property line to the proposed facility, is over 400
metres. According to Industry Canada guidelines, the relevance of this information would depend on
the basis of this concern.
Planning Staff Follow- up:
Fish presence in Mobley Creek. Environmental concerns are considered relevant by Industry
Canada. Prior to the consultation program commencing, the proponent provided an Environmental
Overview and Feasibility Assessment that was prepared by a qualified environmental professional.
This assessment noted that there was no record of fish presence in Mobley Creek. The choice of site
location on the subject property was based on the siting requirements of the Streamside Protection
Regulation Guidelines. The 15 metre setback provided by this proposal is consistent with these
guidelines for streams without recorded fish presence. Completion of a Watercourse Protection
Development Permit will be required as part of the building permit process.
Agricultural Land Commission .
As noted in the previous report, attached as Appendix A, the Agricultural Land Commission asserts
that a non-farm use application is required prior to the application receiving Commission approval.
As local and provincial governments have limited jurisdiction over this use, a denial by Council or by
the Commission could likely be over-ruled by the federal government during a dispute resolution
process.
- 5 -
The Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, which is administered by
the ALC, notes that this use could be permitted outright if its de velopment footprint was kept
compact, as stated in Part 2(3) Permitted Uses For Land In An Agricultural Land Reserve:
The following land uses are permitted in an agricultural land reserve…:
(1) (m) telecommunications equipment, buildings and installations as long as the area
occupied by the equipment, buildings and installations does not exceed 100 m2 for
each parcel;
This regulation indicates that a telecommunications facility could be permitted outright if its total
footprint remained within 100 m2 in area. However, the cumulative total footprint (including access,
equipment compound, guy wires) for this use usually exceeds this prescribed minimum, and
therefore, the need for the non-farm use is triggered. For this proposal, the equipment compound
occupies an estimated 256 m2, and therefore the need for the non-farm use application is triggered.
CONCLUSION:
This addendum report dated July 11, 2017 and titled “Addendum report – Cell Tower 25762
Dewdney Trunk Road”, has been prepared in response to Council’s request for additional
information. Industry Canada guidelines have been outlined to provide a context for this
information.
”Original signed by Diana Hall”_______________________
Co- Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA (Planning), MCIP, RPP
Planner 2
“Original signed by Darrell Denton”_____________________
Co- Prepared by: Darrell Denton
Property and Risk Manager
“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 – Non-Farm use application report, dated June 13, 2017, with attachments
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 13, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-100-AL
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council
SUBJECT: Non-Farm Use Application in the Agricultural Land Reserve (Cell Tower)
25762 Dewdney Trunk Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received for non-farm use within the Agricultural Land Reserve for a cell
phone tower located at 25762 Dewdney Trunk Road. This application is made in accordance with
Section 20(3) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The applicant has provided community
notification in accordance with federal guidelines and Telecommunications Antenna Structure Siting
Protocols developed by the City of Maple Ridge.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Application 2016-100-AL be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and
further;
If the application is approved by the Agricultural Land Commission, that staff be directed to
acknowledge satisfactory completion of the Public Notification process by Cypress Land Services on
behalf of TELUS, noting that there were numerous objections to the proposed cellular
communications tower for this location.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: Cypress Land Services Inc.
Owner: Stephen & Susan Proudman
Legal Description: Lot: 11, Section: 13, Township: 12, Plan: NWP39026
OCP :
Existing: AGR (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: Farm and Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation Agricultural
APPENDIX A
- 2 -
East: Use: Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation Agricultural
West: Use: Farm and Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation Agricultural
Existing Use of Property: Rural Residential
Proposed Use of Property: No change
Site Area: 1.2 Ha (3 acres)
Access: Dewdney Trunk Road
Servicing: Storm and municipal water, on site septic.
a) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to install a wireless communications facility on the subject property that is
within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and is zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). The
subject property is bordered by the Agricultural Land Reserve on all sides. A tributary of Mogley
Creek traverses through the middle of the property.
The wireless communications facility is proposed to consist of a 16 m square compound area on a
concrete pad. Access to the compound will be through an existing gravel driveway and over an
existing concrete culvert. The compound will be enclosed with a chainlink fence. This application is
considered a High Impact submission, based on the Maple Ridge Telecommunications Antenna
Structure Siting Protocols, as it is proposed in or near what may be considered an environmentally
sensitive area (within 50 m of the top of bank for Mogley Creek).
In accordance with federal guidelines for regulating this use, and the Maple Ridge
Telecommunications Antenna Structures Siting Protocols, the applicant has followed appropriate
procedures for notifying the community and has provided correspondence for this purpose.
b) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan
The lands are designated Agricultural in the Official Community Plan (OCP) and Policy 6-9 states that
Maple Ridge supports the policies and regulations of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) and will
strive to protect the productivity of its agricultural land. The proposed tower location utilizes an
existing driveway, imposing a relatively small footprint on the landscape, so the agricultural potential
of the site is not expected to be significantly impacted.
Cell phone towers are considered to be a Public Service use in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw. For
this reason, Policy 4-32 in the Official Community Plan is of particular relevance.
Policy 4–32 of the OCP states that:
Public Service Uses, which provide essential services such as water, sewer, electrical,
telephone, or other similar services will be permitted throughout the community subject to
pertinent government regulations.
On this basis, this proposal is supportable in the Official Community Plan.
- 3 -
Zoning Bylaw
Public Service use is defined in the Zoning Bylaw as “a use providing for the essential servicing of
the Municipality with water, sewer, electrical, telephone and similar services…”
Section 401 (2)(a) of the Zoning Bylaw (Permitted Uses of Land, Buildings and Structures) states:
(a) A Public Service use shall be permitted in all zones.
Section 403 (4)(d) of the Zoning Bylaw (Regulations for the Size, Shape and Siting of Buildings and
Structures) states:
(d) Freestanding lighting poles, warning devices, antennas, masts, utility poles, wires, flag
poles, signs and sign structures, except as otherwise limited in other Bylaws, may be
sited on any portion of a lot.
Section 403 (6) of the Zoning Bylaw (Height Exceptions) states:
The heights of buildings and structures permitted elsewhere in this Bylaw may be
exceeded for … towers…radio and television antennas; ….
Both the Official Community Plan and the Zoning Bylaw recognize Public Service uses as a response
to a community need. Cellular antennas fit the definition of Public Service use. For this reason, they
are permitted throughout the community in all zones, and are exempted from Zoning Bylaw
restrictions for height and setbacks. However, it should be noted that structures associated with the
antennas, such as an equipment compound for wireless facilities, are considered accessory
buildings, and therefore are subject to restrictions regarding height, siting, and setbacks. For the RS-
3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone, the zone of the area of the property where the compound and
tower are proposed to be located, the setbacks that would apply would be 7.5 m from the front and
rear lot lines, and 1.5 m from the interior lot line.
Using the City’s Telecommunications Antenna Structure Siting Protocol (V2) requirements as its
guide, TELUS, (through Cypress Land) completed the requisite public notification process and has
asked the City to provide it with an acknowledgement of completion of the prescribed notification
process that it can take to Industry Canada for consideration for final approval.
As part of the consultation process, two open houses were held to present this proposal to the
community. The first of these, held on March 3, 2016 had low turnout and was subsequently
rescheduled to May 26, 2016 to ensure a fulsome participation by the general public.
This consultation initiative satisfies the requirements of Industry Canada. The installation of cellular
antennae is under Federal jurisdiction and municipal approval is not required.
c) Development Considerations:
Civil engineering plans, including drainage and erosion and sediment control plans will need to be
provided at the Building Permit stage to demonstrate how the proposed structures will be built so as
not to negatively impact the surrounding area. As the proposed compound is within 50 metres of a
watercourse, an environmental assessment by a qualified professional consultant will be required.
In addition, the Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw was adopted by Council in
February 2016. Under the requirements of this new bylaw, an arborist report will be required at the
- 4 -
Building Permit stage to ensure that the development impacts are minimized. Additional
requirements may be assessed upon site investigation by the qualified professional.
d) Intergovernmental Issues:
Federal Guidelines
Wireless communications facilities are under the jurisdiction of federal legislation, through Industry
Canada. Industry Canada has provided guidelines for notifying the community where these uses are
being proposed. Local government input regarding the placement of a telecommunication antenna
structure is also sought. Local governments are to review these applications and a letter of
concurrence or non-concurrence is then sent to Industry Canada. Due to their limited jurisdiction for
this use, local governments may not withhold a Building Permit if the applicant has met standards
for notification and has made a demonstrated attempt to satisfy community concerns that are
considered relevant by the federal government. The City does not assess any submission for a
telecommunication antenna structure with respect to health and radiofrequency exposure issues, or
any other non-placement or non-design related issues.
Agricultural Land Commission
The Agricultural Land Commission asserts that a non-farm use application is required prior to the
application receiving Commission approval. As local and provincial governments have limited
jurisdiction over this use, a denial by Council or by the Commission could likely be over-ruled by the
federal government during a dispute resolution process.
The Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, which is administered by
the ALC, notes that this use could be permitted outright if its development footprint was kept
compact, as stated in Part 2(3) Permitted Uses For Land In An Agricultural Land Reserve:
The following land uses are permitted in an agricultural land reserve… :
(1) (m) telecommunications equipment, buildings and installations as long as the area
occupied by the equipment, buildings and installations does not exceed 100 m2 for
each parcel;
This regulation indicates that a telecommunications facility could be permitted outright if its total
footprint remained within 100 m2 in area. However, the cumulative total footprint (including access,
equipment compound, guy wires) for this use usually exceeds this prescribed minimum, and
therefore, the need for the non-farm use is triggered. For this proposal, the equipment compound
occupies an estimated 256 m2, and therefore the need for the non-farm use application is triggered.
e) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Neighbourhood notification has been conducted in accordance with Industry Canada Guidelines and
with the protocols developed by the City of Maple Ridge. Two open houses were held to present this
proposal to the community. The first of these, held on March 3, 2016 had low turnout and was
rescheduled to May 26, 2016. This consultation initiative satisfies the requirements of Industry
Canada. The installation of cellular antenna is under Federal jurisdiction and municipal approval is
not required.
- 5 -
f) Interdepartmental Implications:
This application will involve the Building and the Planning Departments in their review of
environmental assessments, geotechnical recommendations, a tree cutting permit, and a
Watercourse Protection Development Permit.
g) Alternatives:
Council has the option of not authorizing this application to proceed to the ALC, in which case the
applicant would have the option of ensuring the development proposal size remained within the 100
m2 maximum footprint as prescribed in the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and
Procedure Regulation or appealing to the federal government to intervene in a dispute resolution
process.
CONCLUSION:
This application for a non-farm use complies with the direction as given by the ALC for the installation
of wireless telephone facilities. Community notification has been provided, and a summary of the
comments were provided to the City of Maple Ridge. Council is recommended to authorize
forwarding this application to the ALC for their consideration.
“Original signed by Diana Hall”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Diana Hall, M.A., MCIP, RPP
Planner 2
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_____________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by David Pollock” for
_______________________________________________
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 – Site Plan
Appendix D - Compound Layout
Appendix E – Excerpt from Proponent – Community Consultation Meeting Summary
DATE: Apr 7, 2016
2016-100-AL
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD
256 ST´
Scale: 1:3,500
25762 Dewdney Trunk RoadLegend
Stream
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Major Rivers & Lakes
DATE: Apr 7, 2016
2016-100-AL
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD
256 ST´
Scale: 1:3,500
25762 Dewdney Trunk Road
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011
Legend
Stream
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Major Rivers & Lakes
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION MEETING SUMMARY
TELUS Site: BC1572
Proposed Location: 25762 Dewdney Trunk Road, Maple Ridge, BC
Description: 45m monopole tower
Meeting Date: Thursday, May 26, 2016
Meeting Location: Webster’s Corner Elementary
25554 Dewdney Trunk Road, Maple Ridge, BC V4R 1X9
Meeting Time: 5:30pm – 7:00pm
TELUS Representatives:
Debra Pankratz, Real Estate & Government Affairs
Mohammad Zabetian, RF Engineer
Cheryl Bilyk, Real Estate & Government Affairs
Harmen Kahlon, Real Estate & Government Affairs
Leeanne Parris, Real Estate & Government Affairs
Angelo Almario, Wireless Implementation
Marc Parras, Manager, Technology Strategy
Mohammad Chamma, Mgr.-Planning & Engineering
Cypress Representatives:
Tawny Verigin, Municipal Affairs Specialist Consultant
James Shaw, Real Estate & Municipal Affairs Consultant
Andrew Orchard, Real Estate & Municipal Affairs Consultant
Jim Law, Site Acquisition & Municipal Affairs Consultant
Brent Laoun, Site Acquisition Consultant
Meeting Details
The City of Maple Ridge has adopted “Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols”
to establish procedural standards allowing the City to effectively participate in and influence the
placement of telecommunication antenna structures proposed within the City. Following these
protocols, Cypress Land Services consulted with the City of Maple Ridge and held a Community
Consultation Meeting for the above noted proposed monopole wireless communication facility
on Thursday, March 3rd. Due to a traffic incident during the meeting, it was rescheduled to
Thursday, May 26, 2016 from 5:30 to 7:00pm. The meeting was held at the Webster’s Corner
Elementary located at 25554 Dewdney Trunk Road, Maple Ridge, BC. The above noted
Representatives from TELUS and Cypress Land Services were on site to answer questions and
receive feedback. Darrell Denton (Property & Risk Manager) was on hand to represent the City
of Maple Ridge.
Notification and Invitation
Notification packages including an invitation to the community consultation meeting were sent
to all households within 300 m of the proposed site on February 10, 2016 via regular mail (please
see Schedule 1: Affidavit of Notification). In total, 76 notifications were sent. A notice was also
placed in the Maple Ridge News on May 13th, 2016 inviting the public to the meeting (please see
Schedule 2: Tear sheets). Due to an unexpected traffic accident and road closure, many
members of the public expressed that they were not able to access the meeting. As a result, the
community consultation meeting was rescheduled to ensure all member of the public has an
opportunity to attend. On May 4, 2016, a total of 76 notification packages were re-issued to
property owners, occupants, and other recipients within 300m of the proposed monopole
location via regular mail. (please see Schedule 3: Affidavit of Re-Notification). On Friday, May
13, 2016 a notice was placed in the Maple Ridge News inviting the public to the meeting and to
comment on the proposal (please see Schedule 4: Tear sheet for Second Meeting Invitation).
Attendance and Community Feedback
18 residents signed in at the Community Consultation Meeting (please see Schedule 5: Meeting
Sign in). Most of the residents who attended the meeting expressed their opposition regarding
the installation. Concerns ranged from location of the structure relative to residential homes and
the elementary school (typically with regard to health & safety), concern with structure
appearance and perceived impact on property values. During the entire consultation period, 29
residents provided comments in total; one in support, two neutral and 26 in opposition (please
see Schedule 6: Comments & Responses Tracker).
Meeting Set Up
Upon arrival to the meeting guests were greeted at a welcome table where they were politely
asked to sign in. The venue was set up with story boards around the perimeter of the room
explaining various aspects of the proposal (please see Schedule 7: Storyboards). TELUS
representatives were available to provide information and answer questions as they arose. In
addition, wireless literature was provided as take home materials should attendees need
additional information. The literature provided included: Wireless Communication and Health,
Connecting Canadians, CPC, CWTA Subscriber Facts, SC6 Fact Sheet & Myth busters, it’s your
Health, Statement of the Chief Medical Officer, Cell Towers in Your Community.
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2017-198-AL
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
21587 128 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to
exclude approximately 0.357 hectares (0.88 acres) of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The
Applicant’s submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural Land
Commission. Due to its small parcel size, the subject property is exempt from the regulations of the
Agricultural Land Commission1. However, the notation that the property is within the Agricultural
Land Reserve remains on title.
This application is a required first step towards an eventual application to rezone the parcel for a
commercial use. Although exempt from ALC regulations, the property is designated Agricultural in
both the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan and in Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy.
For this reason, the property cannot be rezoned to a non-agricultural zone without first amending its
municipal and its regional designation.
As this parcel is too small to be feasible as an agricultural property on its own, its redevelopment
would not be considered a loss of farmland. The policy context and redevelopment options for this
property have been outlined using information provided by the Agricultural Land Commission, Metro
Vancouver, and the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan. The compiled findings of these
documents indicate there are both threats and opportunities related to the redevelopment of
exempt parcels in the Agricultural Land Reserve, which are under the jurisdiction of municipal and
regional governments.
The threats relate to the potential for incompatible land uses that could undermine agricultural
uses. The opportunities involve the possibilities for supportive non-farm uses that could enhance
agriculture and benefit the farming community. Generally, the policies of the Regional Growth
Strategy and the Official Community Plan will guide potential land uses towards meeting this latter
objective. On this basis, this application could be considered supportable.
1 Exemptions from ALC regulations due to parcel size are conditional and outlined in ALC Policy P-02.
http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/assets/legislation-and-regulation/policies/alc_-_policy_p-02_-
_parcels_less_than_2_acres.pdf
1102
- 2 -
The recommendation of this report has been provided in accordance with Council direction for
applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Alternatives section of this report
discusses options for Council’s consideration in greater detail.
RECOMMENDATION:
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: OTG Development Concepts
Legal Description: Section 25 Township: 9
OCP : Existing: Agricultural
Zoning: Existing: A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Rural Residential
Zone: A-2 Upland Agriculture
Designation: Agricultural
South: Use: Farm, Rural Residential
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation: Agricultural
East: Use: Rural Residential
Zone: A-2 Upland Agriculture
Designation Agricultural
West: Use: Farm and Agricultural product processing
Zone: A-2 Upland Agriculture
Designation: Agricultural
Existing Use of Property: Residential with farm status
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial
Site Area: 0.375 ha (0.88 acres)
Access: 216th Street
- 3 -
b) Site Context:
The subject property is situated at the intersection of 128th Avenue and 216 Street. The agricultural
context of the site is highly visible including forage crops, blueberries, and the blueberry processing
plant to the west of the subject property. At this location, 128th Avenue is an east- west arterial that
provides the furthest north connection between 216th Street and the Pitt River Bridge, and the most
direct access for Silver Valley residents. As it would serve both rural and urban traffic, this site may
be a strategic location for modest commercial uses.
The subject parcel is approximately 0.4ha (0.9 acres) and is therefore exempt from requirements of
the Agricultural Land Commission. Estimates from the Agricultural Land Commission indicate that
province wide, there are about 20,000 exempt properties. In general, these properties are the
result of historic subdivision patterns. Due to this exemption, municipalities and regional districts
have considerable autonomy in permitting non-agricultural uses on these properties.
This parcel has a single family dwelling and an accessory building upon it. The applicant states that
it currently has no agricultural activity on it. However, municipal records indicate that the subject
property has assessed farm status. Due to its small size, it is likely that this status has been
achieved by leasing a portion of the site to a larger farming operation.
c) Project Description:
This application proposes to exclude the subject property from the Agricultural Land Reserve in order
to allow for a commercial development. This exclusion application is necessary due to requirements
set forth by the Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy, and those of the local government in
order to facilitate a non-farm use on this property.
At this time, the proposed land use is broadly conceptual and no specific zone is being considered
for the redevelopment of this property. However, the applicant has stated an intent to redevelop
the property for commercial purposes. There are a number of commercially zoned properties within
Maple Ridge that are outside of the Urban Area Boundary. Typically, these are historic commercial
parcels with legal non conforming zoning that today would be inconsistent with the Official
Community Plan. Typically, these uses are modest in scale and geared towards serving the
neighbouring population.
d) 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:
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.
- 4 -
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 Reserve
was further refined by Council at their February 14, 2005 Workshop. At that time, Council
streamlined this process to 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 and policy concerns of the Official Community Plan, the Regional
Growth Strategy, and land use planning information prepared by the Agricultural Land Commission
Agricultural Land Commission
A 1998 publication produced by the Agricultural Land Commission, titled “Planning for Agriculture”,
provided an extensive land use evaluation of small parcels within the ALR. Pertinent excerpts from
the document are, as follows:
The actual amount of land consumed by these small, exempt parcels is not the real
problem. However, they do hold the unique position of being ALR land that is largely in the
exclusive regulatory control of local governments. This compares to the bulk of the ALR that
is influenced by both the authority of the Commission, through the ALC Act, and by the plans
and bylaws of local governments where these exist.
These small lots, however, have been described as potential "time bombs" in agricultural
areas. Free of the regulatory provisions of the ALC Act, these exempt parcels could be
subdivided into even smaller lots or be the subject of non-farm land use proposals that could
be in direct conflict with surrounding agricultural uses. This possible clash of land uses and
subsequent harm to agriculture could occur if local governments do not recognize this
potential and utilize planning and zoning powers to enact regulations sensitive to the overall
farm community.
This excerpt expresses the concerns of the Commission that local governments could permit
incompatible land uses that would be detrimental to adjacent agricultural parcels. However, the
Commission also recognizes that there is potential for these uses to support the farming community,
as outlined in the following excerpt:
- 5 -
A degree of caution should be exercised in the application of policies to discourage non-farm
uses. It is important to discriminate between uses that are truly non-farm and should be
sited in a more suitable location, and those which cause minimal impact on the productive
capacity of the land base and do not destabilize, but support the agricultural community.
Metro Vancouver
In general, the Regional Growth Strategy designates all properties within the Agricultural Land
Reserve as Agricultural. Any amendment to an agricultural designation could not occur without first
excluding a property from the Agricultural Land Reserve. There is no exemption for small parcels
that are not subject to ALC regulations. Metro Vancouver staff may review this matter in the future
in order to provide regulations that would give municipalities greater flexibility, and avoid the
procedural difficulties associated with amending land use designations and rezoning these
properties. However, at present, the existing process remains.
These procedure difficulties relate to requiring the approval of Metro Vancouver to amend the
Regional Growth Strategy. This type of amendment would likely 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.
Although the process is onerous, a supportable amendment from Agriculture could be to a Rural
land use designation. Rural lands are generally compatible with an agricultural context as they
retain a rural character. As noted in the Regional Growth Strategy, the acceptable land uses in this
context are low density residential, small scale commercial, industrial, and institutional uses that do
not require sewer extension.
Official Community Plan
The subject property is outside of the Urban Area Boundary, and the most supportable land use
redesignation would be for Rural Commercial purposes. Section 6.3.8 of the OCP, titled “Rural
Commercial”, notes the following about the Rural Commercial designation:
Rural Commercial centres cater to the daily convenience shopping and service needs of a
rural population and provide a limited range of services. Rural Commercial retail centres are
typically less than 93 m2 (1,000 ft2) in area. Community serving outdoor recreational
facilities are also appropriate in the rural area.
Policies pertaining to scale and compatibility of these commercial uses are provided by Policies 6-39
and 6-40 of the Official Community Plan, as follows:
6 - 39 Rural Commercial Centres and outdoor commercial recreation facilities will be
considered subject to satisfying Parking Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw requirements, traffic,
access, site design, and compatibility with adjacent land uses.
6 - 40 Total commercial space in a Rural Commercial centre is typically less than 93 m2
1,000 ft2) in area. Outdoor commercial recreational facilities may exceed 93 m2 (1,000 ft2)
in area.
- 6 -
Properties designated Rural Commercial align with the CS-3 Commercial Recreation and the CS-4
Rural Commercial Zone. Both zones are limited in the range of permitted uses. The CS-4 Rural
Commercial Zone is also limited in the maximum size of a commercial building.
As it proposes non-farm uses adjacent to agriculture, a requirement of the rezoning application will
be an agricultural impact assessment.
Analysis
The concerns, policy context, and the procedural hurdles associated with the rezoni ng of exempt
ALR parcels, from the provincial, regional, and municipal perspectives have been outlined above.
From this information it may be concluded that:
1. The Regional District and the municipality have jurisdiction over these exempt ALR parcels
2. There is potential for incompatible land uses to be permitted on these small parcels that
could be detrimental to agricultural areas
3. There is also an opportunity for non-farm uses that could support agriculture, and these
should be supported.
4. The Regional Growth Strategy and the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan provide a
consistent framework that can assist in ensuring that land use changes are compatible with
an agricultural context.
5. The supportable commercial land use for the subject property will be small scale with little
adverse effect on agriculture.
Zoning Bylaw
As noted, there is no specific zone attached to this proposal , but the CS-4 Rural Commercial Zone is
the most supportable. Support for redevelopment of this property should prioritize low impact
development that supports the agricultural potential of neighbouring properties, with little risk of soil
or groundwater contamination. Principal permitted uses in the CS-4 Zone are limited to convenience
store, restaurant, and retail uses.
Interdepartmental Implications :
The Engineering Department has provided a preliminary review of the implications of redeveloping
this property. A recent upgrade along 128th Avenue with corner truncation would meet municipal
standards. However, upgrades would likely be triggered for 216th Street, which is classified as an
arterial road. These upgrades could include a 3 metre dedication, and road widening of existing
asphalt, or if supported, waiving these requirements with a Development Variance Permit. Existing
storm drainage is likely sufficient. Access would be required to be from the northern edge of the
property along 216th Street.
e) Alternatives:
The recommendation format of this report has been prepared in accordance with Council direction.
Based on the considerations as outlined in this report, there may be some merit in considering
certain commercial uses on the subject property, if the exclusion application is supported by the
Agricultural Land Commission. These considerations would be explored more fully as part of the
- 7 -
required rezoning and Official Community Plan amendment that must precede the re-development
of this property.
As noted, this application may be supportable. However, Metro Vancouver has no process at this
time that would exempt this property from the Regional Growth Strategy amendment procedures. In
addition, Metro Vancouver has indicated the possibility to revise their process in order to give
municipalities greater flexibility. Supportable land uses would likely form part of that dialogue.
Council may therefore wish to consider deferring or denying exclusion applications for exempt
properties until this work has been completed. Under the current required process, the request to
amend the Regional Growth Strategy would be forwarded to Metro Vancouver after third reading of
the rezoning application.
CONCLUSION:
This application for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve has been considered within the
policy context of the provincial, regional, and municipal concerns and objectives. On review of this
context, this application is found to be 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, MCIP, RPP
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 map
DATE: Jun 27, 2017FILE: 2017-198-AL
21587 128 AVENUE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
216 ST´
Scale: 1:2,500 BY: PC
Legend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Indefinite Creek
Lake or Reservoir
APPENDIX A
DATE: Jun 27, 2017
FILE: 2017-198-AL
21587 128 AVENUE
City of PittMeadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
216 STAerial Imagery from the Spring of 2016´
Scale: 1:2,500 BY: PC
APPENDIX B
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2017-221-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council
SUBJECT: First Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7355-2017
22032 119 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 22032 119 Avenue, from
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RT-2 (Ground-Oriented Residential Infill) to support the
development of a triplex residential building. Amendments to the Official Community Plan (Amending
Bylaw No. 7349-2017), Zoning Bylaw (Amending Bylaw No. 7312-2017 for the RT-2 Zone), and Off
Street Parking and Loading Bylaw (Amending Bylaw No. 7350-2017) were given first reading at the
June 13, 2017 Council meeting. These bylaws, when approved, will allow new ground-oriented infill
housing such as courtyard, fourplex and triplex forms in accordance with the action items of the
Housing Action Plan Implementation Framework that were prioritized by Council. The current
application applies the draft provisions of the new proposed RT-2 zone and Off Street Parking and
Loading Bylaw for triplexes.
This application is not subject to the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program Policy 6.31,
because triplex applications where only one building is being constructed are exempt. To proceed
further with this application additional information is required as outlined below.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7355-2017 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: 1119300 BC LTD. GRACE YU
Owner: Grace Lim Kuo Yu, Benjamin Yu, Yan Kwong Joshua Yeung,
Helen Lim Kuo
Legal Description: Lot 56, D.L. 397, NWP 14049
OCP:
Existing: Urban Residential
Proposed: No change 1103
- 2 -
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: RT-2 (Ground-Oriented Residential Infill)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1
Designation: Urban Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1
Designation: Urban Residential
West: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1
Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Ground-Oriented Residential Infill - Triplex
Site Area: 899 m2 ha (0.22 acres)
Access: 119 Avenue and lane behind property
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
b) Site Characteristics:
The subject property, located at 22032 119 Avenue, is a rectangular shaped lot that is 899 m2
(0.22 acres) in size. The subject property and surrounding lots are characterized by low (i.e. single
storey and basement) single family dwellings. There is a lane behind (south) of the subject property.
The subject property is relatively flat with a few trees along its edges and in the back yard.
c) Project Description:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to RT-2 (Ground-Oriented Residential Infill), a newly created zone, to permit the
development of a triplex.
The new RT-2 zone provides for the infill of ground-oriented residential buildings within established
residential neighbourhoods in a form that will be incremental and sensitive to the existing and
emerging context. This new zone allows for dwelling units to be in one building with shared party
walls to create triplexes, as is the case of the current application, or fourplexes, which will be
supported along Major Corridors. These forms will resemble a single family dwelling in order to fit
seamlessly into existing neighbourhoods. Dwelling units may also be arranged individually or
attached and clustered around a shared open space, in a courtyard residential housing form. The
new RT-2 (Ground-Oriented Residential Infill) zone, Bylaw No. 7312-2017, was given first reading at
the June 13, 2017 Council meeting and will run concurrently with another application for courtyard
residential housing (2017-031-RZ), which also received first reading at the same Council meeting.
However, should the RT-2 zone not be approved, the current application would not complete and the
file would be closed.
- 3 -
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 property is located in the general urban area just to the west of the town centre. It is
currently designated Urban Residential, and the OCP’s neighbourhood residential infill policies apply
to the current application. Under the infill policies, unit types such as duplexes and triplexes are
allowed, with an emphasis on street oriented buildings (Policy 3-19, b). These policies also require
proposed developments to respect and reinforce the physical patterns and characteristics of
established neighbourhoods, with particular attention paid to site design, setbacks, and lot
configuration of the existing pattern of development, as well as compatibility between building
massing and the types of dwelling units (Policy 3-21).
It is noted that one of the underlying principles in the OCP is to encourage growth within the Urban
Area Boundary (UAB), and to accommodate that growth through infill by promoting a mix of housing
types and tenures (Policy 3-1).
The proposed rezoning of the subject property to RT-2 (Ground-Oriented Residential Infill) to support
the development of a triplex aligns with the intent of these OCP and neighbourhood residential infill
policies.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property located at 22032 119 Avenue from
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RT-2 (Ground-Oriented Residential Infill) to permit the
development of a triplex residential building. The subject property is 899 m2, which is larger than the
800 m2 minimum lot size proposed in the new RT-2 zone.
The triplex residential development is supported on this property because it will be similar in scale
with the surrounding, established single family neighbourhood. The maximum height requirements
for triplex residential developments are the same as today’s new single family homes (11 metres),
even though they are higher than existing older homes in the area that were built to a lower height.
Nonetheless, the triplex is in one building, which is intended to resemble a single family home and
integrate with the existing neighbourhood. Each dwelling unit is also provided with greenspace, while
access to off-street parking areas can be accessed from the lane behind the subject property.
At this time, there are no known variances being requested to the requirements of the proposed RT-2
zone. Any variances arising from subsequent design work will require a Development Variance Permit
application.
Parking:
An amendment to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw 4350-1990 is being proposed along
with the proposed amendment to the OCP and Zoning Bylaw to create the new RT -2 (Ground-
- 4 -
Oriented Residential Infill) zone. The amendment clarifies the parking requirements for triplex,
fourplex, and courtyard residential developments. Two off-street parking spaces will be required for
each dwelling unit within the Urban Area Boundary (UAB) and within the Town Centre. No off -street
visitor parking is required.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the OCP, a Multi-Family Development Permit application is required to
ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that
meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses. The Proposed
Triplex, Fourplex and Courtyard Housing Forms Overview report from April 18, 2016 stated that
applications for triplex, fourplex and courtyard housing will use the Multi-Family Development Permit
guidelines for those applications received in the first year. Applications will also be forwarded to the
Advisory Design Panel (ADP) for review. The process will be reviewed and reported to Council after
the first year and may result in the establishment of Development Permit guidelines specifically
developed for these ground-oriented residential infill forms.
Advisory Design Panel:
A Multi-Family Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel
prior to second reading.
Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting is not required for this application because there is no OCP
amendment and the proposal is less than 5 dwelling units.
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) Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department;
e) Parks Department;
f) School District;
g) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure;
h) 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.
- 5 -
f) Development Applications:
In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as re quired by
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);
3. A Development Variance Permit (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 proposed OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7349-2017.
This triplex residential development provides an opportunity to allow sensitive infill on the site that is
similar in form and scale to the surrounding single family dwelling neighbourhood. It is
recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and
assessed prior to second reading.
“Original signed by Chee Chan”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Chee Chan
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 – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7355-2017
Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: May 31, 2017FILE: 2017-221-RZ BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENTYORK ST.221 ST.AC
A
D
I
A
S
T
.
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD.221 ST.221 ST.WI
C
K
L
O
W
W
A
Y 220 ST.SELKIRK AVE.
SEATON PL.
119 AVE.220 ST.219202215021965219562196011943
2213611942
2203311952
21950 2196411961
11952
11963
22057219082205821948220722199011970
220331185022004
2193222030220632206811993
1186822077
11851
11960
2198922020220882210611932
119
2
0
11999
11814 2205711971
11989
11879
11953
2193911970
11875220202207411962
11910
221272195411973
221182205711888
11932
2211711927
220232212822073119
3
0
11942
220562204321943220432204811970
2202311990
1185921951 11926
2212221965219572195011945
220232202011957
2210911949
2204021980220521184921951 11965
21924221142212811937
11956
11996
219502203011869
11988
221182194411989
11887
11973
22031220322207821968220582208311874
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,000
22032 119 AVENUE
LOUGHEED HWY
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
APPENDIX A
City of PittMeadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: May 31, 2017
FILE: 2017-221-RZ
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENTYORK ST.221 ST.A
C
A
D
I
A
S
T
.
D
221 ST.221 ST.W
W
A
Y 220 ST.SELKIRK AVE.
SEATON PL.
119 AVE.220 ST.219202215021965219562196011943
2213611942
2203311952
21950 2196411961
11952
11963
22057219082205821948220722199011970
220331185022004
2193222030220632206811993
1186822077
11851
11960
2198922020220882210611932
0
11999
11814 2205711971
11989
11879
11953
2193911970
11875220202207411962
11910
22127219541197 3
221182205711888
11932
2211711927
22023221282207311
9
3
0
11942
220562204321943220432204811970
2202311990
1185921951 11926
2212221965219572195011945
220232202011957
2210911 949
2204021980220521184921951 11965
21924221142212811937
11956
11996
219502203011869
11988
221182194411989
11887
11973
22031220322207821968220582208311874
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2016´
Scale: 1:2,000
22032 119 AVENUE
LOUGHEED HWY
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7355-2017
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. 7355-2017."
2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 56 District Lot 397 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 14049
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1719 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is/are hereby rezoned to RT-2 (Ground-Oriented
Residential Infill).
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
APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this day of
, 20
ADOPTED, the day of , 20
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX C
YORK ST.221 ST.ACADIA ST.221 ST.221 ST.WICKLO
W W
AY 220 ST.SELKIRK AVE.
SEATON PL.
119 AVE.220 ST.219202215021965219562196011943
2213611942
2203311952
21950 2196411961
11952
11963
22057219082205821948220722199011970
11850
22033220042193222030220632206811993
1186822077
11851
11960
2198922020220882210611932
11920
11999
11814 2205711971
11989
11879
11953
2193911970
11875220202207411962
11910
221272195411973
221182205711888
11932
2211711927
22023221282207311930
11942
220562204321943220432204811970
2202311990
1185921951 11926
2212221965219572195011945
220232202011957
2210911949
2204021980220521184921951 11965
21924221142212811937
11956
11996
219502203011869
11988
221182194411989
11887
11973
220312203222078219682205811874
220831
25
135
10
22
43
13
139 7
6419
104
133
2
27
6
42
6
86
43
14
20
15
51
65
4
21
53 16
5 48
138
18
8
85
55
23
60
11
3
8
7
50
63
A
6
62
B
16
Rem
137 3
Rem
33
Rem
2
39
19
11
136
52
Rem 38
8
W1
26
140
2038
14
141
29
39
12 W
7
5
27 56
16
22
3
61
3
65'
4
59
40
12
18
B
1
17
21
5
24
Rem
134
25
5
9
17
2
28
15
Rem
14
66
2
26
67
8
12
13
173
13
49
1
11
174
7
4
40
9
54P 15564P 17185
P 52495 P 8728P 15564P 14113P 15564BCP 22636
P 11251 P 8728P 17185
P 11251
P 11251
P 14049 EP 10195P17629
P 47796 NWS 2844P 14049
P 14891 P 77447P 17185
P 15564(P 11251)P 15564P 14685
P8728
P 15564 P 14113P 14113 P 6395P 8728P 8728P 11251
P 14685
P 13419
EP 78713RW 27912 EP 78713RW 44519
EP 67822
´
SCALE 1:2,000
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No.From:
To:
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
RT-2 (Ground-Oriented Residential Infill)
7355-20171719
APPENDIX D
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO: 01-0340-50
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council
SUBJECT: Adoption of Corporate Asset Management Policy 9.13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Maple Ridge (City), along with all other municipalities within British Columbia owns,
operates and maintains a wide array of infrastructure assets including but not limited to
transportation networks, water distribution systems, sewage collection systems, drainage systems,
parks, facilities and vehicle fleets with a total replacement value in excess of $1 Billion. The
expectation is that these assets will function efficiently and effectively for many years but all
infrastructure has a finite service life; the challenge for municipalities is to manage assets in a cost-
effective way over their life cycle and plan for their replacement.
The Asset Management Policy provides the vision and basic parameters for the City’s Asset
Management activities and a draft policy document was presented at a Council Workshop on March
27, 2017. The importance of recognizing natural assets such as watercourses and trees was
acknowledged by Council and the consideration of natural assets will be explored in the
development of the forthcoming Asset Management Strategy initiative.
The implementation of a comprehensive asset management policy and strategy, as assets age and
deteriorate rather than a reactive short term financial and technical decisions provides a systematic,
proactive approach. The adoption of a Corporate Asset Management Policy to guide an Asset
Management Strategy and plans will enable the City to maintain and manage infrastructure assets at
defined levels, establish asset replacement strategies through the full life cycle, and guide
justification for stable long term funding.
One asset category that is not fully developed but is emerging is that of Natural Capital, defined as
natural assets such as forests or watercourses. The consideration of natural assets will be explored
as part of the overall Asset Management Strategy with the goal of incorporating Natural Capital into a
subsequent phase of the Strategy.
The intent of this report is to seek adoption of the Asset Management Policy, after which the City will
issue a Request for Proposal for the development of an Asset Management Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Corporate Asset Management Policy 9.13 be adopted.
1104
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Local governments are required, through Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) 3150, to report
Tangible Capital Assets (TCA) into the annual financial reporting process and the City has
expended significant effort in compiling information on municipal assets. Whilst the TCA process
is a financial requirement, there is a synergy with asset management and the two processes
provide an opportunity to develop a complete Asset Management system that identifies the true
financial costs of providing services to the municipality and also the costs of maintaining the
services and assets in perpetuity.
Municipalities have always managed the various elements of civic infrastructure such as roads,
water, wastewater, drainage, facilities, fleet and parks, and master plans have been developed
for each infrastructure asset class. A Corporate Asset Management Strategy integrates the
individual infrastructure asset catagories and plans in a comprehensive manner.
The City has been proactive in establishing an Infrastructure Replacement levy as a starting point
to address the shortfall in infrastructure funding that speaks to the challenges of providing
quality infrastructure assets and also the need for sustainable levels of funding over the entire
life cycle of those assets. The City is a growing municipality with a corresponding increase in
municipal services and assets. In addition to being a builder through either development or
capital projects, the City is a custodian, managing those existing and new assets through their
full life cycle.
Sustainability may be broadly stated as addressing the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. For municipal
governments, sustainable community development is that which considers the social well-being,
environmental integrity, and financial viability of the community whilst balancing a portfolio of
aging existing infrastructure with increased demands from new growth and the resulting
infrastructure.
Asset Management is a systematic process to guide the planning, acquisition, operation and
maintenance, renewal and disposal of municipal assets with the objective to maximize asset
service delivery and manage risks and costs over the lives of those assets. The implement ation
of sound Asset Management strategies provides assurance that the City assets will meet
designated performance levels and deliver the desired service in the long term at optimum cost.
The framework for developing and implementing Asset Management within the City is based
upon a number of steps that range from broad policy statements through to detailed day-to-day
actions to implement the plan, as illustrated below:
The endorsement of a Corporate Asset Management Policy will reinforce the City’s commitment
to Asset Management and provide direction to staff for the development of an Asset
Management Strategy as well as specific plans and operational guidelines and practices.
The development of an infrastructure Asset Management Strategy needs to consider a number
of issues:
What assets does the City have and where are they?
What is it worth?
What is its condition and expected remaining service life?
What is the expectation for level of service and what needs to be done? When do we
need to do it?
How much will it cost and what is the acceptable level of risk?
How does the City ensure long-term affordability?
The City has a considerable amount of data on infrastructure that has been , and is gathered on
an ongoing basis. A suite of master plans have also been adopted to address the various
municipal infrastructure categories. The development of a Corporate Asset Management Policy
and subsequent Strategy enfolds the various infrastructure components into a comprehensive
and cohesive enterprise.
One asset category that is not fully developed but is emerging is that of Natural Capital, defined
as natural assets such as forests or watercourses. The consideration of natural assets will be
explored as part of the overall Asset Management Strategy with the goal of incorporating Natural
Capital into a subsequent phase of the Strategy.
POLICY:
- Sets broad framework
- Integrates AM into the organization
STRATEGY:
- Develops structured set of actions
- Review current status, vision, gaps, resources
PLANS:
- Defines levels of service for outlined actions
- Identifies AM activities
- Financial Forecasts
OPERATIONS:
- Detailed day-to-day actions required
- Allocation of resources
- Establishes performance measures
Upon approval of the Corporate Asset Management Policy, staff will issue a Request for Proposal
for the development of an Integrated Asset Management Strategy.
The following activities will be pursued in support of the overall Asset Management initiative:
Development of a Corporate Asset Management Strategy
Review of asset inventory for accuracy and completeness and ensure outstanding data is
collected and existing data updated as necessary
Definition of levels of service to measure performance for asset categories related to
quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, environment, and cost
Creation of an asset condition rating system that may be applied across all asset groups.
Building a Corporate Asset Management Plan is not a one-time assignment but rather an ongoing
initiative and the completion of the above noted tasks will provide the structure f or a fully
integrated Corporate Asset Management Plan for the City’s infrastructure.
b) Desired Outcome:
The endorsement of the Corporate Asset Management Policy and subsequent development of
the corporate Asset Management Strategy will support the delivery of sustainable delivery of
sustainable infrastructure services while considering community priorities, informed by an
understanding of the trade-offs between the available resources and the desired level of service.
c) Strategic Alignment:
The Corporate Asset Management Policy and subsequent Asset Management Strategy align with
the sustainability goals encapsulated in the City’s Official Community Plan as well as a number of
infrastructure master planning initiatives including the Strategic Transportation Plan, the
Drinking Water Master Plan, the Sanitary Master Plan and the various Integrated Storm Water
Management Plans currently under development. Other corporate document linkages include
the Financial Plan, Annual Reports, and Design Criteria and Specifications.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The development and implementation of a Corporate Asset Management Strategy and
associated Plans will ensure that the infrastructure assets within the City are not only
constructed efficiently, but managed appropriately in a cost-effective manner through their life
cycle and ultimate replacement.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
All Departments in the City have worked cooperatively on the Tangible Capital Asset project and
will continue to do so through the development of the Corporate Asset Management initiative.
The Corporate Asset Management Policy will also provide staff with another tool to validate
community planning processes.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The current Financial Plan includes $160,000 for the development of a Corporate Asset
Management Strategy. It is anticipated that there will be additional funds required in the fu ture
to implement the Strategy as well as continue the collection of data and these will be
incorporated into the future Financial Plan iterations.
g) Policy Implications:
The Financial Sustainability Plan Policy Guidelines (Policy No. 5.52) has set the groundwork for
the Corporate Asset Management Policy and Strategy and will serve as a sound reference as the
initiative proceeds.
h) Alternatives:
The purpose of undertaking the Corporate Asset Management Policy and Strategy initiative is to
develop a systematic process to guide the planning, acquisition, operation and maintenance,
renewal, and replacement or disposal of assets. The lack of such a strategy will result in a
piecemeal approach to infrastructure funding that may not be sustainable.
CONCLUSIONS:
The City maintains over $1 Billion of infrastructure assets and the expectation is that these assets
will function efficiently and effectively for many years but all infrastructure has a finite service life;
the challenge for municipalities is to manage assets in a cost-effective way over their life cycle and
plan for their replacement.
The adoption of a Corporate Asset Management Policy to guide an associated Strategy and plans will
enable the City to:
• Maintain and manage infrastructure assets at defined levels
• Establish asset replacement strategies through the full life cycle, and
• Guide justification for stable long term funding.
The implementation of a comprehensive asset management policy and strategy, as assets age and
deteriorate rather than a reactive short term financial and technical decisions provides a systematic,
proactive approach. The adoption of a Corporate Asset Management Policy to guide an Asset
Management Strategy and plans will enable the City to maintain and manage infrastructure assets at
defined levels, establish asset replacement strategies through the full life cycle, and guide
justification for stable long term funding.
“Original signed by David Pollock” “Original signed by Trevor Thompson”
Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng. Financial Trevor Thompson, BBA, CPA, CGA
Municipal Engineer Concurrence: Manager of Financial Planning
“Original signed by James Storey”
Reviewed by: James Storey, AScT.
Director of Engineering Operations
“Original signed by Don Cramb” for
Reviewed by: Valoree Richmond, MBCSLA
Manager of Parks Planning & Operations
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
General Manager: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Ted Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 1 of 5 Policy 9.13
POLICY MANUAL
Title:Corporate Asset Management
Policy No :9.13
Supersedes:
Authority:Legislative Operational
Approval:Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date:
Review Date:
Policy Statement:
The Corporate Asset Management Policy details the principles for implementing a consistent and
coordinated approach in managing City assets to demonstrate sound fiscal stewardship and
secure long-term infrastructure sustainability within the City.
Purpose:
The total replacement value of the infrastructure assets owned by the City of Maple Ridge (City)is
in excess of $1 Billion and ranges in size and complexity from larger asset classes such as roads,
water, sewers, pump stations, storm drainage systems, facilities, parks, fleet through to smaller
classes such as office furniture or computers.The City will continue to evaluate natural assets
such as watercourses and forests to incorporate such assets into the overall Asset Management
Strategy.
Asset Management (AM) is a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, acquisition,
operation and maintenance, rehabilitation, disposal and ultimate replacement of municipal
infrastructure assets. The objective is to maximise asset service delivery p otential, manage
related risks and minimize costs of ownership while delivering acceptable levels of service in a
sustainable manner that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.
The Corporate Asset Management Policy provides the framework to develop a city-wide Asset
Management Strategy as well as plans, operational guidelines and practices to ensure the
successful execution of maintainable service delivery of community services.
Background:
As the City grows, new infrastructure is added to the built environment through development and
capital projects and over time those assets age and deteriorate. The implementation of sound AM
stratagems provide assurance that the City assets (both existing and future) will meet designated
levels of service for the long term.
Page 2 of 5 Policy 9.13
The framework for developing and implementing AM within the City is based upon a number of
steps that range from broad policy statements through to detailed day-to-day actions as illustrated
below:
Related Corporate Initiatives:
Asset Management is formalized and integrated into other corporate initiatives and documents
such as:
Vision, Mission & Values Statement
Official Community Plan
Community and Neighbourhood Plans
Financial Plan including Capital and Operating Budgets
Annual Reports
Design Criteria and Specifications
Infrastructure Servicing Plans
In 2004 Council approved the Financial Sustainability Plan policy guidelines (Policy No. 5.52) that
laid the groundwork for the continuance of high quality services and to provide a legacy for future
generations. The FSP policy outlines 13 guidelines ranging from tax base growth, service
demands, efficiencies, debt management, fees and charges capital carryovers, infrastructure
maintenance and replacement and will serve as a sound reference as the City develops the
Corporate Asset Management Strategy.
Policy
•Sets broad framework to undertake AM in a structured and coordinated manner.
•Establishes support for AM and integrates AM into the City organization.
Strategy
•Develop structured set of actions aimed at improved AM by the City.
•Review current status, future vision, gap analysis, resources and timeframes.
•Establishes Levels of Service (LOS ) for all asset classes.
Plans
•Outline particular action and resources required to provide defined LOS
•Identifies AM activities -operations, maintenance, renewals, capital works,
disposal.
•Financial forecasts for elements within AM plans.
Operations
•Detailed day-to-day actions required to deliver the defined LOS.
•Allocation of necessary resources.
•Establishes measurable performance indicators.
Page 3 of 5 Policy 9.13
The development and implementation of a Corporate Asset Management Strategy by the City will
provide guidance through a number of policy statements and principles.
Policy Statements
The City will:
1.Develop and maintain asset inventories of its infrastructure
2.Maintain and manage infrastructure assets at defined service levels
3.Establish and monitor standards and service levels to ensure Council objectives are met
4.Establish infrastructure replacement strategies through the use of full life cycle costing
principles
5.Ensure adequate funding to maintain established asset levels of service and maintenance
and extend the useful life of assets as well as to replace, renew and/or decommission
assets
6.Consider and incorporate asset management strategies in City corporate plans including
community planning processes
7.Track progress and provide regular reports
Policy Principles
The City shall:
1.Allocate funding for new assets after considering the full life cycle costs and the economic,
environmental, and social benefits of the new asset, seeking to minimize the asset total
life cycle cost
2.Provide information on future maintenance, operation, upgrade, renewal and/or
replacement and decommission requirements
3.Identify the level of service that will be delivered by each asset and how that level of
service will be monitored
4.Establish organizational accountability and responsibility for asset inventory, condition, use
and performance
5.Ensure corporate governance through demonstrable long-term financial planning based
upon sustainable service levels
6.Integrate corporate, financial,business, technical and budgetary planning for infrastructure
assets
7.Undertake public consultation with stakeholders as appropriate
8.Minimize risk to users and risks associated with asset failure
9.Utilize best practices where available
10.Update and maintain infrastructure inventory and life cycle data
11.Report on the performance of the asset management strategy and plans
Definitions:
Asset:Has a physical nature, is a significant economic resource and provides the delivery of
programs and/or services.
Asset Register:A record of the asset information, typically held in a spreadsheet, database or
software system, including asset attribute data such as quantity, type and construction cost.
Page 4 of 5 Policy 9.13
Condition Assessment:The inspection, assessment, measurement and interpretation of the
resultant data, to indicate the condition of a specific component so as to determine the need for
some preventative or remedial action.
Cost-Effective Management:The proactive, as opposed to reactive, management of the
maintenance, repair and rehabilitation activities required to deliver the desired/required level of
service while minimizing the life cycle costs of providing the infrastructure.
Current Replacement Cost:The cost the entity would incur to acquire the asset on the reporting
date. The cost is measured by reference to the lowest cost at which the gross future economic
benefits could be obtained in the normal course of business or the minimum it would cost, to
replace the existing asset with a new modern equivalent asset (not a second -hand one) with the
same economic benefits (gross service potential) allowing for any differences in the quantity and
quality of output and in operating costs.
Levels of Service:Levels of service statements describe the outputs or objectives an organization
or activity intends to deliver to customers.
Life Cycle Costs (LCC):The total cost of an asset throughout its life including planning, design,
construction, acquisition,operation, maintenance rehabilitation and disposal costs.
Natural Assets:Naturally occurring land or subsurface features that perform or support service
delivery to the City (ex: creeks that convey and treat rain water runoff). Also incorporates man -
made features that replicate naturally occurring features (ex: ditches, ponds, wetlands).
Renewal:Works to replace existing assets or facilities with assets or facilities of equivalent
capacity or performance capability.
Risk Management:Coordinated activities to redirect and control an organization with regard to
risk.
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action
Adopt the Asset Management Policy
Develop and maintain asset inventories
Assess infrastructure condition and service levels
Establish and monitor infrastructure replacement levels
through life cycle costing principles
Develop and maintain comprehensive plans for the
appropriate level of maintenance, rehabilitation, extension
and decommissioning of assets
Responsibility
Council
Public Works &Development
Services (PWDS); Finance;Parks;
Fire
PWDS; Parks; Fire
PWDS; Finance; Parks; Fire
PWDS; Finance; Parks; Fire
Page 5 of 5 Policy 9.13
Monitor and review infrastructure standards and defined
service levels
Report on the status of the municipal infrastructure and the
asset management strategy and plans
Both Council and staff have roles to play in the support of
this policy. Council acts as the stewards for all City assets
and approves the policy, participates in the establishing of
levels of service as well as monitoring outcomes. Staff will
develop, implement, monitor and review the Corporate Asset
Management Strategy as well as advance and implement
the operational plans. The Corporate Asset Management
Strategy shall be reported to Council and the community on
a regular basis and may be reviewed by Council on an
interim basis.
Council
PWDS; Finance; Parks; Fire
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read
and Members of Council
MEETING DATE: July 11, 2017
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council
SUBJECT: Development Cost Charges Imposition Bylaw
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Development Cost Charges (DCCs) are levies collected to assist with funding infrastructure and parks
required to service new development or growth. DCCs are a restricted funding source in that they
can only be collected for certain types of projects, as set out in legislation, and can only be used for
the projects included in the DCC Imposition Bylaw.
An update is required to the DCC Imposition Bylaw to ensure the levies reflect updated infrastructure
plans, current capital costs and updated development projections.
Due to the extent of the amendment, approval by the Inspector of Municipalities is required, as is
public and stakeholder consultation and input. The development of this bylaw further incorporates
practices outlined in the DCC Best Practice Guide.
At the July 4, 2017 Council Workshop staff provided a presentation introducing the DCC Imposition
Bylaw describing DCCs, the bylaw approval process, the proposed bylaw structure and rate
comparisons.
A bylaw has now been created for Council reflecting that information. After the bylaw has received
first reading, time will be allowed for stakeholders to provide feedback. Input or feedback is
welcomed and will be sought through the developer’s forum, a public open house and an invitation
both on our website and placed in the local newspaper. Any feedback received will be brought back
to Council as part of the bylaw approval process.
Maple Ridge DCCs, both current and proposed, are compared to others local municipalities in the
Appendix, to provide some context of our rates compared to others and the impact of the proposed
rate increases have on our relative ranking. Each community’s infrastructure needs, growth
assumptions and distribution of costs both through different development types as well as portions
of capital costs covered through non-DCC sources will vary. Communities with similar profiles will
often have very different rates. What is important is that the projects included in the DCC Bylaw are
based on the prevailing standards of services and the cost distribution is fair and equitable.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That Bylaw No. 7320-2017 be given first reading; and further
That the proposed stakeholder consultation process, as outlined in the July 4, 2017 staff report, be
endorsed.
1131
Page 2 of 12
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
What are Development Cost Charges (DCCs)?
DCCs provide the authority to recover development-related costs for roads, sewers, drainage
and water works as well as parkland acquisition and park development. DCCs allow the
municipality to apportion the costs of certain types of infrastructure among land developers.
Council needs to ensure that in the process of developing DCC bylaws, local governments
consider their responsibility of balancing the need for infrastructure and associated costs
with the impacts that this may have on development. Local Governments have to take into
account whether the proposed DCCs will:
be excessive in relation to the capital cost of prevailing standards of service;
deter development;
discourage the development of reasonably priced housing or reasonably priced
serviced land; or
discourage development designed to result in low environmental impact.
The rates charged (DCCs) are the outcome of complex models involving the planning and
costing of future infrastructure projects, and projecting of future development activity. The
assumptions used in these models are amended to reflect changes in the underlying plans
and updated information.
Recent History in Maple Ridge
The last major DCC Bylaw amendment was in early 2007 to reflect the updated Official
Community Plan. The Bylaw has been amended several times since to reflect updates to
capital costs with most recent rate change in 2011. It was most recently amended in 2016
to update the commercial definition.
Why is a bylaw update required?
Maple Ridge is a growing municipality and depends on DCCs to fund some of the
infrastructure associated with growth. DCCs are typically the largest source of funding in the
Capital Program. It is for this reason, that the DCCs are kept up to date with current costs
and infrastructure plans.
The cost of land purchases has increased significantly over the last few years and if we are to
continue to purchase the land planned then we need to increase the Development Cost
Charges or look to further supplement development through other sources such as Property
Taxes. Development assumptions have also been updated.
Updates to infrastructure plans and other policies or studies have occurred relatively recently
and are reflected in the updated capital program and DCC considerations. These include:
Regional Growth Plans, OCP, Zoning, Area Plans, Programs –Albion Density Bonus
Community Amenity Contributions, Master Plans: Water, Sewer, Parks, and Transportation,
Smart Growth, Incentive programs, Commercial Industrial Study, Suburban Growth,
Agriculture Plans and Housing Action Plan.
Page 3 of 12
The process for bylaw update
The process for the development of the DCC Imposition Bylaw includes updating or
confirming development projections, capital costs, infrastructure requirements and other
assumptions. Due to the extent of the amendment, approval by the Inspector of
Municipalities is required, as is public and stakeholder consultation and input.
Consultative input is desired and will be sought through the developer’s forum, a public open
house and an invitation both on our website and placed in the local newspaper. Any
feedback received will be brought back to Council as part of the bylaw approval process.
Once the DCC Bylaw is adopted by Council the DCCs are effective for new applications. Any
precursor applications which are instream on the date the bylaw is adopted will pay the rate
in the existing bylaw, if issued within 12 months from the date the bylaw is adopted.
Precursor applications, as defined in S. 568 of the Local Government Act, must be in a form
satisfactory to the local government officer and align with development approval procedures.
Council has the option to delay the final reading of the bylaw to a specific date or amend the
bylaw to specify a future effective date, essentially providing a grace period to allow for
additional development under the existing DCC Bylaw. Given that Council has been talking
about a DCC Bylaw amendment for quite some time, the approval process will include
stakeholder input and Ministry review and cost pressures of rapidly increasing land costs, an
additional grace period is not recommended.
Bylaw structure
The rate structure of the DCC Bylaw has been adjusted to a city wide rate for each
development type, from area specific rates. The rates for multi-family development have
been update to a building floor area basis from a per unit basis. These changes align with
Development Cost Charge Best Practices and make the bylaw more comparable to other
communities.
The difference in rates by geographic area were minimal, making the case for moving to best
practice of a City Wide rate very easy to support. The additional benefits of a City Wide rate
include a more concise bylaw with rates that don’t require developers to refer to a map and
the city can, due to consolidation of several pools of funds, plan for capital funded by DCCs
sooner.
Exemptions Legislated
These nondiscretionary exemptions are set out in S.561(11) of the Local Government Act
and include exemptions for:
places of worship;
Building permits authorize work that does not exceed $50,000;
Residential dwellings under 29 m2 ;
Developments that do not impose new capital burdens on the municipality;
Where DCCs have already been paid for the development.
Council does have the ability to increase the building permit value, and minimum building
area that receive exemptions.
Page 4 of 12
The legislation waives DCCs when less than four units are created unless included in the DCC
Imposition Bylaw. Maple Ridge has charged for these additional units in the past and
intends to continue to do so.
Waivers/Reductions
Any waivers or reductions that Council authorizes need to be funded from sources other than
DCCs. This would typically mean General Revenue or indirectly the property tax payers.
Council is only able to waive or reduce DCCs for the following:
Affordable rental housing;
Developments designed to result in low environmental impact to reduce
infrastructure costs; or
Subdivision to smaller lots with intent of lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
The reduction of DCCs must be done through Bylaw. That Bylaw does not necessarily have to
be the DCC Rate Imposition Bylaw. The Bylaw must set out what qualifies as an eligible
development and can be broad or very specific. Given that Council has several other tools
available to incent development and could adopt a broad or tailored bylaw for specific
reductions, the option of a separate DCC Reduction Bylaw on a project by project basis is
more desirable.
The developments designed to result in low environmental impact tend not to have an
impact to municipal infrastructure requirements and other policy tools and incentives have
been and can be used to incent or encourage low environmental impact developments.
Additional Development Categories
Where the type of development generates a different infrastructure burden or uses
infrastructure differently separate rates were considered. The following categories were
added with lower DCCs than the typical form of development:
Street Townhouse
Apartment – High rise (higher density)
Apartment – Affordable Rental below market
Apartment – Social, NFP Rental below market, Affordable Seniors Rental
Commercial – Additional Stories
Institutional – Municipal
The definitions for each are included in the DCC Rate Imposition Bylaw. This structure, along
with the shift to a building area basis for multifamily, may assist in reducing the cost for
development of affordable homes.
Proposed Rate Changes and Comparison to Other Municipalities
The rate changes vary by type of development and previous area basis. Appendix A
illustrates the rates that are in effect currently compared to the proposed rate as well as our
rates relative to other communities. The majority of the communities we are comparing
against have recently or are in the process of updating their DCCs.
Page 5 of 12
When will the rates be in effect?
The date that Council will Adopt the bylaw is subject to how long or extensive a consultation
period is desired and once the bylaw receives third reading, how long the Ministry requires
before approving. Assuming consultation and third reading of the bylaw in September
depending on how long the Ministry approval takes, the rates could be in effect November or
early December.
Once Council adopts the bylaw the rates would be in effect for new applications. Instream
applications would pay the existing rate as long as they complete within one year.
Park Improvements
The type of park improvements permitted to be funded through DCCs is limited. The nature
of the investments permitted is parks, trails and playground improvements. As Council is
well aware, the vast majority of community facilities that Council is currently considering,
synthetic fields, community centers and other recreation facilities cannot be funded through
DCCs.
The interest earned on Park DCC reserves is unique as it can be used to fund the same type
of park improvements permitted under DCCs, even if the project is not included in the DCC
Imposition Bylaw.
Future DCC Imposition Bylaw amendments
Rates are permitted to be adjusted as often as annually, without Ministry approval as long as
the rate increases are less than Vancouver CPI and the bylaw was approved by the Ministry
within the last four years. If rate increases are in excess of CPI, a minor bylaw amendment
should still occur. It would simply take a bit longer as the approval process is more involved.
b) Desired Outcome:
DCCs that are align with the City’s plans for development and infrastructure, are certain, fair
and equitable and to the extent possible that the benefiter pays.
c) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The long term capital program and the Financial Plan Bylaw were updated to reflect the
current costs and future infrastructure needs and are in alignment with the calculations in
the DCC Imposition Bylaw.
d) Alternatives:
There are several policy based decisions in the structure and calculation of this DCC
Imposition Bylaw. If Council decides that any of the approaches should be revisited, the
Bylaw and associated DCCs could be revised respecting the parameters and best practices
and methodologies around the calculation of DCCs.
The existing bylaw could be left unchanged which will result risk of not being able to collect
sufficient DCCs to fund projects required due to the new development which will put
additional pressures on property taxes to cover these costs or the inability to install the
infrastructure required.
Page 6 of 12
CONCLUSIONS:
DCCs are one of the key funding sources to fund infrastructure required due to new constructions or
growth. Given the market appreciation of land values in the lower mainland and the fact that many
of our strategic infrastructure plans have recently been updated, an update to the DCC Imposition
Bylaw is required. The bylaw approval process and the structure of the bylaw reflect DCC Best
Practices Guide published by the province.
“Original signed by Trevor Thompson”
Prepared by: Trevor Thompson
Manager of Financial Planning
“Original signed by Chuck Goddard”
Approved by: Christine Carter
Director of Planning
“Original signed by David Pollock”
Approved by: David Pollock
Municipal Engineer
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: David Boag
Director of Parks & Facilities
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
Approved by: Paul Gill
General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
Approved by: Frank Quinn
General Manager, Public Works & Development
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Kelly Swift,
General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Approved by: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 7 of 12
10,697
11,221
16,299
16,714
19,099
19,866
22,470
24,757
24,860
25,835
26,431
26,629
32,300
39,583
$K $5K $10K $15K $20K $25K $30K $35K $40K $45K
Pitt Meadows
New Westminster
Port Coquitlam (Area 2)
Maple Ridge (Current Infill)
Maple Ridge (Current Growth)
Abbotsford
Maple Ridge (Proposed)
Chilliwack
Richmond (Current)
Mission
Coquitlam
Langley, Township
Surrey
Richmond (Proposed)
Single Family DCC (per lot)
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Roads
Parks
Page 8 of 12
66.75
68.07
72.33
108.67
120.00
121.62
125.38
134.21
139.00
141.80
153.71
168.88
183.63
231.53
$‐ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
Pitt Meadows
Maple Ridge (Current Infill)
New Westminster
Abbotsford
Coquitlam
Maple Ridge (Current Growth)
Port Coquitlam (Area 2)
Maple Ridge (Proposed)
Chilliwack
Mission
Richmond (Current)
Langley, Township
Surrey
Richmond (Proposed)
Townhouse DCC (per m2)
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Roads
Parks
Page 9 of 12
55.43
90.45
101.02
107.82
120.00
130.43
132.40
146.78
162.43
166.74
199.57
204.73
212.19
244.02
$‐ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
New Westminster
Pitt Meadows
Maple Ridge (Current Infill)
Maple Ridge (Current Growth)
Coquitlam
Mission
Maple Ridge (Proposed)
Abbotsford
Richmond (Current)
Port Coquitlam (Area 2)
Chilliwack
Surrey
Langley, Township
Richmond (Proposed)
Apartment DCC (per m2)
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Roads
Parks
Page 10 of 12
23.30
26.44
37.34
44.56
45.35
55.43
60.49
61.00
78.12
91.77
106.78
120.77
156.40
179.39
184.61
$‐ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
Pitt Meadows
Maple Ridge (Current Infill)
Maple Ridge (Current Growth)
Chilliwack
Maple Ridge (Proposed)
New Westminster
Surrey (Other Floors)
Coquitlam
Langley, Township
Abbotsford
Surrey (Ground Floor)
Richmond (Current)
Richmond (Proposed)
Port Coquitlam (Area 2)
Mission
Commercial DCC (per m2)
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Roads
Parks
Page 11 of 12
5.17
9.80
12.92
13.09
16.16
17.55
19.54
20.01
21.08
22.82
23.72
36.00
96.44
121.96
$‐ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
New Westminster
Surrey (Other Floors)
Pitt Meadows
Maple Ridge (Current Infill)
Port Coquitlam (Area 2)
Abbotsford
Surrey (Ground Floor)
Langley, Township
Chilliwack
Maple Ridge (Proposed)
Mission
Coquitlam
Richmond (Current)
Richmond (Proposed)
Industrial DCC (per m2)
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Roads
Parks
Page 12 of 12
6.28
7.29
9.52
31.96
51.66
58.29
60.25
60.71
61.00
120.77
156.40
179.39
$‐ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300
Maple Ridge (Current Growth)
Maple Ridge (Proposed)
Pitt Meadows
Langley, Township
Abbotsford
Mission
Chilliwack
Surrey
Coquitlam
Richmond (Current)
Richmond (Proposed)
Port Coquitlam (Area 2)
Institutional DCC (per m2)
Water
Sewer
Drainage
Roads
Parks
City of Maple Ridge
Bylaw No. 7320-2017
A Bylaw to Impose Development Cost Charges
______________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Council has considered future land use patterns and development, the phasing of works,
services and provision of parkland described in the Official Community Plan, and how development
designed to result in a low environment impact may affect the capital costs of infrastructure related to
Development Cost Charges.
AND WHEREAS, Council does not consider the charges imposed by this bylaw:
a. As excessive in relation to the capital cost of prevailing standards of service;
b. Will deter development;
c. Will discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing or the provision of reasonably priced
serviced land in the city; or
d. will discourage development designed to result in low environmental impact.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. Citation
This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge Development Cost Charges Imposition Bylaw
No. 7320-2017”
2. Definitions:
For the purposes of this bylaw:
Apartment means a residential use where the building or buildings on a lot are each used for three
or more dwelling units. It does not include Townhouse or Street Townhouse.
Apartment – Affordable Rental below Market – affordable means housing cost that is 30 per cent
or less of household’s gross income and below market rental housing is housing with rents lower
than average in private-market rental housing. For purposes of ensuring the units remain in this
use for a minimum of 20 years a Housing Agreement or covenant on the property is required.
Apartment – High Density means apartments that are six storeys and above.
Apartment – Not-for-Profit Rental below Market means rental housing with rents not in excess of
80% of the average market rate for Maple Ridge as identified or reported in Canada Mortgage
Housing Corporation’s most recent rental market survey. For purposes of ensuring the units
remain in this use for a minimum of 20 years a Housing Agreement or covenant on the property is
required.
Apartment – Seniors Affordable Rental below Market means Apartment Affordable below Market
rental and seniors means an adult aged 55 or older. BC Housing programs, partners and housing
providers may define a senior by a different age.
Building Floor Area (BA) means the total combined floor areas of all storeys, including all
mezzanine floor areas, measured to the outer limits of the floor perimeter, but does not include
any floor area used exclusively for parking. Except for Atriums or other open interconnected floor
spaces, the total building floor area will include exit stairs, stair shafts, elevator shafts and all other
vertical service spaces that may penetrate one or all of the floors.
Building Permit means permission or authorization in writing by the Manager of Inspection
Services to perform building construction in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations.
Commercial Development means development of a parcel for commercial use as described in the
Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw or similar development that is of a commercial nature, including but not
limited to uses such as accommodation, automotive, retail, food and beverage, entertainment,
office, personal services, recreation, retail and the cultivation, processing, testing, packaging or
shipping of marihuana.
Duplex means a two family residential use where the building lot is used for two dwelling units.
Dwelling Unit (DU) means one or more rooms used for the residential accommodation of only one
family when such room or rooms contain or provide for the installation of only one set of cooking
facilities.
Gross Site Area means the whole or portion of a parcel(s) to be improved as part of the
development authorized by a building permit and includes all vehicular and pedestrian circulation
areas, loading, parking, storage, works, decorative and landscaped areas appurtenant to the
authorized development.
Highway means any street, road, land, trail, bridge, viaduct and any other way open to the use of
the public.
Housing Agreement mean the owner enters into a lease agreement with a Public Housing Body by
which the Public Housing Body agrees to sublet and operate the units for at least 20 years.
Industrial Development means “industrial use” as defined by Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw.
Institutional Development means any development that is created and exists by law or public
authority for the benefit of the public in general, and includes, but is not limited to, public
hospitals, public and private schools and churches.
Instream is as defined under S.568 of the Local Government Act
Lot means additional lot(s) created at subdivision
Parcel means any lot, block, strata lot or other area in which land is held or into which land is
subdivided, but does not include any portion of a highway.
Precusor Application is as defined under S.568 of the Local Government Act
Public Housing Body means the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), BC Housing
Management Commission, and any housing society or non-for-profit municipal housing corporation
that has an agreement regarding the operation of residential property with the government of
British Columbia, the BC Housing Management Commission or the CMHC.
Single Family Residential means a residential use where the building lot is used for one dwelling
unit and other uses as permitted.
Social Housing means apartments that have a government or non-profit housing partner that owns
and operates them.
Street Townhouse means one dwelling unit vertically attached to one or more dwelling units (i.e.
triplex or fourplex) with each dwelling unit located on a lot abutting a street. For the purposes of
this bylaw, it does not include a Duplex.
Subdivision means the division of land into two or more parcels, whether by plan or by metes and
bounds description or otherwise, and includes a plan consolidating two or more parcels into a
fewer number of parcels.
Townhouse means a single building comprised of three or more dwelling units separated one from
another by party walls extending from foundation to roof, with each dwelling unit having a
separate, direct entrance from grade and does not include Street Townhouse.
Unit means additional unit(s) built in support of a building permit.
3. Payment of Development Costs Charges
Every person who obtains approval of a subdivision of a parcel or a building permit must pay
Development Cost Charges in accordance with Schedule “A”.
For a combined land use development, the Development Cost Charge is calculated as the sum of the
Development Cost Charges for all uses.
The Development Cost Charges imposed must be paid:
a. In the case of the subdivision of a parcel, at the time the subdivision is approved; and
b. In the case of obtaining a building permit, at the time the building permit is issued.
4. Exemptions
Pursuant to the Local Government Act and subject to regulations by the minister under S.561(11), a
Development Cost Charge is not payable if any of the following applies in relation to a development::
a. the building permit is for a place of worship that will be exempt from taxation under the
Community Charter;
b. the value of the work authorized by the building permit does not exceed $50,000;
c. the dwelling unit is no larger than 29 square meters;
d. the development does not impose new capital cost burdens on the municipality;
e. the Development Cost Charge has previously been paid for the same development unless, as
a result of further development, new capital cost burdens will be imposed on the City.
Pursuant to S.561(6) of the Local Government Act, a Development Cost Charge is payable for work
that will, after the construction, alteration or extension, contain fewer than 4 self-contained
dwelling units.
5. Severability
If any portion of this bylaw is found invalid by a court, that portion be severed and the remainder of the
bylaw will remain in effect.
6. Effective Date
This bylaw will come into force on the date it is adopted by Council.
7. Repeal
Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Imposition Bylaw No.6462-2007, and all the amendments
thereto, is hereby repealed except in the case of:
a. Precusor applications for subdivision of land that are instream on the effective date and which
are completed within one year of the effective date; and
b. Precursor applications for building permits that are instream on the effective date and which
are issuable within one year of the effective date, in which case, Maple Ridge Development
Cost Charge Imposition Bylaw No.6462-2007, and all the amendments thereto, shall apply.
Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Imposition Bylaw No. 6462-2007, shall be wholly
repealed one year from the effective date.
8. Schedules
Schedule “A” attached hereto form part of this bylaw.
Read a first time this _____ day of _____________ 20
Read a second time this _____ day of _____________ 20
Read a third time this _____ day of _____________ 20
Approved by the Inspector of Municipalities this ______ day of _______________20
Adopted this _____ day of _____________ 20
________________________________ ______________________________
Presiding Member Corporate Officer
SCHEDULE “A” to BYLAW NO. 7320-2017
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
Single Family Residential per additional lot
Duplex per additional dwelling unit
Servicing Type
Road $9,483
Drainage 1,329
Water 2,268
Sanitary Sewer 1,119
Open Space 8,272
Total $22,471
Townhouse
Servicing Type per m2 of BA
Road $54.71
Drainage 4.77
Water 14.54
Sanitary Sewer 7.17
Open Space 53.02
Total $134.21
Street Townhouse
Servicing Type per m2 of BA
Road $43.77
Drainage 3.18
Water 14.54
Sanitary Sewer 7.17
Open Space 53.02
Total $121.68
Apartment
Servicing Type per m2 of BA
Road $50.80
Drainage 2.95
Water 15.30
Sanitary Sewer 7.55
Open Space 55.80
Total $132.40
SCHEDULE “A” to BYLAW NO. 7320-2017
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
Apartment High Density
(6 Storey and above)
Servicing Type per m2 of BA
Road $38.10
Drainage 1.11
Water 13.50
Sanitary Sewer 6.66
Open Space 49.24
Total $108.61
Apartment - Affordable Rental Below Market
Servicing Type per m2 of BA
Road $38.10
Drainage 2.95
Water 15.30
Sanitary Sewer 7.55
Open Space 55.80
Total $119.70
Apartment - Social Housing, Non-for-Profit Rental Below Market
or Affordable Rental-Seniors
Servicing Type per m2 of BA
Road $9.31
Drainage 2.95
Water 9.90
Sanitary Sewer 4.89
Open Space 21.66
Total $48.71
Commercial First Floor Additional Floors
Servicing Type per m2 of BA per m2 of BA
Road $28.45 $14.23
Water 9.45 4.73
Sanitary Sewer 2.80 1.40
Open Space 0.00 0.00
Drainage 4.65 0.00
Total $45.35 $20.36
Institutional Non-Municipal Municipal
Servicing Type per ha. of gross site area
Road $26,078 $0
Drainage 18,604 0
Water 18,898 0
Sanitary Sewer 9,326 0
Open Space 0 0
Total $72,906 $0.00
SCHEDULE “A” to BYLAW NO. 7320-2017
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
Industrial
Servicing Type per m2 of BA
Road
$9.48
Water 5.79
Sanitary Sewer 2.86
Open Space 0.00
Drainage 4.70
$22.83
*
Development in certain areas outside the urban boundary, due to the rural development standards, may
not have certain services types (Drainage, Water, Sewer) available. DCCs will only be charged for services
that are available or will become available in the future.
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO:Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:July 11, 2017
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM:Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:Council
SUBJECT:Construction and Operating Agreements for Synthetic Fields
on School District No.42 Property
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached Construction and Operating Agreements for the proposed new synthetic fields at
Merkley Park (Karina LeBlanc) and Golden Ears Elementary School, have been approved by
School District No.42 Board of Education. The Secretary Treasurer has been authorized to
negotiate final terms and execute the agreements for the construction, operation and license
at Telosky Stadium/Thomas Haney, Golden Ears Elementary/Arthur Peake and Merkley
Park/Maple Ridge Secondary on the School Districts behalf.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the construction and operating agreement templates dated June 27, 2017 be approved ;
And,
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the agreements once staff has completed
the final terms.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Staff presented conceptual renderings on several School District No. 42 (SD42)sites at
the request of Council on May 2, 2017. Council directed staff to meet with senior
SD42 staff and request permission from the Board of Education to construct synthetic
fields at Eric Langton School and Merkely Park which are both SD42 properties as well
as the proposed improvements at Telosky /Thomas Haney.
Unfortunately the Board of Education has indicated that there are plans for expansion
at Eric Langton School in the foreseeable future,therefore,they did not support the
construction of a synthetic field at that location. However, SD42 recommended that the
City consider utilizing the Golden Ears Elementary location as an alternative.Council
approved the Golden Ears Elementary site subsequent to a presentation by staff on
June 6, 2017.
1151
2
Senior SD42 and City staff has been working with their respective legal counsels and
are now proposing that the attached template agreements be approved, finalized and
executed to permit the construction of the synthetic fields at the above noted locations.
The lands at Telosky/Thomas Haney are also registered at Land Titles as School
District property;however there is a joint ownership agreement for the site that was
executed in 1990,that reflects the joint ownership of the lands with Douglas College,
SD42 and the City of Maple Ridge. For clarity, the City of Maple Ridge owns 47.36% of
this park school site.As this site is held “in trust” by SD42,it is recommended that the
same agreements also be used for this site.
b)Desired Outcome:
Approving the attached construction and operating agreements will allow staff to
proceed with Council’s direction to construct new recreation facilities for use by a
broad range of community sports groups.
c)Strategic Alignment:
Provide high quality municipal services to our citizens and customers in a cost effective
and efficient manner.
d)Citizen/Customer Implications:
Council has heard from a variety of sports groups that there is an urgent need for
additional recreational facilities for a broad range of sports, fitness and other
recreational activities.The addition of these facilities will provide sports groups with
additional athletic surfaces that will allow for additional practice times and skill
development opportunities required for their club members to compete equally well
with other teams in the region.
e)Business Plan/Financial Implications:
Funding for the proposed fields at Merkley Park (Karina LeBlanc Field) and the Golden
Ears Elementary site are already contained in the City`s five year capital plan. In
addition,the City was recently granted permission to use the Canada 150 Grant
funding that was originally provided for the Albion sports complex,to be utilized for the
construction of the Karina LeBlanc Field.
A funding strategy for the construction of the Telosky /Thomas Haney synthetic fields
and additional amenities is currently being developed by the Finance Department for
Council’s consideration.
f)Policy Implications:
The development of these additional fields will provide considerable assistance to staff
in the application of the sport field allocation policy allowing for greater flexibility in
accommodating the growing demands of community and school sports.
3
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff recommends that the agreements be approved in order to proceed with this project.
“Original signed by Michael Millward for David Boag”
Prepared by:David Boag, Director, Parks and Facilities
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by:Kelly Swift, General Manager,
Parks, Recreation & Culture
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence:E.C.Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:db
Attachments:
Synthetic Field and Expanded Parking Construction Agreement Template
Synthetic Field Operating Agreement and License Template
AGK 53577 2
SYNTHETIC FIELD AND EXPANDED PARKING
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT TEMPLATE
(this “Agreement”)dated for reference __________, 2017 (the “Reference Date”)is
BETWEEN:
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 42
(MAPLE RIDGE –PITT MEADOWS),a school board incorporated under
the British Columbia School Act and having its office at 22255 Brown
Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C.,V2X 8N6
(the “School District”)
AND:
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE, a municipality under the Community Charter,
[SBC 2003]c.26 and having its office at 11995 Haney Place,Maple
Ridge, B.C.,V2X 6A9
(the “City”)
WHEREAS
A.The City and the School District entered into the Master Agreement on Cooperation for
the Joint Use of Facilities and Coordination of Services on January 11, 2017 (the
“Master Agreement”);
B.The School District is the registered owner in fee simple of lands in Maple Ridge legally
described as:
Parcel Identifier:<<>>
(the “Lands”);
C.The City proposes to construct on a portion of the Lands a synthetic turf field as
described in Schedule A attached hereto (the “Synthetic Field”), and the City proposes
to construct on a portion of the Lands parking stalls as described in Schedule B attached
hereto (the “Expanded Parking”);
D.The primary objective of the City is to make the Synthetic Field available to the citizens
of the City for community and school recreation purposes;
E.Pursuant to the Master Agreement, the School District has agreed to grant the City a
license to construct the Synthetic Field and the Expanded Parking (collectively, the
“Facilities”)on portions of the Lands, subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement;and
F.The Parties have entered into an Operating Agreement dated for reference as of the
Reference Date of this Agreement (the “Operating Agreement”)that is intended to
govern the Parties use of the Facilities after construction;
2
AGK 53577 2
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the premises herein contained, and the sums herein
paid by the City to the School District and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the School District and the City
(collectively, the “Parties” and individually, a “Party”), the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1.License to Construct –The School District hereby grants the City a license (the
“License”)and permission to enter and occupy the portion of the Lands identified in the
site plan included in Schedule A for the purpose of constructing the Synthetic Field, in
accordance with the specifications which will be approved by the Parties, each acting
reasonably, and attached to this Agreement as part of Schedule A (collectively, the
“Field Specifications”),and to enter and occupy the portion of the Lands identified in
the site plan included in Schedule B for the purpose of constructing the Expanded
Parking in accordance with the specifications which will be approved by the Parties,
each acting reasonably, and attached to this Agreement as part of Schedule B
(collectively, the “Expanded Parking Specifications”, and together with the Field
Specifications, the “Specifications”),subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
2.Site Preparation and Utility Connections -The School District agrees to arrange, at
the cost of the City, for the Site Preparation and utility connections on the Lands for the
Facilities and, except as expressly provided in this Agreement or the Operating
Agreement, the City will be responsible for all design, supply and construction costs
associated with the Facilities.
3.Construction of the Facility -The City covenants and agrees to fund and engage a
qualified contractor (the “Contractor”)to supply, deliver, install and complete the
construction of the Facilities,entirely at the risk and expense of the City.
4.Materials -All products and materials provided in respect of the Facilities shall be new
and in accordance with the Specifications. Any products that are not specified shall be
of a quality well suited to the purpose required, and shall match school colours when
installed.
5.Standard of Work -The City shall ensure that all work performed on the Facilities is
performed in a good and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the Specifications,
and will make any changes or corrections to the work necessary to meet those
Specifications at the City’s sole expense. The City shall purchase,deliver and install all
the materials and equipment that comprise the Facilities, and the City shall be
responsible for obtaining or issuing the required permits for this project in accordance
with the lawful requirements of all governmental authorities having jurisdiction with
respect to the construction of the Facilities.
6.Changes to Specifications -The City shall not make any material change to the
Facilities or the Specifications without the prior written approval of the School District. If
the modification substantially meets the requirements of the Specifications,this
Agreement and the Operating Agreement,then the School District shall not
unreasonably withhold its approval.
3
AGK 53577 2
7.Warranty –The City shall obtain warranties for the Facilities from the supplier as
described in the Specifications, or if no warranties are specified then as would be
reasonably expected for similar facilities in British Columbia.
8.Inspection by School District -The School District may inspect the Facilities at any
stage of construction and require the City to make changes or corrections necessary to
meet the Specifications.
9.Term -The City shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the Facilities are
completed for use no later than one year after Site Preparation work is completed and
the School District has provided the City with written approval to commence
construction,but in no event do the Parties intend for this Agreement to extend past the
day that is three years from the date this Agreement is signed.
10.Construction Period -The Parties anticipate that construction of the Facilities will not
take more than 6 months in total.To the extent reasonably possible, the City shall
ensure that construction activities do not disrupt or interfere with the normal activities
and operation of the <<SCHOOL NAME>>.
11.Costs -Except as the School District may in its discretion expressly agree otherwise,
the City covenants and agrees to pay all actual costs associated with the procurement,
delivery and installation of the Facilities, the replacement of the Synthetic Field upon
expiry of its useful life, and the removal of the Synthetic Field and restoration of the
Lands on termination or expiry of the Operating Agreement including,without limitation
all products,services, labour, materials, tools, equipment, plant, machinery, water, heat,
light, power, transportation, permits, application,inspection and license fees,
development cost charges, community amenity contributions,any required site and
offsite improvements,and all other required facilities, things and services.
12.Payment Schedule –The City shall promptly pay when due all accounts and invoices
for anything supplied in respect of the Facilities. Without limiting the foregoing, the City
shall make progress payments to the Contractor and the School District within thirty days
after completion of each stage or part of the work, in the amounts certified by the City
staff member who is managing the construction.
13.Default -If the City is in material default in the performance of its obligations under this
Agreement in respect of the construction and funding of the Facilities, and does not
remedy any such default within 30 days of being notified in writing to do so, the School
District may terminate this Agreement and require the City to remove any improvements,
including without limitation the Synthetic Field and associated equipment, tools and
materials that have been placed on the Lands, and restore the Lands as near as
reasonably possible to its prior condition just at the City’s expense.
14.Force Majeure –The obligations of the City and the School District under this
Agreement shall be suspended during any period when a Party is prevented from
fulfilling its obligations for reasons beyond its reasonable control, including,without
limitation,strikes, lockouts, riots or other civil disorders, fires, floods, and other natural
disasters or acts of God.
4
AGK 53577 2
15.Corporate Proceedings –Each Party warrants that it has taken all corporate
proceedings required to enter into and perform its obligations pursuant to this
Agreement.
16.No Interest in Land –The rights of the City pursuant to this Agreement are contractual
only and this Agreement does not grant the City an interest in land.
17.Fixtures –The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Synthetic Field and the
Expanded Parking are fixtures forming part of the Lands as they are constructed, and
will be legally and beneficially owned by the School District, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement or the Construction Agreement,and notwithstanding any
payment of costs by the City.
18.Succession –This Agreement and the License it contains are personal to the City and
may not be assigned by the City, including by succession or by operation of law, except
with the prior written consent of the School District, which may be reasonably withheld.
The City may sublicense its rights pursuant to the License only for the use or uses
authorized in writing by the School District, provided that the School District is notified,
the sublicensee agrees in writing to comply with the terms of the License, any sublicense
shall not relieve the City of any of its obligations hereunder, and any acts and omissions
of a sublicensee shall be considered the acts and omissions of the City.For certainty,
this section does not apply to the City engaging contractors and subcontractors for the
purposes of constructing the Facilities.This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and
be binding upon the School District and its successors and assigns, notwithstanding any
rule of law or equity to the contrary.
Notice and other General Provisions
19.Except in the case of an emergency, when notice may be given by telephone with later
confirmation in writing, any notice which to be given under this Agreement shall be in
writing and either delivered by hand or sent by facsimile transmission, addressed as
follows:
To the City:
Attention:Director, Parks and Facilities
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C.,
V2X 6A9
Fax: (604) 467-7329
To the School District:
Attention: Secretary Treasurer
22225 Brown Ave.
Maple Ridge, B. C.
V2X 8N6
Fax: (604) 463-4181
5
AGK 53577 2
or to such other address or facsimile number of which notice has been given as provided in
this section. Any notice which is delivered by hand is to be considered to have been given
on the day it is delivered. Any notice which is sent by fax is to be considered to have been
given on the first business day after it has been sent and an electronic confirmation of
delivery has been received. If a Party changes its address or fax number, or both, it shall
promptly give notice of its new address or fax number, or both, to the other Party as
provided in this section.
20.An alleged waiver of any breach of this Agreement is effective only if it is an express
waiver in writing of that breach. A waiver of a breach of this Agreement does not
operate as a waiver of any other breach of this Agreement.
21.If any term of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable by a court, that term is to be
severed from this Agreement and the rest of this Agreement remains in force unaffected
by the severance of that term.
22.This Agreement and the Operating Agreement constitute the entire agreement between
the Parties regarding its subject-matter and supersede all other negotiations and
communications between the Parties regarding the construction of the Synthetic Field.
23.This Agreement may not be modified except by an agreement in writing signed by both
Parties.
24.The duties and obligations imposed by this Agreement and the rights and remedies
available under this Agreement shall be in addition to and not a limitation of any duties,
obligations, rights and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law and remedies
may be exercised in any order or concurrently.
25.Each Party acknowledges that the other Party is a public body subject to the Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act and as such, may be required to disclose
documents exchanged between the Parties and documents created in this Agreement.
26.The Parties agree to do everything reasonably necessary to give effect to the intent of
this Agreement, including execution of further instruments.
27.Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
28.No partnership nor joint venture nor trust nor any agency is created by or under this
Agreement and the City does not have the authority to commit the School District to the
payment of any money.
29.Nothing contained or implied herein shall prejudice or affect the City’s rights and powers
in the exercise of its functions pursuant to the Community Charter [SBC 2003]c. 26, the
Local Government Act [RSBC 2015]c. 1, or its rights and powers under all of its public
and private statutes, bylaws, orders and regulations, all of which may be fully and
effectively exercised in relation to the Lands as if this Agreement had not been executed
and delivered by the School District.
6
AGK 53577 2
In witness whereof, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed and delivered by their
authorized signatories as of the dates set out below:
DATED the ____ day of _______________, 2017
The Corporate Seal of
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 42
(MAPLE RIDGE –PITT MEADOWS)
was hereunto affixed in the presence of:
Secretary Treasurer:Flavia Coughlan
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/S
DATED the ____ day of _______________, 2017
The Corporate Seal of
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
was hereunto affixed in the presence of:
Name and Title:
Name and Title:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/S
AGK 53577 2
SCHEDULE A
SYNTHETIC FIELD
SITE PLAN,SKETCHES AND SPECIFICATIONS
[insert site plan and any other explanatory information]
AGK 53577 2
SCHEDULE B
EXPANDED PARKING
SITE PLAN, SKETCHES AND SPECIFICATIONS
[insert site plan and any other explanatory information]
AGK 53578 2
SYNTHETIC FIELD
OPERATING AGREEMENT AND LICENSE TEMPLATE
(this “Agreement”)dated for reference __________ __, 20__is
BETWEEN:
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 42
(MAPLE RIDGE –PITT MEADOWS), a school board incorporated under the
British Columbia School Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] c. 412 and having its office at 22255
Brown Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C.,V2X 8N6
(the “School District”)
AND:
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE, a municipality incorporated under
the Community Charter [SBC 2003]c.26 and having its office at
11995 Haney Place,Maple Ridge, B.C.,V2X 6A9
(the "City")
WHEREAS:
A.The School District is the registered owner in fee simple of lands in Maple Ridge legally
described as:
Parcel Identifier:<<>>
(the "Lands");
B.The City and the School District (collectively the “Parties” and individually a “Party”)
entered into the Master Agreement on Cooperation for the Joint Use of Facilities and
Coordination of Services on January 11, 2017 (the “Master Agreement”);
C.The Parties have entered into the <<SCHOOL NAME>>Synthetic Field and Expanded
Parking Construction Agreement (the “Construction Agreement”) having the same reference
date as this Agreement, providing for the construction on portions of the Lands of a synthetic
field as described in Schedule A to the Construction Agreement (the “Synthetic Field”), and
parking stalls as described in Schedule B to the Construction Agreement (the “Expanded
Parking”);
D.Pursuant to the Master Agreement, the Parties have agreed that the City shall operate,
maintain, repair and replace the Synthetic Field,for public recreational use, in coordination with
the School District’s use of the Synthetic Field for school purposes, and that the City will remove
the Synthetic Field and restore the Lands upon termination of this Agreement; and
E.The Parties have agreed that the School District shall operate, maintain and repair the
Expanded Parking for community and school purposes as described in this Agreement,and that
the City shall contribute to the costs of maintaining and repairing the Expanded Parking;
AGK 53578 2 2
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the premises herein contained, and the sums herein
paid by the City to the School District and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the School District and the City
(collectively, the “Parties” and individually, a “Party”), the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1.License –
(a)The School District hereby grants to the City an exclusive license (the “License”):
(i)to enter and occupy that portion of the Lands outlined in bold on the sketch
plan attached hereto as Schedule A (the “Field License Area”); and
(ii)to enter and occupy that portion of the Lands outlined in bold on the sketch
plan attached hereto as Schedule B (the “Parking License Area” and
together with the Field License Area, the “License Areas”);
for community purposes during the Access Times (as defined below)in accordance
with the terms of this Agreement.
(b)The School District has agreed to attend to site preparation of the License Areas at
the City’s cost, as described in the Construction Agreement, and the City otherwise
accepts the License Areas on an “as is” basis without any representation or warranty
by the School District as to their fitness or suitability for any particular purpose.
(c)The Term of the License will be for five (5)years commencing on _____, 2017 and
terminating on ________, 2022, subject to extension in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement (the “Term”).
(d)If the City has substantially complied with the provisions of the Construction
Agreement and this Agreement at all times prior to the time of each renewal, then the
City may at its option renew the Term. The Term of this License shall be
automatically renewed for five additional five year terms,each upon the same terms
and conditions except that the City’s right of renewal is reduced accordingly.
(e)The License fee for the Term will be $1.00.
(f)During the Term, the School District covenants and agrees not to make, place, erect,
maintain or permit in the License Areas any building, structure, foundation or
obstruction which may interfere with the Licences granted to the City pursuant to this
Agreement.
2.Access to License Areas –The School District shall control access to the License Areas
by ensuring that the Licence Areas are only used by itself and its servants, employees,
agents, contractors, successors, assigns, and invitees outside of the Access Times. For
certainty, the School District shall allow the City, its servants, employees, agents,
contractors, successors, assigns, invitees and members of the public to access the License
Areas, during the Access Times.
AGK 53578 2 3
3.User Fees –The City may charge user fees and repair, cleaning and maintenance costs to
all users of the Synthetic Field other than the School District.The City shall set, collect and
apply all such user fees and recoverable costs and any other revenue generated from use of
the Synthetic Field to its parks programs, including the maintenance, repair and general
upkeep of synthetic fields in the City of Maple Ridge including the Synthetic Field.
4.Access Times –The School District shall permit the City, its servants, employees, agents,
contractors, successors, assigns, invitees and members of the public (collectively, “City
Users”)to access and use the License Areas as follows:
(a)during the months of September through June:
i.From 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on all weekdays; and
ii.From 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays; and
(b)during the months of July and August and statutory holidays at any time of the year:
i.From 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. every day.
(collectively, the “Access Times”). The School District and its servants, employees, agents,
contractors, successors, assigns, and invitees (collectively the “School District Users”)shall
have the exclusive use of the License Areas during all other times. In addition, the School
District reserves the right to enter the License Areas at any time for monitoring and
inspection purposes, or to facilitate access to any buildings on the Lands. In addition, the
School District shall be entitled to access to and use of the License Areas during weekends
for specific school events to be held during the Access Times on at least four months’prior
written notice to the City up to a maximum of four times during each calendar year.
5.Operation of Synthetic Field –
(a)The City, through its Parks and Facilities Department, shall be responsible for
the safe and lawful management of the Synthetic Field during the Access
Times.
(b)The City shall be responsible for all administration, operation,custodial
services,maintenance, and repair of the Synthetic Field (the “Field
Services”), as part of the delivery of programs, services and activities for the
Synthetic Field, including, without limiting the foregoing:
i.repair of the Synthetic Field;
ii.control of access to the Synthetic Field during the Access Times;
iii.payment for all utilities used by the Synthetic Field; and
AGK 53578 2 4
iv.payment of all other costs in respect of the Synthetic Field including,
without limitation,maintenance, cleaning and costs of supplying and
emptying garbage cans, removal of any litter or garbage in or around the
Field License Area during the Term, and costs to remove the Synthetic
Field and completely restore the Field License Area upon termination or
expiry of the License.
but not including any repair, maintenance, cleaning or other costs resulting
from School District Users’negligent use of the Field Licence Area.
(c)In making repairs or doing maintenance of the Synthetic Field the City may
bring and leave upon the Field Licence Area the necessary materials, tools
and equipment,provided that the City safely secures such materials, tools
and equipment and uses reasonable efforts to schedule such maintenance
and repairs so as to minimize any inconvenience, annoyance, or other injury
to the School District.
(d)The City may post regulations from time to time to be observed by all users of
the Synthetic Field, including School District Users, including reasonable
restrictions:
i.prohibiting or restricting use of the Synthetic Field during certain
weather conditions;
ii.prohibiting or restricting food or drink being brought on to the
Synthetic Field;
iii.prohibiting or restricting structures or other objects being placed on
the Synthetic Field.
The School District shall ensure that all School District Users comply with any
such restrictions.
6.Field Services -The City shall provide the Field Services to the same standard that it sets
for other synthetic fields that the City maintains.The School District shall not in any
circumstances be required to pay for any access to or use of the Synthetic Field.
7.School District not responsible for any Synthetic Field costs –
(a)For clarity,except as may be expressly agreed by the School District in this
Agreement or in another written agreement signed by the School District,the
School District is not responsible for any costs relating to the purchase,
delivery, installation, repair, cleaning or maintenance of the Synthetic Field
during the Term.
(b)The City shall pay all costs associated with the replacement of the playing
surface of the Synthetic Field at the expiry of its useful life from time to time
during the Term.However,the City may terminate this Agreement during the
last year of the Term upon six months’ written notice to the School District if
the City reasonably believes that the useful life of the Synthetic Field will
AGK 53578 2 5
expire during the last year of the Term, and the City does not wish to replace
the Synthetic Field.
(c)The City shall remove the Synthetic Field and restore the Field License Area
as near as reasonably possible to its prior condition upon termination or
expiry of the License.
8.Operation of Parking License Area -The School District, through its Facilities Department,
shall be responsible for the safe and lawful management of the Parking License Area,
including the administration, operation, custodial services, maintenance, and repair of the
Parking License Area (the “Parking Services”), including, without limiting the foregoing:
(a)repair and control of access to the Parking License Area;
(b)payment for all utilities used in the Parking License Area; and
(c)payment of all other costs in respect of the Parking License Area including, without
limitation,painting, snow clearing,maintenance, cleaning and costs of supplying and
emptying garbage cans and removal of any litter or garbage in or around the Parking
License Area.
9.Parking Services –
(a)The School District shall provide the Parking Services to the same standard
as it sets for other parking facilities that the School District maintains.
(b)The City shall pay the percentage share of the School District’s costs in
providing Parking Services that is equal to the number of parking stalls that
comprise the Expanded Parking, divided by the total number of parking stalls
in the Parking License Area.The City shall pay its share of such costs to the
School District within thirty days after receipt of an invoice from the School
District.
10.Insurance –
(a)The City will provide and maintain insurance in respect of the use of the
License Areas by the City Users in such amounts and on such terms and
conditions as would a prudent operator of similar sports and parking facilities.
(b)The School District will provide and maintain insurance in respect of the use
of the License Areas by the School District Users in such amounts and on
such terms and conditions as would a prudent operator of similar sports and
parking facilities
11.Indemnity –
(a)The City hereby releases, saves harmless and shall indemnify and hold
harmless the School District and the School District’s trustees,officers,
employees, agents,and contractors from and against all liabilities, claims,
losses, damages, costs and expenses, actions and other proceedings, made,
sustained, brought, prosecuted, threatened to be brought or prosecuted in
AGK 53578 2 6
any manner based upon, occasioned by or attributable to any personal injury
or death of a person, or damage to or loss of property, or any other loss or
damage of any kind whatsoever arising out of any default of the City under
this Agreement, the use or occupation of any of the License Areas by any of
the City Users,or the operation and maintenance of the Synthetic Field,
except to the extent that such loss arises from the independent negligence of
the School District or the breach of this Agreement by the School District.
(b)The School District hereby releases, saves harmless and shall indemnify and
hold harmless the City and the City’s elected officials,officers, employees,
agents, and contractors from and against all liabilities, claims, losses,
damages, costs and expenses, actions and other proceedings, made,
sustained, brought, prosecuted, threatened to be brought or prosecuted in
any manner based upon, occasioned by or attributable to any personal injury
or death of a person, or damage to or loss of property, or any other loss or
damage of any kind whatsoever arising out of any default of the School
District under this Agreement or the use or occupation of any of the License
Areas by any of the School District Users, except to the extent that such loss
arises from the independent negligence of the City or the breach of this
Agreement by the City.
12.Notices –Except in the case of an emergency, when notice may be given by telephone with
later confirmation in writing, any notice which is to be given under this Agreement shall be in
writing and either delivered by hand or sent by facsimile transmission, addressed as follows:
To the City:
Attention:Director, Parks and Facilities
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C.,
V2X 6A9
Fax: (604) 467-7329
To the School District:
Attention: Secretary Treasurer
22225 Brown Ave.
Maple Ridge, B. C.
V2X 8N6
Fax: (604) 463-4181
or to such other address or facsimile number of which notice has been given as provided in this
section. Any notice which is delivered by hand is to be considered to have been given on the
day it is delivered. Any notice which is sent by fax is to be considered to have been given on
the first business day after it has been sent and an electronic confirmation of delivery has been
received. If a Party changes its address or fax number, or both, it shall promptly give notice of
its new address or fax number, or both, to the other Party as provided in this section.
AGK 53578 2 7
13.Termination of License –At any time after the tenth anniversary of the commencement of
this Agreement, the School District may terminate this License as to the Field License Area
if the School District requires the Field License Area, or as to the Parking License Area if the
School District requires the Parking License Area, or as to both if the School District requires
both, for construction or expansion of a school building or another school facility, or if the
School District proposes to sell the Lands, provided that upon such termination the School
District shall pay to the City an amount equal to the remaining unamortized balance of the
City’s out-of-pocket capital costs contributed to the construction of the subject
improvements, amortized on a straight line basis over fifteen years. The City shall have no
other claim and the School District shall have no other liability in respect of any such
termination.
14.Severance –If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the invalid portion shall be severed and the decision that it is invalid shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
15.Succession –This Agreement and the License it contains are personal to the City and may
not be assigned by the City, including by succession or by operation of law, except with the
prior written consent of the School District, which may be reasonably withheld. The City
may sublicense the License Areas for the use or uses authorized in writing by the School
District, provided that the School District is notified, the sublicensee agrees in writing to
comply with the terms of the License, any sublicense shall not relieve the City of any of its
obligations hereunder, and any acts and omissions of a sublicensee shall be considered the
acts and omissions of the City.This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the School District and its successors and assigns, notwithstanding any rule of law or
equity to the contrary.
16.Law of British Columbia -This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the
Province of British Columbia and the laws of Canada applicable in British Columbia.
17.Waiver –Waiver by a Party of any default by the other Party must be in writing and shall not
be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other default.
18.Reference –Every reference to a Party is deemed to include the heirs, executors,
administrators, successors,permitted assigns, servants, employees, agents, contractors,
officers, licensees and invitees of such Party wherever the context so requires or allows.
19.Not Partners -The Parties are not partners or joint venturers and the legal relationship
between them is contractual only and not a partnership,joint venture, trust or agency.
20.No Interest in Land –The rights of the City pursuant to this Agreement are contractual only
and this Agreement does not grant the City an interest in land.
21.Fixtures –The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Synthetic Field and the Expanded
Parking are fixtures forming part of the Lands as they are constructed, and will be legally
and beneficially owned by the School District, notwithstanding any other provision of this
Agreement or the Construction Agreement, and notwithstanding any payment of costs by
the City.
22.Time of the Essence –Time is of the essence in this Agreement.
AGK 53578 2 8
23.Not Affecting City’s Rights –Nothing contained or implied herein shall prejudice or affect
the City’s rights and powers in the exercise of its functions pursuant to the Community
Charter [SBC 2003]c. 26, the Local Government Act [RSBC 2015]c. 1, or its rights and
powers under all of its public and private statutes, bylaws, orders and regulations,all of
which may be fully and effectively exercised in relation to the Lands as if this Agreement had
not been executed and delivered by the School District.
As evidence of their agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
Parties have executed this Agreement below on the dates written below.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 42 (MAPLE
RIDGE –PITT MEADOWS)
by its authorized signatories:
Flavia Coughlan,Secretary Treasurer
Date:_________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
by its authorized signatories:
Name and Title:
Name and Title:
Date: _________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
AGK 53578 2
SCHEDULE A
SYNTHETIC FIELD
SITE PLAN SHOWING FIELD LICENSE AREA
AGK 53578 2
SCHEDULE B
EXISTING AND EXPANDED PARKING
SITE PLAN SHOWING PARKING LICENSE AREA