HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-05 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES –October 15, 2012
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1 BC Hydro - Ruskin Dam Project and Fish Ladders
− Judy Dobrowolski, Stakeholder Engagement Advisor
− Alf Leake, Environmental Specialist
− Patrice Rother, Manager Environmental Regulations
− Steve Higginbottom, Community Relations Coordinator
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 2013 Area Planning Options
Staff dated November 5, 2012 recommending that the Albion Flats be reaffirmed
as a priority for preparation of an area plan, that the Hammond neighbourhood be
identified as the next location for an area plan and that a staff report be prepared
outlining the area planning process for Hammond.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
November 5, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification.
REMINDERS
November 5, 2012
Closed Council 11:00 a.m.
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
November 5, 2012
Page 2 of 4
4.2 Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Ticket
Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6929-2012 to amend and update the
current bylaw be referred to a regular Council meeting for first, second and third
readings.
4.3 Proposed Communications Tower Consultation Policy
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 recommending that Council direction be
provided on the preferred consultation process the District should employ
respecting communication towers and whether a second District
telecommunications tower is desirable.
4.4 Downtown Update
Verbal report by the General Manager of Community Development, Parks and
Recreation Services
5. CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
5.1 Correspondence re Meningococcal Vaccine
Letter dated October 18, 2012 from Jay Gilbert, City Clerk, City of Coquitlam
requesting support for a resolution requesting that the Provincial Government
reconsider the provision of the necessary MCV4 - Meningococcal Conjugate
Vaccine.
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
Council Workshop
November 5, 2012
Page 3 of 4
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
November 5, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(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;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
October 15, 2012
The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on October 15, 2012 at 9:00
a.m. in the Blaney Room of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge,
British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular Municipal business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor E. Daykin J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Ashlie K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor C. Bell Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor J. Dueck P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor A. Hogarth F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor B. Masse Services
Councillor M. Morden C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other Staff as Required
C. Carter, Director of Planning
J. Charlebois, Manager of Community Planning
L. Holitzki, Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws
L. Zosiak, Planner
S. Cote-Rolvink, Manager of Inspection Services
S. Wheeler, Director of Community Services
S. Matthewson, Recreation and Social Planning Coordinator
F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications
S. Blue, Manager of Economic Strategic Initiatives
Note: These Minutes are posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as circulated.
2. MINUTES
R/2012-456
Minutes It was moved and seconded
October 1, 2012
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of October
1, 2012 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 2 of 6
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Regional Context Statement Amendment Process
Staff report dated October 15, 2012 recommending that the process outlined
in the report titled “Regional Context Statement Amendment Process” be
endorsed.
The General Manager Public Works and Development Services introduced the
Regional Context Statement Amendment process. He explained the mandate
and the intent of a regional context statement in regard to an official
community plan.
The Manager of Community Planning reviewed the report. He provided a chart
and outlined details of the amendment process.
The Director of Planning advised on what the Regional Context Statement for
Maple Ridge is expected to do in terms of aligning with Metro Vancouver’s
Regional Growth Strategy.
R/2012-457
Regional Context
Statement It was moved and seconded
Amendment Process
That the process outlined in the report titled “Regional Context
Statement Amendment Process” dated October 15, 2012, be
endorsed.
CARRIED
4.2 Draft Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011
Staff report dated October 15, 2012 recommending that the report titled
“Draft Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 be referred
to a regular Council Meeting.
The Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws reviewed the report.
Council Workshop Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 3 of 6
R/2012-458
BL No. 6815-2011
Forward to Regular It was moved and seconded
Council Meeting
1. That Maple Ridge Business Licencing Bylaw No.6815-
2011 be referred to a regular Council meeting.
2. That staff be directed to place an advertisement in the
local newspaper advising anyone affected by the proposed
Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2012
may provide comments to the District as per section 59(2)
of the Community Charter.
3. Council direct staff to develop an Inter Municipal Business
Licence Agreement Authorization Bylaw enabling the
District to participate in a Pilot Program with the City of
Abbotsford, City of Chilliwack, District of Hope, Township
of Langley, City of Langley, City of Pitt Meadows, City of
Surrey and the District of Mission.
CARRIED
4.3 Animal Control Bylaw No. 6908-2012
Staff report dated October 15, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge Animal
Control and Licencing Bylaw No. 6908-2012 be referred to a regular Council
meeting.
The Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws reviewed the report and the
proposed bylaw. She spoke to the issue of breed specific wording within the
bylaw and the research done to on the establishment of such wording. She
outlined the key changes within the bylaw.
R/2012-459
BL No. 6908-2012
Forward to regular It was moved and seconded
Council Meeting
That Maple Ridge Animal Control and Licencing Bylaw No.
6908-2012 be referred to a regular Council Meeting.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 4 of 6
Note: The meeting was recessed at 10:57 a.m. and reconvened at 11:05 a.m.
4.4 Proposed Amending Building Bylaw No. 6950-2012
Staff report dated October 15, 2012 recommending that the report titled
“Proposed Amending Building Bylaw No. 6950-2012“ be referred to a regular
Council Meeting.
The Manager of Inspection Services reviewed the report and highlighted the
changes within the bylaw. He advised on the amendments to the fee
structure and provided reasoning behind increases to fees.
R/2012-460
BL No. 6950-2012
Forward to regular It was moved and seconded
Council Meeting
That Maple Ridge Building Amending Bylaw No. 6950-2012 be
referred to a regular Council Meeting.
CARRIED
Note: Councillor Dueck did not return when the meeting was reconvened.
4.5 Proposed Heritage Procedures Bylaw No. 6951-2012 and Development
Application Fee Amendment Bylaw No. 6952-2012
Staff report dated October 15, 2012 recommending that Maple Ridge
Heritage Procedures Bylaw No. 6951-2012 and Maple Ridge Development
Application Fee Amendment Bylaw No. 6952-2012 be forwarded to a regular
Council Meeting for consideration.
The Manager of Community Planning outlined the work behind the
development of the proposed bylaws.
The Planner provided slides outlining the heritage conservation process. She
advised on new areas within the proposed Heritage Procedures Bylaw, spoke
to heritage inventory, the heritage registry and how a property can be
designated.
The Director of Planning provided a background on the District’s current listing
of heritage properties and its community heritage registry. She advised on the
public participation process carried out during the development of the current
registry.
Council Workshop Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 5 of 6
R/2012-461
BL No. 6951-2012
BL No. 6952-2012 It was moved and seconded
Forward to regular
Council meeting
That Heritage Procedures Bylaw No. 6951-2012 and
Development Application Fee Amendment Bylaw No. 6952-
2012 be forwarded to a regular meeting of Council for
consideration.
CARRIED
4.6 Community Services Update
The Director of Community Services gave a PowerPoint presentation providing
an update on social planning. She advised on the definition of social planning
and provided information on the mandate and work done by the Maple Ridge
Social Advisory Planning Committee (“SPAC”)
5. CORRESPONDENCE – Nil
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
6.1 Proposed Cell Towers
Councillor Morden requested that companies applying to the District for cell
towers be made aware of the District’s review of its cell tower policy.
R/2012-462
Proposed Cell
Towers It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed send a letter to Telus, the proponent of
a cell tower application at 23570 124 Avenue, Maple Ridge,
BC, requesting that the application be held in abeyance until a
review of the District’s policy on cell towers; and further
That all cell phone companies applying for cell towers in the
District of Maple Ridge be advised that the District is reviewing
its cell tower policy and request that applications be held in
abeyance until the completion of the policy review.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
October 15, 2012
Page 6 of 6
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8. ADJOURNMENT – 12:24 p.m.
_______________________________
E. Daykin, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: November 5, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: 2013 Area Planning Options
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In February 2012, Council received a report that provided an overview of the Official Community Plan
(OCP) Area Planning policies; the recently adopted Council Policy 6.30 Area Planning Assessment;
and a discussion on the work-plan priorities for 2012. At that time, Council had received a number
of requests to undertake an area plan for Hammond that was not included in the Planning
Department’s 2012 Business Plan.
Council Policy 6.30 identifies five criteria that are intended to assist Council in selecting the next
location within the District that will undergo an area planning process. Part of that process is for
Council to consider area planning work as part of their annual business planning discussions (refer
to Appendix A attached).
This report provides Council with an overview of the policy framework for area planning ; an
evaluation of three neighbourhoods previously identified by Council as neighbourhoods potentially
warranting an Area Plan; and a discussion on the potential timeline implications for beginning the
next area planning process.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT:
1. the Albion Flats be reaffirmed as the priority for the preparation of an Area Plan;
2. the Hammond neighbourhood be identified as the next location for an Area Plan, based on the
criteria established in Council Policy 6.30; and
3. Staff be directed to prepare a report outlining the area planning process for Hammond following
clarification from the Agricultural Land Commission on the ALR exclusion applications for the
properties north of 105th Avenue.
III. BACKGROUND:
Currently the Official Community Plan contains three area plans for the District – Town Centre, Albion
and Silver Valley. The Official Community Plan also contains a commitment to the preparation of
Area Plans, and contains policies to guide an area planning framework.
An area plan provides a greater level of planning with respect to land uses, densities and form and
character guidelines (through Development Permit Areas) then found in the OCP policies. An area
2
plan can be for one neighbourhood or for a group of neighbourhoods and is effective for established
and/or historic neighbourhoods or for newly emerging areas of the District.
Pursuant with the Official Community Plan policies, in 2009 and 2010 Council gave consideration to
the creation of an Area Planning Assessment policy. This policy was intended to build upon the
Official Community Plan policies, and identify the framework for how and when areas would be
selected. Council Policy 6.30 was approved in October 2010, and is now used as a guide for
evaluating the selection of future area plans.
At the January 17, 2012 Public Hearing, a number of residents had requested that Council consider
undertaking an area plan for the Hammond neighbourhood. At the January 24, 2012 Council
meeting, staff was directed to provide information on area planning at the next Council Workshop.
In February 2012, Council received a report entitled “Area Planning Prioritization – Update” which
provided an overview of the area planning program within the Official Community Plan, the newly
adopted Council Policy 6.30 – Area Planning Assessment, and confirmation that the Commercial and
Industrial Strategy was Council’s priority project for 2012. The report also included an area planning
discussion regarding the Albion Flats and Hammond. Based on Council’s direction, the Albion Flats
will proceed first with the District submitting an ALR exclusion application and following the ALC’s
decision, an area planning process. The report outlined that while there had recently been requests
to Council to undertake an area plan in Hammond, that completing the Zoning Bylaw Review,
Commercial and Industrial Strategy, Albion Flats process, Regional Context Statement and Affordable
Housing Strategy were felt to be higher priority projects for 2012.
As many of the above noted studies are well underway or nearing completion, this report provides
Council with a discussion of options for future area plans based on the criteria included in Policy
6.30 Area Planning Assessment (Appendix A).
a) Policy Context – Official Community Plan
Chapter 10 of the Official Community Plan outlines the Principles, Objectives and policies associated
with the preparation of area plans within the District. The following four OCP Principles provide a
framework for future area plans:
Principle 6
The community recognizes the need to foster the history of Maple Ridge and enhance historic areas.
Principle 10
Citizens keenly appreciate the importance of public participation in community and neighbourhood
planning processes.
Principle 12
Collaboration with other authorities, including but not limited to the ALC and GVRD [Metro
Vancouver], is essential too ensuring that municipal objectives can be met.
Principle 31
It is important to undertake detailed planning work on the basis of neighbourhood planning.
Chapter 10 of the OCP also includes the following Objectives and Policies that guide the area
planning program and approach:
3
Objectives:
To develop area plans to guide redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods and to provide
direction for new development in an urban reserve area.
To utilize a consultative approach to area planning that involves working cooperatively with
Provincial and Regional agencies, School District, community groups and residents.
Policies:
10-1 The historic and new communities identified in the Communities map (Figure 1 [of the OCP])
will form the general boundaries for the preparation of future area plans. The area plans
map (Figure 6 [of the OCP]) identifies existing and potential future area plans. This figure
does not preclude the District from undertaking an area plan for any other portion of the
District.
10-2 Maple Ridge will initiate the creation of area plans as a means to guide development:
a) The Regional Town Centre will be one of the first area plans due to its significance and high
capacity to accommodate residential growth.
b) Priority consideration will be given to an area in transition, neighbourhoods that present the
greatest opportunities for redevelopment, or areas where Guide Plans are in existence;
c) Area plans will be developed for the historic communities of Maple Ridge including
Hammond, The Ridge, Port Haney/Haney; Albion, Yennadon, Webster’s Corners, Whonnock
and Ruskin;
d) The Thornhill area is recognized as [a] new Community that requires an area plan prior to
urban development occurring in the area. This area plan is a long-term priority for the
District and will be initiated in accordance with the Thornhill Urban Reserve policies of the
Official Community Plan [policies 3-22 to 3-26]; and
e) Subsequent area plans will be based on a consideration of each area’s suitability for
accommodating residential intensification.
10-3 Area Plans will be developed utilizing a consultative approach that involves working
cooperatively with Provincial and Regional agencies, School District, community groups and
residents and will include, but not be limited to the following:
a) Policies relating to the types and form of development, land use patterns and phasing;
b) Physical inventory of the site including an assessment of environmentally sensitive areas,
ecosystems and the impact of development;
c) And assessment of existing and future infrastructure, and fiscal impact analysis study;
d) A transportation study that addresses road connections, transit and alternate modes of
travel and connections to the Regional Town Centre;
e) An assessment of parks and open space; and
f) The provision of community amenities.
During the preparation of the Official Community Plan, the decision was made to incorporate area
planning as the framework for detailed land use planning. As a result, the land use designations
included on Schedule “B” Generalised Future Land Use of the OCP have been kept at a general level
– such as Urban Residential and Commercial, instead of providing a finer-grain of land uses that are
associated with specific density provisions.
The area planning policies included in the OCP and outlined above provide the basis from which to
undertake detailed land use planning that incorporates a variety of types of commercial, mixed use
4
and residential land use categories. This approach also encourages a greater degree of community
input in focused conversations related to land use mix, residential densities and commercial
activities within the neighbourhood under study. The area planning framework also enables clearly -
defined development permit guidelines to be prepared that reflect the individual characteristic s of
that neighbourhood or collection of neighbourhoods within the area covered by the plan.
b) Council Policy 6.30 Area Planning Assessment
Pursuant with Official Community Plan policies, in 2009 and 2010 Council gave consideration to an
Area Planning Assessment policy. This policy built upon OCP policies, and identified the framework
for how and when areas would be selected for an area planning process. Council Policy 6.30 – Area
Planning Assessment, approved in October 2010, establishes a set of criteria that is to be used to
identify an area within the District that should be given priority for an area planning process. A copy
of the Policy has been included in this report as Appendix A for Council’s information. The key
evaluation criteria included in the Policy is as follows:
2. Area Planning priority will be given to an area that exhibits some or all of the following criteria:
i. that is in transition; experiencing increases in development applications that are
inconsistent with the Official Community Plan; or is impacted by policy changes,
demographic changes , or significant transportation / infrastructure improvements to the
area;
ii. that does not have an existing Area Plan;
iii. where the area plan is intended to further the goals and objectives identified within the
Official Community Plan, or is identified as a future work item in the Official Community Plan;
iv. with changing student enrolment in the School District catchment area;
v. where the project is consistent with the Corporate Strategic Plan and Council adopted
Business Plans.
Other key components of the policy include the requirement that requests for Area Planning are to
be considered as a package during business planning, and that a report is to be prepared assessing
an areas compliance with the Policy. The Policy also notes that the District will typically undertake
one area planning process at a time.
c) Post Official Community Plan Adoption Area Plan Discussion
Since the adoption of the Official Community Plan, there has often been discussion regarding
potential areas that may warrant an Area Plan. As noted earlier in this report, during the January
2012 Public Hearing, area residents requested that Council undertake an area plan for the
Hammond Neighbourhood. During the Regional Growth Strategy review, there was consider able
discussion regarding the guideline population projections in the strategy, and it was noted that
densification of areas such as Hammond would likely be important in reaching these targets. The
Albion Industrial area has also been the subject of discussion, noting that this area is already
designated for Business Park use, and is awaiting the outcomes of the Commercial Industrial Study.
Based on these earlier discussions, a table has been prepared which evaluates the above
mentioned neighbourhoods, against the Area Planning Assessment policy. The Albion Flats Area
Plan is included on the chart, as that process is expected to commence following the Agricultural
Land Commissions decision on the District Exclusion Application (refer to Appendix B Area Planning
Assessment Matrix).
5
IV. EVALUATION
Future Area Plan Locations
Appendix B (attached) provides a summary of the Area Planning Assessment criteria for the three
areas identified through earlier Council discussions and as illustrated on the map located in
Appendix C (attached). Hammond, Albion Flats and the Albion Industrial Area have been included in
the evaluation.
Albion Flats:
A concept plan for the Albion Flats area of the District was approved by Council in 2011. The area
has only seen 3 Official Community Plan and Rezoning applications since 2006, resulting in 487
dwelling units.
Future development within the Albion Flats is dependant on exclusion from the Agricultural Land
Reserve. Currently there are two exclusion applications on private properties north of 105th Avenue,
but they are not expected to be considered by the South Coast Panel until early 2013.
The timing of initiating an area planning process for the Albion Flats is dependant on the success of
the District’s ALR exclusion application and Metro Vancouver Regional Board approvals, outlined
below. At this point, an ALC decision on the exclusion application is not expected until the fall of
2013 at the earliest. The bulk of the Area Planning process of the project will commence after that
decision. This will affect the timing for area planning in Hammond.
This area plan is consistent with Council’s Strategic Plan goal of Economic Development in that it
results in employment opportunities, and contributes to the balance of land uses within the
community.
Given Council’s previous resolutions regarding the Albion Flats, and the policy that states that
typically, only one area planning process is undertaken at a time, it is assumed that the Albion Flats
will remain the next area plan process for the District. In the event, that the Agricultural Land
Commission not approve the District’s exclusion application or the applications to the north of 105th
Avenue, staff would prepare a report identifying options for proceeding with the area planning
process in the Albion Flats and the timing implications for Hammond.
Required Agency Approvals:
Agricultural Land Commission
Prior to initiating an area planning process within the Albion Flats area, a decision from the ALC
regarding an exclusion application for the District’s lands is needed in order to determine the extent
of the planning boundaries.
With the significant reduction in resources allocated to application review and processing at the
Agricultural Land Commission, it will be very difficult to assess when an area planning process could
begin following a decision on the District’s exclusion application.
6
Metro Vancouver – Regional Growth Strategy and Regional Context Statement Amendments
Working from the assumption that the ALC would approve the District’s exclusion application,
following that decision the District would also be required to submit a revised Regional Context
Statement and amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy. Currently the Albion Flats area is
identified in the RGS as a ‘Special Study Area’ but an amendment would be required to change that
designation to General Urban.
Section 6.3 of the RGS outlines the categories of Regional Growth Strategy amendments. Since the
Albion Flats area is designated as a ‘Special Study Area’, it would be considered a Type 3 Minor
Amendment to the RGS. Approval for this type of amendment requires a 50%+ 1 weighted vote of
the Metro Vancouver Board and do not require a regional public hearing.
As recently discussed with Council, the preparation or amendment of the District’s Regional Context
Statement is an amendment to the Official Community Plan and as such, must follow the process –
including early and ongoing public consultation – outlined in Part 26 of the Local Government Act.
Hammond:
The Hammond area forms the south-western boundary of the District. Prior to 2006 there was a
District initiated amendment to the Official Community Plan to re-designate a considerable portion of
the area from Commercial to Residential. The amendment was necessitated to address issues
relating to the non-conforming status of many of the single family residences in the area, as well as
to respond to an Economic study stating that the area was over-supplied with Commercial
designated land. Since 2006, this area has experienced development applications that are
inconsistent with the Official Community Plan. At the January 2012, Public Hearing, Council heard
from area residents commenting on an OCP and Rezoning application to permit a 36 unit apartment
building, in an area predominately designated for single detached residential use. It was at this
Public Hearing that the request to consider Hammond for a future area plan was made.
Elementary aged children in the Hammond neighbourhood fall within the Hammond Elementary
Catchment area boundary. Hammond Elementary is designed to accommodate 475 children and
has 448 currently enrolled (94.32% capacity). Information on school projections was not available at
the time of drafting this report, but discussions with School District staff noted that as a rule, schools
in the western part of Maple Ridge are experiencing declining enrollment. This information will be
confirmed at a later date.
This neighbourhood has the historic commercial centre for the area, and contains significant
industrial lands. In addition, area residents have noted that they have been both positive ly and
negatively impacted by the construction of the Golden Ears Bridge.
An area plan in the Hammond Neighbourhood would be consistent with the Corporate Strategic Plan
because residential densification contributes to the goal of Smart Managed Growth in the
Community and the commercial and industrial areas contribute to the goal of Economic
Development.
A Regional Growth Strategy amendment would not be required as part of the Hammond Area Plan
unless changes to the industrial areas within Hammond were being proposed.
7
Albion Industrial Area:
During the discussion leading up to the Albion Flats concepts plan, there was considera tion to the
study area boundaries for the Albion Flats. During that time it was noted, that while the Albion
Industrial area is contiguous to the Flats, it is located within the Urban Area Boundary; is fully
serviced; and is designated for Business Park in the Official Community Plan.
At this point, the District is undertaking a Commercial and Industrial review, which includes an
analysis of this area. Recent discussions with the Consultant acknowledge that this area is key to
providing industrial lands into the future, noting that the Industrial land use should not change,
unless additional lands are identified elsewhere in the District to replace them. Until that time, these
lands should remain part of the industrial supply in the community.
An area plan for the Albion Industrial area would be consistent with the Corporate Strategic Plan goal
pertaining to Economic Development because it would result in the retention and expansion of
businesses, and job creation within the community.
A Regional Growth Strategy amendment would not be required in the Albion Industrial area unless
changes to the industrial land uses were being proposed.
V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
a) Citizen/Customer Implications:
As identified in the above noted policies, the approach for area planning will focus on community
consultation and participation in the planning and decision-making process. The process will seek
input from a wide range of community groups, residents, Provincial and Regional authorities and the
School District. Once an area is selected, the details of a consultation program will be outlined in a
subsequent process report to Council.
b) Interdepartmental Implications:
The preparation of a new area plan will involve input from other departments on issues associated
with the plan. Generally assistance is most often required from the Engineering and Parks and
Leisure Services Departments, with input from other departments as required.
c) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
Area planning is part of the annual Business Plan discussions with Council.
d) Policy Implications:
The preparation of a new area plan will constitute an amendment to the Official Community Plan. As
such, the legislative requirements for early and ongoing consultation during the development or
amendment of an OCP will apply (LGA, Part 26, S. 879). These requirements would be discussed in
a future process report.
e) Alternatives:
Another location for an area plan as identified by Council.
8
VI. CONCLUSIONS:
The Official Community Plan establishes area planning as the approach for detailed land use
planning. An area plan can be for one neighbourhood or a collection of neighbourhoods and is
suitable for developing and established areas within the District. It is intended to provide a greater
level of detail and clarity on land use planning components such as land use mix, residential
densities, form and character guidelines for residential, commercial and industrial land uses and
development phasing with the identified area. Currently, Maple Ridge has three area plans for the
Town Centre, Albion and Silver Valley.
In addition to the OCP policies, Council Policy 6.30 Area Planning Assessment establishes a list of
criteria to be used when determining where and when future area plans will be undertaken. The
policy also outlines the process that will be followed once Council had identified the next location for
an area plan with recognition that only one area planning process will be underway at a time.
This report provides an overview of three areas within the District (Map 1) and a summary matrix of
the evaluation included in Appendix B. While preparation of an area plan for the Albion Flats is still
the recommended priority, there are a number of significant steps that first must be completed prior
to the start of the planning process. At this point, the ALC has received two applications for exclusion
north of 105th Avenue. It is recognized that the Commission’s decision on these applications may
impact the future land use for the area.
Based on the Area Planning Assessment criteria, Hammond has been identified as the next location
within the District that would benefit from an area planning process. Once the ALC decisions are
known, staff would prepare a report that outlines the timing issues for the Hammond Area Plan.
“original signed by Jim Charlebois”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Community Planning
“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 Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Council Policy 6.30 Area Planning Assessment
Appendix B – Area Planning Assessment Matrix
Appendix C – Existing & Potential Area Plans
Page 1 of 2 Policy 6.30
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Area Planning Assessment
Policy No : 6.30
Supersedes: New
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date: October 27, 2010
Review Date: 2011
Policy Statement:
The District of Maple Ridge is committed to preparing area plans in Maple Ridge. Recognizing that
there is a likelihood that the number of requests for area plans may exceed staffing and budgetary
resources, the following policy has been created to assist Council in its selection:
1. The decision to undertake an area plan is at Council’s discretion.
2. Area Planning priority will be given to an area that exhibits some or all of the following
criteria:
i. that is in transition; experiencing increases in development applications that are
inconsistent with the Official Community Plan; or is impacted by policy changes,
demographic changes, or significant transportation/infrastructure improvements to
the area;
ii. that does not have an existing Area Plan;
iii. where the area plan is intended to further the goals and objectives identified within
the Official Community Plan, or is identified as a future work item in the Official
Community Plan;
iv. with changing student enrolment in the School District catchment area;
v. where the project is consistent with the Corporate Strategic Plan and Council adopted
Business Plans.
3. Requests for area planning are to be considered as a package during Business Planning.
Requests received outside of the business planning cycle, and/or during an active area
planning process will be considered premature, and will be held until the appropriate
Business Planning cycle. All requests will be accompanied by a staff report assessing the
areas compliance with the “Area Planning Assessment Policy”. The report will also identify
emerging issues in the community that may pertain to the request.
4. Once an area has been selected to undergo an Area Planning Process, a staff report
identifying the public consultation process; elements and issues to be addressed in the Plan;
geographic boundary of the planning area; and scale of detail to be incorporated in the Land
Use schedule will be prepared for Council’s endorsement.
5. The District will typically undertake one area planning process at a time, and an area
planning process should not be undertaken during an Official Community Plan review.
Page 2 of 2 Policy 6.30
Purpose:
To provide a framework to assist Council in the selection of an area(s) for future area planning.
Definitions:
Area Planning - is defined in the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan as “an Official Community
Plan that applies to a local planning area”. Refer to Chapter 10.1 of the Official Community Plan.
Planning Area – refers to the geographic area being requested, and/or considered for an area
planning process.
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
Responsibility
Albion Flats Hammond Albion Industrial
Area
2.i In Transition ü ü X
2.i OCP amendments ü ü X
2.i Demographic changes X ü X
2.i Infrastructure
improvements X ü X
2.ii No existing Area Plan ü ü ü
2.iii To further OCP Goals ü ü ü
2.iii Future OCP work item ü ü X 1
2.iv Changing student
enrolment X ü X
2.v Corporate Strategic
Plan alignment ü ü ü
1 This may change as a result of the Commercial Industrial Study
Policy Criteria
Appendix B: Area Planning Assessment Matrix
City of PittMeadowsDistrict ofLangleyDistrict of MissionFRASER R.Fraser RiverFraser RiverFraser RiverA louetteRiverWhonnockCrNorthAlouetteRiverNorthAlouetteRiverAlouetteRiverAlou e t t e R iv e rKanakaCreekKanakaCreekWhonnockLakeWhonnockCrCity of Pitt MeadowsDistrict of Maple RidgeDistrict of Maple RidgeDistrict of Mission232 ST128 AVE104 AVE248 STEARSWAYLOUGHEED HWY112 AVEDEWDNEY TRUNK RDDEWDNEY TRUNK RDLOUGHEED HWY284 STGOLDEN228 ST232 ST102 AVE256 ST264 ST264 ST123 AVE210 ST128 AVE224 ST144 AVE224 ST240 STFERN CRES104 AVE272 ST280 STGOLDEN E
A
R
S
W
A
Y203 ST 207 ST LAITY STLOUGHEED HWY100 AVE124 AVE216 ST132 AVE240 ST248 ST256 ST112 AVE132 AVEHANEY BYPASS232 ST272 STDATE: Nov 1, 2012 FILE: Areas.mxd BY: DTThe Corporation of the District of Maple Ridgemakes no guarantee regarding the accuracyor present status of the information shown onthis map.CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGEPLANNING DEPARTMENT´HammondSilverValleyTown CentreAlbionFlatsAlbionExisting & Potential Area PlansAlbionIndustrial AreaProcess UnderwayExisting Area PlansAppendix C
Page 1 of 2
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: November 5, 2012
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6929-2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6929-2012 (attached as
Appendix I) has been prepared to amend and update the current bylaw. The new bylaw establishes a
comprehensive and updated version which includes recent bylaw amendments and new bylaws that
have been passed since the previous MTI Bylaw was adopted. The amendment also updates those
individuals who are designated to enforce the specific bylaws. Fine amounts have remained the
same for several years and should be increased as this form of enforcement is only used when all
other avenues of achieving compliance have been exhausted.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No.6929-2012 be referred to a
regular Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The most recent amendment to the MTI Bylaw was passed in 2008. Since that time, Council
has adopted several new bylaws and amended others. The MTI Bylaw needs to be amended
to reflect these changes so that tickets that are issued will include the correct wording and
refer to the applicable sections.
The amounts of the fines have remained the same for several years and don’t address the
serious nature of the offences therefore some of the amounts need to be increased. The
future addition of the Bylaw Adjudication System will provide an intermediate form of
penalties for bylaw violations. Municipal Tickets will only be written if all other attempts to
achieve voluntary compliance have been exhausted and consequently the fine amounts
should be indicative of this.
b) Desired Outcome(s):
By amending the MTI Bylaw, the District will be able to monitor and enforce all of the current
Bylaws of the District. With the increased fine structure, violations of these bylaws will be
treated more seriously and will prove to be a deterrent for further infractions. The amount of
the fines will also encourage more expeditious compliance.
Page 2 of 2
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed amendment to MTI Bylaw will ensure that this bylaw and the other bylaws of the
District of Maple Ridge are coordinated. The wording of this bylaw must match up with the other
bylaws in order to be enforceable. Bylaw Staff and other individuals such as the Fire Officers and
RCMP need to be given effective tools to implement the adherence to all the District of Maple
Ridge’s bylaws.
“Original signed by R. MacNair”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: R. MacNair
Acting Manager, Bylaw and Licencing Services
“Original signed by Jaci Diachuk on behalf of E.S. (Liz) Holitzki”
__________________________________________
Approved by: E.S. (Liz) Holitzki
Director: Licences, Permits and Bylaws
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
General Manager: Public Works and Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
__________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Office
RM/
Appendix I - Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6929 -2012
APPENDIX I
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
Bylaw No. 6929-2012
A Bylaw to further amend Maple Ridge Ticket information System Utilization Bylaw No. 4432-1990
__________________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to further amend Maple Ridge Ticket information System Utilization
Bylaw No. 4432-1990;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1. This bylaw shall be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Ticket Information System Utilization
Amending Bylaw No.6929-2012”.
2. Maple Ridge Ticket Information System Utilization Bylaw No. 4432-1990 is further amended by:
(a) Deleting Schedules 1 - 27 in their entirety and replacing them with Maple Ridge Ticket
Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6929-2012 Schedule 1 and 2,
attached hereto.
READ a first time the day of 2012
READ a second time the day of 2012
READ a third time the day of 2012
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED the day of 2012
PRESIDING MEMBER
CORPORATE OFFICER
Page 1 of 42
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY and is a
consolidation of the following:
1. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Bylaw No. 4432-1990
2. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 4510-1991
3. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 4615-1991
4. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 4826-1993
5. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 4830-1993
6. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 4869-1993
7. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 4957-1993
8. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5014-1994
9. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5085-1994
10. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5091-1994
11. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5116-1994
12. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5123-1994
13. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5289-1995
14. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5347-1995
15. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5423-1996
16. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5421-1996
17. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5570-1997
18. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5780-1999
19. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5785-1999
20. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5921-2000
21. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 5948-2001
22. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6048-2002
23. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6061-2002
24. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6070-2002
25. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6164-2003
26. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6234-2004
27. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6286-2004
28. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6311-2005
29. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6340-2005
30. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6358-2005
31. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6411-2006
32. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6441-2006
33. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6414-2006
34. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6551-2008
35. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6583-2008
36. M.R. Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6620-2008
Individual copies of any of the above bylaws can be obtained by contacting the Clerk's Department
Page 2 of 42
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 4432-1990
Maple Ridge Ticket
Information System Utilization Bylaw
____________________________________________________________________________
6234-2004
6048-2002
WHEREAS, Section 264 (1) of the Community Charter empowers the Corporation to, by
bylaw, designate those bylaws for which Municipal ticket information may be used as
means of bylaw enforcement;
6234-2004
6048-2002
AND WHEREAS, Section 264 (1) of the Community Charter empowers the Council to, by
bylaw, authorize the use of any word or expression on a Municipal ticket information to
designate an offence against a bylaw;
6234-2004
6048-2002
AND WHEREAS, Section 265 (1) of the Community Charter empowers the Council to, by
bylaw, set fine amounts in consultation with the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court;
AND WHEREAS, the Council deems it expedient to authorize the use of Municipal ticket
information for the enforcement of certain bylaws, to authorize the use of certain words or
expressions to designate certain bylaw offences and to set certain fine amounts;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open
meeting assembled enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as Maple Ridge Ticket Information System Utilization Bylaw No.
4432-1990.
6234-2004
6048-2002
2. The bylaw listed in column 1 of Schedule 1 to this bylaw, as amended from time to time,
may be enforced by means of a ticket in the form prescribed for the purpose of Section
264 (1) of the Community Charter.
6234-2004
6048-2002
3. The persons appointed to the job positions or titles listed in Column 2 of Schedule 1 to
this bylaw are designated as Bylaw Enforcement Officers pursuant to Section 264 (1) of
Page 3 of 42
the Community Charter for the purpose of enforcing the bylaws listed in Column 1 of
Schedule 1 opposite the respective job positions.
6441-2006
6048-2002
4. The words or expressions set forth in Column 1 of Schedules 2 through 25 to this bylaw
designate the offence committed under the bylaw section number appearing in column
2 opposite the respective words or expressions.
6441-2006
6234-2004
6048-2002
5. The amounts appearing in Column 3 of Schedules 2 through 25 to this bylaw are the
fines set pursuant to Section 265 of the Community Charter for the corresponding
offences designated in Column 1.
6. This bylaw shall take effect upon the date of its adoption.
6061-2002
7. If any portion of this Bylaw is held invalid by a Court of competent jurisdi ction, then that
invalid portion shall be severed and the remainder of this Bylaw shall be deemed to
have been adopted without the severed portion.
6441-2006
8. The amounts appearing in Column 4 of Schedule 5 to this bylaw are the discounted
fines pursuant to Section 265 of the Community Charter for the corresponding fines set
in Column 3, provided that Municipal Ticket Information is paid within seven (7)
calendar days upon receipt.
READ a first time this 27th day of August, 1990
READ a second time this 27th day of August, 1990
READ a third time this 29th day of October, 1991
APPROVED by the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court this day of 1990.
RECONSIDERED finally passed and adopted this 21st day of January, 1991.
Belle Morse J.R. McBride
__________________________ _________________________
MAYOR CLERK
Page 4 of 42
SCHEDULE 1
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Designated Bylaws
Designated Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Animal Control and Licencing
Bylaw No. 6908-2012
Animal Control Officer
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permit & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Manager Inspection Services
R.C.M.P.
Building Bylaw No. 6825-2012 Building Inspector
Building Official
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Electrical Inspector
Electrical Inspector/Safety Officer
Fire Department Officer
Gas/Plumbing Inspector
Manager Inspection Services
Trades Inspector
Business Licencing and Regulation
Bylaw No. 6815-2011
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Licence Inspector
Manager Inspection Services
R.C.M.P.
Page 5 of 42
Cat Spay/Neuter
Bylaw No. 5756-1999
Animal Control Officer
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Fire Prevention Bylaw No. 4111-1988 Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Fireworks Bylaw No. 6279-2004 Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
R.C.M.P.
Garbage Disposal Regulation
Bylaw No. 422-1989
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Roads & Equipment Superintendent
Works Inspector
Grow Operation, Health Nuisance and
Safety Bylaw No. 6274-2004
Building Inspector
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Electrical Inspector
Electrical Inspector/Safety Officer
Fire Department Officer
Gas/Plumbing Inspector
Manager Inspection Services
R.C.M.P.
Trades Inspector
Highway & Traffic
Bylaw No. 6704-2009
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Page 6 of 42
Fire Department Officer
Municipal Engineer
Parking Enforcement Officer
R.C.M.P.
Roads & Equipment Superintendent
Sewer Superintendent
Sewer Foreman
Traffic Technician
Waterworks Superintendent
Kennel Bylaw No. 6036-2002 Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Fire Department Officer
Manager Inspection Services
Littering Prohibition
Bylaw No. 5115-1994
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
R.C.M.P.
Noise Control Bylaw No. 5122-1994 Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits and Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
R.C.M.P.
Noxious Weed & Other Growth Control
Bylaw No. 2384-1976
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Environmental Health Officer
Environmental Planner
Page 7 of 42
Environmental Technician
Fire Department Officer
Manager Environmental Services
Outdoor Burning Regulation
Bylaw No. 5535-1997
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Parks Regulations
Bylaw No. 3414-1984
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Director Parks and Facilities
Director of Recreation
Fire Department Officer
Manager Parks/Open Spaces
Parks Foreman
Recreation Manager
Recreation Manager/Social Planning
R.C.M.P.
Youth Services Coordinator
Youth Services Programmer
Youth Program Assistant
Pesticide Use Control
Bylaw No. 6413-2006
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Parks and Facilities
Environmental Planner
Environmental Technician
Fire Department Officer
Manager, Parks and Open Space
Parks Operations Supervisor(s)
Page 8 of 42
Trades II Gardener
Rental Premises Standards of
Maintenance Bylaw No. 6550-2008
Building Official
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director of Licenses, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Manager Inspection Services
Safety Officer
Trades Inspector
Scrap Metal Bylaw No. 6772-2010 Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Manager Inspection Services
R.C.M.P.
Sign Bylaw No. 4653-1992 Building Inspector
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Electrical Inspector
Electrical Inspector/Safety Officer
Fire Department Officer
Gas/Plumbing Inspector
Manager Inspection Services
Trades Inspector
Smoking Regulation
Bylaw No. 5495-1997
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Soil Deposit Regulation
Bylaw No. 5763-1999
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Page 9 of 42
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Environmental Planner
Environmental Technician
Fire Department Officer
Manager of Development &
Environmental Services
Manager, Utility Engineering
Works Inspector
Soil Removal Bylaw No. 6398-2006 Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Environmental Planner
Environmental Technician
Manager of Development &
Environmental Services
Manager, Utility Engineering
Works Inspector
Solid Waste & Recycling
Bylaw No. 6800-2011
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Taxi Bylaw No. 6409-2006
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
R.C.M.P.
Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Environmental Planner
Environmental Technician
Fire Department Officer
Page 10 of 42
Manager of Development &
Environmental Services
Manager of Parks and Open Space
Regulation of Untidy & Unsightly
Premises Bylaw No. 6533-2007
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Water Shortage Response Plan
Bylaw No. 6307-2005
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Waterworks Foreman
Works Inspector
Waterworks Superintendent
Watercourse Protection
Bylaw No. 6410-2006
Building Inspector
Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Electrical Inspector
Electrical Inspector/Safety Officer
Environmental Planner
Environmental Technician
Fire Department Officer
Gas/Plumbing Inspector
Manager of Development &
Environmental Services
Manager Inspection Services
Municipal Engineer
Trades Inspector
Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 Bylaw Enforcement Officer
Page 11 of 42
Director, Licences, Permits & Bylaws
Fire Department Officer
Manager Inspection Services
Parking Enforcement Officer
Page 12 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Animal Control Bylaw No.6908-2012 Section Fine
Refuse to comply with Animal Control Officer 5.1.3(c) $200.00
Interfere with Animal Control Officer 5.1.3(d) $200.00
More than 3 dogs 6.1.1 $100.00
Fail to obtain licence 6.2.1 $100.00
Fail to display licence 6.2.7 $50.00
Animal at-large 7.1.1 $100.00
Fail to remove excrement 7.2.1 $100.00
Fail to provide food and water 7.3.2(a) $200.00
Fail to provide clean food and water receptacles 7.3.2(b) $100.00
Fail to sufficiently exercise 7.3.2(c) $100.00
Fail to provide necessary veterinary care 7.3.2(d) $500.00
Fail to provide appropriate shelter 7.3.3(a) $250.00
Fail to allow sufficient space 7.3.3(b) $250.00
Fail to provide protection from sun 7.3.3(c) $250.00
Fail to keep shelter clean 7.3.4 $250.00
Cause animal to be tied to choke collar 7.3.5 $100.00
Fail to provide fresh air ventilation 7.4.1(a) $100.00
Enclosed space exceeds 30 C. 7.4.1(b) $250.00
Fail to confine in a pen outside the vehicle 7.4.2 $250.00
Fail to confine an aggressive dog indoors 7.7.1(a) $250.00
Enclosure contrary to bylaw 7.7.1(c) $100.00
Leash more that 1.5 m. 7.7.1(d) $100.00
Fail to muzzle an aggressive dog 7.7.2(a) $200.00
Fail to tattoo aggressive dog 7.7.2(b) $200.00
Fail to post warning signs 7.7.2(c) $200.00
Fail to notify when aggressive dog at large 7.7.2(f) $200.00
Fail to secure area for guard dog 7.8.1 $100.00
Guard dog sign not visible 7.8.2(a) $200.00
Guard dog sign improperly posted 7.8.2(b) $200.00
Fail to register guard dog address 7.8.3(a) $200.00
Fail to register guard dog hours 7.8.3(b) $200.00
Fail to register guard do licence number 7.8.3(c) $200.00
Fail to register owner 7.8.3(d) $200.00
Fail to provide change of information 7.8.4 $500.00
Sell prohibited animal 9.1.1(a) $500.00
Breed wolf cross 9.1.1(b) $500.00
More than six cats 10.1.1 $100.00
Livestock on Highway 11.1.2(a) $100.00
Livestock in Public Place 11.1.2(b) $100.00
Boarding dogs 12.1 $100.00
Fail to document information 13.1.1(a) $500.00
Fail to provide sufficient care 13.1.1(e) $500.00
Fail to keep clean cage 13.1.2(b) $500.00
Page 13 of 42
Fail to segregate ill animal 13.2.1 $500.00
Fail to promptly treat animal 13.3.1(b) $500.00
Fail to keep register 13.4.1(a) $500.00
Fail to post notice 13.6.1(a) $500.00
Sell prohibited animal 13.7.1(c)i $500.00
Sell unaltered animal 13.7.1(c)v $500.00
Page 14 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Building Bylaw No.6825-2012 Section Fine
Construction without permit 6.1 $250.00
Demolish structure without permit 6.2 $250.00
Move structure without permit 6.3 $250.00
Occupy structure without permit 6.4 $250.00
Tamper with posted notice 6.5 $250.00
Work contrary to approved plans 6.6 $250.00
Obstruct entry of a Building Official 6.7 $500.00
Fail to fill in excavation within 60 days 17.5 $500.00
Non-compliance with safety standards 20.1 $500.00
Fail to keep plans on property 20.3.1 $200.00
Fail to post civic address 20.3.2 $200.00
Fail to obtain building inspection 22.5 $200.00
Fail to obtain electrical inspection 22.8 $200.00
Fail to obtain plumbing inspection 22.9 $250.00
Failure to obtain a gas inspection 22.10 $500.00
Construct a pool without a permit 28.1 $500.00
Fail to enclose pool 28.3 $500.00
Plumbing system altered 29.1 $200.00
Plumbing located outside lot 29.2 $250.00
Plumbing storm drain installed without permission 29.3 $200.00
Plumbing installed without permit 29.4 $200.00
Fail to comply with Stop Work notice 32.3 $500.00
Fail to comply with Do Not Occupy notice 32.5 $500.00
Page 15 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 Section Fine
No business licence 6.1.1(a) $200.00
Failure to get approval 6.2.3 $200.00
Fail to renew licence 6.6.1 $200.00
Fail to post licence 6.8.1 $200.00
Fail to permit inspection of premises 6.9.1(a) $300.00
Permit person under 19 years 7.1.1 $500.00
Display depiction of a sexual act 7.1.2 $500.00
Open business between 12 midnight and 7 am 7.3.1(g) $500.00
Fail to keep premises in clean condition 7.4.3 $200.00
Fail to keep record 7.4.5(c) $200.00
Fail to produce register 7.4.5(d) $200.00
Permit entry to be erased 7.4.5(g) $500.00
Fail to provide identification 7.6.2(a) $500.00
Employ person under 19 years 7.6.3(a) $500.00
Open business between 12 midnight and 8 am 7.6.3(b) $500.00
Employ person under 19 years 7.7.1(a) $500.00
Permit person under 19 years 7.7.1(b) $500.00
Fail to post sign 7.8.1 $200.00
Fail to comply with requirements 7.9.3 $200.00
More than 20 dogs 7.9.4(a)(i) $300.00
Operate outside permitted hours 7.9.4(a)(ii) $300.00
Discharge odorous matter 7.9.4(a)(iii) $500.00
Fail to shut off sound 7.18.3(b) $500.00
Failure to produce licence 7.20.1(b) $300.00
Fail to display photo identification 7.20.1(c) $500.00
Peddle between 6 pm and 9 am 7.20.1(d) $500.00
Failure to maintain report 7.22.6(a) $500.00
Dispose of second hand article prior to 30 days after receipt 7.22.10(a) $500.00
Buy second hand article from person under 18 years 7.22.13(d) $500.00
Buy second hand article between 6 pm and 6 am 7.22.14 $300.00
Offer services of a social escort under the age of 19 years 7.23.1(b) $500.00
Permit tobacco products to be visible 7.26.1(b) $300.00
Sell tobacco to person under 19 years 7.26.1(c) $500.00
Possess shark fins 7.27.1(a) $500.00
Page 16 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Cat Spay/Neuter Bylaw No. 5756 – 1999 Section Fine
Identification. not worn 3 $20.00
Unsterilized Cat 11 $20.00
Unsterilized Cat at Large 12 $30.00
Page 17 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Fire Prevention Bylaw No. 4111-1988 Section Fine
Fail to Obey Order II11 $500.00
Fail to Flush Hydrant IX64(a) $500.00
Fail to Service Hydrant IX64(b) $500.00
Hydrant Obstructed IX64(c) $500.00
Page 18 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Fireworks Bylaw No. 6279-2004 Section Fine
Sell fireworks II(2) $1000.00
Discharge fireworks without permit II(3) $500.00
Fail to surrender fireworks II(4) $500.00
Unlawful storage III(18) $500.00
Improper storage III(20) $500.00
Smoke in storage area III(21) $500.00
Sell to minor IV(22) $500.00
Minor possessing fireworks IV(23) $500.00
Fireworks display without permit V(24) $500.00
Discharge fireworks contrary to distance requirements V(25) $500.00
Audience closer than 45 m. V(26) $500.00
Improper fireworks projection V(27) $500.00
Fail to safely dispose of fireworks V(29) $500.00
Wind velocity greater than 10km/hr. V(30) $500.00
Person under 21 years in charge of display V(32) $500.00
Less than two operators V(33) $500.00
Insufficient fire extinguishers V(34) $500.00
Fail to hold valid liability insurance V(35) $500.00
Page 19 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Grow Operation, Health, Nuisance and Safety
Bylaw No. 6274-2004
Section Fine
Disconnect meter 3 $50.00
Divert exhaust vents 4 $500.00
Obstruct exit 5 $1000.00
Alter a structure 6 $250.00
No permit 7(e) $250.00
Obstruct building official 9(a) $500.00
Remove notice 9(b) $500.00
Cause nuisance 10(a) $500.00
Permit unsightly matter to accumulate 10(b) $250.00
Allow growth of mould 11 1000.00
Fail to undertake action directed by Fire Chief 12 $500.00
Refuse entry 13 $500.00
Fail to inspect 14 $500.00
Fail to notify District 15(a) $500.00
Fail to remediate 16 $500.00
Fail to notify prospective occupants 19 $500.00
Re-occupy without permit 20(a) $500.00
Re-occupy prior to paying fees 20(c) $500.00
Interfere with inspection 25 $1000.00
Page 20 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Highway & Traffic Bylaw No. 6704 - 2009 Section Fine
Pay Within 7 Calendar Days
Upon Receipt of Municipal
Ticket Information
Drive on trail 7.0 $100.00 $100.00
Obstruct vehicles or pedestrians 10.1 $75.00 $50.00
Cross highway at a location other
than crosswalk
10.2 $50.00 $20.00
Ride without due care & attention 11.1 $50.00 $20.00
Park on sidewalk 12.1 (a) $50.00 $20.00
Park within 3m of driveway 12.1 (b) $50.00 $20.00
Park within 6m of intersection 12.1 (c) $50.00 $50.00
Park within 5 m of fire hydrant 12.1 (d) $75.00 $75.00
Park within 6m of crosswalk 12.1 (e) $50.00 $20.00
Park within 6m of stop sign 12.1 (f) $50.00 $50.00
Park vehicle for sale on highway 12.1 (i) (i) $50.00 $20.00
Repair vehicle on a highway 12.1 (i)
(ii)
$50.00 $20.00
Display signs on a highway 12.1 (i)
(iii)
$50.00 $20.00
Selling articles on highway 12.1 (i)
(iv)
$50.00 $20.00
Obstruct traffic 12.1 (j) $75.00 $50.00
Double park 12.1 (k) $50.00 $50.00
Parked in bus zone 12.1 (n) $50.00 $20.00
Parked on path 12.1 (o) $50.00 $20.00
Page 21 of 42
Obstruct lane 12.1 (p) $50.00 $20.00
Nose in position in cul-de-sac 12.1 (q) $50.00 $20.00
Park on wrong side 12.1 (r) $50.00 $20.00
Park over 30cm from curb 12.1 (s) $50.00 $20.00
Park contrary to painted lines on
highway
12.1 (t) $50.00 $20.00
Park contrary to prohibition 12.1 (u) $50.00 $50.00
Overtime parking 12.1 (v) $50.00 $20.00
Overtime parking/Stall # not
registered
12.1 (w) $50.00 $20.00
Park contrary to restriction 12.1 (x) $50.00 $20.00
Park over 48 hours 12.1 (z) $50.00 $20.00
Park over length vehicle 12.1 (aa) $50.00 $50.00
Park vehicle over 5500 kgs gvw 12.1 (bb) $100.00 $100.00
Park in Disabled zone 12.1 (cc) $75.00 $50.00
Park in commercial loading zone 12.1 (dd) $75.00 $50.00
Park in passenger loading zone 12.1 (ee) $50.00 $20.00
Park upon roadway 12.1 (ff) $50.00 $50.00
Without proper or valid insurance 12.1 (ii) $50.00 $50.00
Without proper and valid number
plates
12.1 (jj) $50.00 $50.00
Park adjacent to yellow curb 12.1 (kk) $50.00 $50.00
Unattached trailer 14.0 $50.00 $50.00
Occupy motor vehicle 24.0 $100.00 $100.00
Fail to remove snow and other
debris from sidewalk
25.0 $100.00 $100.00
Obstruct intersection 26.0 $50.00 $50.00
Fail to trim vegetation 27.0 $50.00 $100.00
Page 22 of 42
Encroachment 28.1 $50.00 $50.00
Load not securely covered 29.1 (a) $100.00 $100.00
Load not secured 29.1 (b) $100.00 $100.00
Place merchandise on highway 31.1 (a) $100.00 $100.00
Deposit debris on highway 31.1 (b) $250.00 $250.00
Place structure on a highway 31.1 (g) $100.00 $100.00
Damage boulevard 31.1 (l) $100.00 $100.00
Place container on highway 31.1 (r) $100.00 $100.00
Engage in business on highway 31.1 (s) $50.00 $50.00
Solicit on highway 42.1 (a) $50.00 $50.00
Install sign on highway 42.1 (c) $50.00 $50.00
Commercial vehicle exceeds
licensed gross vehicle weight
(GVW) by:
46.1 (a)
$250.00 $250.00
Axle exceeds permitted weight 46.1 (b) $250.00 $250.00
Dimensions of commercial vehicle
do not conform to the regulations
with load included
46.1 (c)(i) $100.00 $100.00
Non conforming dimensions 46.1
(c)(ii)
$100.00 $100.00
Fail to comply with order 48.2 $100.00 $100.00
Fail to comply with permit
conditions
49.0 $100.00 $100.00
Fail to obey traffic controls and
signs
50.0 $100.00 $100.00
Page 23 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Kennel Bylaw No. 6036-2002 Section Fine
Kennel contrary to zone 1 $250.00
No permission from Agricultural Land Commission 2 $250.00
More than 3 dogs 4 $100.00
Fail to provide water and/or food 5(a) $100.00
Fail to provide clean receptacles 5(b) $100.00
Fail to provide exercise 5(c) $100.00
Fail to provide veterinary care 5(d) $500.00
Fail to provide comfort 5(e) $100.00
Unclean or unsanitary condition 5(f) $100.00
Fail to keep kennel clean 5(g) $100.00
Fail to contain animal between 9 pm and 7 am 5(h) $100.00
Fail to maintain air exchange unit 5(i) $250.00
Fail to properly construct enclosure 5(j) $250.00
Dispose of dog excrement contrary to Waste Management
Act
6 $100.00
Fail to keep building or runs in good repair 8 $100.00
Kennel not under supervision of responsible adult 9 $100.00
Create a nuisance to nearby residents 10 $100.00
Operate without permits 13 $250.00
Fail to provide isolation pen 21 $100.00
Improper flooring 23 $250.00
Improper wall and ceiling insulation 26 $250.00
Breeding or boarding contrary to Kennel Licence 29(e) $250.00
Refuse inspection 33 $250.00
Page 24 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Littering Prohibition Bylaw No. 5115-1994 Section Fine
Dumping Rubbish 3 $500.00
Page 25 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Noise Control Bylaw No. 5122-1994 Section Fine
Noise Which Disturbs 3 $300.00
Allow Noise Which Disturbs 4 $300.00
Animal Noise 5 $300.00
Construction contrary to Time Restriction 6 $400.00
Engine Noise 8 $400.00
Page 26 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Noxious Weed & Other Growth Control
Bylaw No. 2384 – 1976
Section Fine
Fail to cut overgrowth 4 $300.00
Page 27 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Outdoor Burning Regulation Bylaw No. 5535 – 1997 Section Fine
Outdoor fire 5(a) $500.00
Burn noxious material 5(b) $500.00
Burn material brought from another location 5(c) $500.00
No permit 5(d) $1000.00
Unattended Agricultural Fire 10(c) $1000.00
Unattended Backyard Fire 14(b) $1000.00
Unattended Recreational Fire 16(b) $1000.00
Page 28 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Parks Regulation Bylaw No. 3414-1984 Section Fine
Littering 1(a) $500.00
Defacing growth 1(c) $500.00
Defacing property 1(d) $500.00
Dog not on leash 1(h) $150.00
Riding a horse in a prohibited area 1(h) $200.00
Using a park contrary to posted signs 1(g) $150.00
Urinate or defecate except in toilet facility 1(l) $200.00
Possess drug paraphernalia 1(m) $200.00
Disorderly or offensive conduct 3 $500.00
Person not clothed in park 3(A)(i) $500.00
Parking where not permitted 8 $200.00
In park when closed 10(1) $400.00
Damage boulevard 18 $500.00
Drive on boulevard 19 $400.00
Page 29 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Pesticide Use Control Bylaw No. 6413 – 2006 Section Fine
No permit 3 $250.00
Fail to post visible signage 5(c) $250.00
Fail to post signs 24 hours prior to pesticide use 5(d) $250.00
Apply pesticide within 2 m of property 6(a) $500.00
Apply pesticide within 5 m of park 6(b) $500.00
Apply pesticide within 3 m from well 6(c) $500.00
Apply pesticide within 30 m of open water 6(d) $500.00
Apply pesticide when wind exceeds 8 km per hour 6(e) $500.00
Apply pesticide when temperature exceeds 27 degrees C. 6(g) $500.00
Apply pesticide on blooming trees 6(h) $500.00
Page 30 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Rental Premises Standards of Maintenance
Bylaw No. 6550-2008
Section Fine
Fail to comply with notice 6 $250.00
Fail to maintain rental premises 8 $250.00
Disconnect service or utility 26(1) $500.00
Fail to pay rates for service 26(2) $500.00
Page 31 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Scrap Metal Bylaw No. 6772-2010 Section Fine
Fail to maintain Goods Information Register 3 $1000.00
Fail to log transaction 4 $500.00
Fail to transmit daily Register 5(c) $250.00
Fail to maintain legible Register 6(a) $500.00
Fail to maintain Seller Information Register 7 $1000.00
Omit entry 8 $1000.00
Illegible entry 10 $250.00
Erase entry 11(a) $1000.00
Remove page 11(b) $1000.00
Fail to produce Register 12 $1000.00
Fail to keep Registers for required time period 13 $1000.00
Fail to display business name 15 $250.00
Conduct business outside of restricted hours 16(b) $500.00
Conduct business with person under 19 years 16(d) $1000.00
Fail to tag item 17(a) $1000.00
Fail to separate items 17(b) $1000.00
Page 32 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Sign Bylaw No. 4653-1992 Section Fine
Sign without permit 4.5(a) $300.00
Fail to comply with order 4.5(b) $500.00
Page 33 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Smoking Regulation Bylaw No. 5495-1997 Section Fine
Smoke in common public area 3(a) $100.00
Smoke in vehicle for hire 3(b) $100.00
Smoke in public transportation facility or vehicle 3(c) $100.00
Smoke in commercial establishment 3(d) $150.00
Smoke in place of employment 3(e) $100.00
Smoke in place of public assembly 3(f) $150..00
Smoke in mall 3(g) $200.00
Smoke in non-smoking hotel or motel room 3(h) $200.00
Smoke in District building 3(i) $200.00
Smoke in health care facility 3(j) $300.00
Smoke in service line 3(k) $100.00
Smoke at service counter 3(l) $100.00
Permit smoking 4 $200.00
Fail to post signs 14 $200.00
Page 34 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. 5763-1999 Section Fine
Cause or permit the placement of fill without permit 4.1 $1000.00
Cause or permit fill placement without permit from Waste
Management Act
4.2 $1000.00
Place fill in Agricultural Land Reserve 4.3 $1000.00
Fail to remove fill 4.4 $1000.00
Fill interfering with above or below ground drainage pattern 10.2 $1000.00
Fill not graded to assure positive gravity drainage 10.3 $1000.00
Fill deposited over right of way or easement 10.4 $1000.00
Fill placed in vicinity of utilities or services 10.5 $1000.00
Fill placed over well or private sewage disposal system 10.6 $1000.00
Fail to remove dirt on road 10.8 $500.00
Cause obstruction to drainage facilities 10.9 $1000.00
Encroach or damage adjacent property 10.11 $500.00
Fill on Sunday or outside of restricted hours 10.12 $500.00
Page 35 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Soil Removal Bylaw No. 6398-2006 Section Fine
Remove soil without permit 4 $1000.00
Remove soil exceeding permitted amount 6 $1000.00
Remove soil on Sunday or statutory holidays 9 $500.00
Remove soil outside permitted hours 10 $500.00
Soil not confined to designated land 28 $1000.00
Soil removal encroaching on adjoining land 29 $1000.00
Machinery not kept within confines 30 $500.00
Noise exceeds 55 decibels 31 $500.00
Soil removal within 7.5 m of road allowance 34 $1000.00
Fail to repair damage 35 $1000.00
Page 36 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Solid Waste & Recycling Bylaw No. 6800-2011 Section Fine
Remove material from receptacle 6 $100.00
Place solid waste prior to 10 pm 11 $100.00
Remove material from property 12 $100.00
Fail to provide adequate storage 16 $100.00
Page 37 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Maple Ridge Taxi Bylaw No. 6409 – 2006 Section Fine
Fail to hold a valid chauffeur permit 6.1 $200.00
Fail to display photo identification 6.9 $200.00
Fail to ensure driver holds valid chauffeur permit 7.2.4 $300.00
Fail to forward list of complaints 7.2.7 $300.00
Operate a vehicle in excess of 7 years of age 8.1 $500.00
Fail to keep daily record of trips made 16.4 $300.00
Fail to keep copy of trip records 16.7 $500.00
Charge fares contrary to Passenger Transportation Act 18.1 $500.00
Operate vehicle without taximeter 19.1 $500.00
Fail to maintain taximeter 19.5.5 $500.00
Operate taxi contrary to notice by Inspector 20.1 $500.00
Page 38 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 Section Fine
Cut or remove tree without permit 5a $1000.00
Cause damage to tree 5b $500.00
Fail to comply with permit conditions 5c $500.00
Excessive suspended solids discharged into drainage
System
5d $1000.00
Fail to dispose of tree parts according to regulations 9a $500.00
Fail to keep Drainage System free 9b $500.00
Fail to stabilize bare soil 9c $500.00
Work outside of permitted hours 9d $200.00
Fail to comply with tree replacement requirement 10a $500.00
Page 39 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Regulation of Untidy & Unsightly Premises
Bylaw No. 6533-2007
Section Fine
Untidy/Unsightly Premises 3 $300.00
Graffiti 4 $300.00
Fail to maintain container in good repair 7(a) $300.00
Permit rubbish to overflow container 7(b) $300.00
Fail to keep containers closed 7(c) $500.00
Fail to lock container 7(d) $500.00
Fail to keep container area clean 7(e) $300.00
Overgrowth 8 $200.00
Page 40 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 6410-2006 Section Fine
Discharge of Prohibited Material 3 $1000.00
Obstruct Drainage System 4 $1000.00
Fail to comply with Schedule “B” 7 $500.00
Fail to implement ESC Plan 9 $500.00
Fail to carry out monitoring program 14 $200.00
Fail to comply with stop work notice 18 $500.00
Fail to post waterproof copy of ESC plan 19 $100.00
Page 41 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Water Shortage Response Plan Bylaw No. 6307-2005 Section Fine
Unauthorized Watering SCHEDULE 1 $1000.00
Contravening Stage 1 Restrictions PART 1
Unauthorized Watering SCHEDULE 1 $1000.00
Contravening Stage 2 Restrictions PART 2
Unauthorized Watering SCHEDULE 1 $1000.00
Contravening Stage 3 Restrictions PART 3
Unauthorized Watering SCHEDULE 1 $1000.00
Contravening Stage 4 Restrictions PART 4
Page 42 of 42
SCHEDULE 2
Bylaw No. 4432-1990
Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 Section Fine
Contrary to permitted use 306A(1) $500.00
Unlawful construction 306A(2) $500.00
Park prohibited vehicle 402(6)(a) $600.00
Excess unlicenced vehicles 402(7)(a)(i) $600.00
Wrecked vehicle 402(7)(a)(ii) $500.00
Unlawful secondary suite 402(8.)(i) $600.00
Barbed or razor wire 403(4)(e)(vi) $600.00
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: November 05, 2012
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Proposed Communications Tower Consultation Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Communication towers and antenna support structures are required for radio communication
services, and are controlled under the Federal Telecommunications Act as administered by Industry
Canada. There are many forms of towers and antenna support structures (Appendix 1), and it is fully
expected that many more will need to be built to support the demand for mobile communications.
Under the current regulatory regime, the District is constrained in its ability to influence matters of
Federal control.
However, Industry Canada does have a ‘default’ consultation process, in the absence of a Municipal
protocol, which provides some opportunity to influence the siting and design of communication
structures. This memo, in part, reviews the context and process that is the ‘default’ public
consultation protocol.
Staff at the District has been following the ‘default’ process, and has a good working relationship
with Industry Canada staff. The default process provides an opportunity for the District to influence
locational and design considerations, but only to a limited extent. It also provides limited opportunity
for the public to be consulted. However, the District does not have final approval authority.
This memo then provides an alternative, more involved, consultation and review process (Appendix
4). This alternative process would provide more detailed requirements to proponents, and identifies
locational, siting, and design characteristics that the District would like to see. It also supports a
more consultative process to garner public feedback on proposals.
This memo identifies two choices for Council:
1. Adopt the ‘default’ consultation process of Industry Canada in the review of
telecommunication tower proposals; or
2. Adopt our own, more rigorous, consultation process.
However, adopting our own process may raise the expectation that the District has greater influence
over siting and aesthetic considerations than we actually do. This more involved process will also
add to costs and involve more staff time.
It should be noted that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) is putting together a model
consultation protocol for communication tower siting. The FCM is working with representative
Municipalities and the wireless industry to develop an appropriate set of rules that should have wide
2
support. Should Council consider staying with the default consultation protocol, the release of the
FCM initiative in the spring of 2013 should provide another opportunity to consider an appropriate
process.
As a companion strategy, for either option, the District should promote the use of District
infrastructure for colocation purposes for radio equipment and by this means offset the construction
of some towers, and perhaps raise a secondary revenue source. There is work being done in this
area, particularly at the City of Vancouver, and staff will be reporting back at a later date about co-
location options and the possibility of developing a policy. However, in the interim, the District should
consider reviewing options for locating a second District communications tower similar to the Grant
Hill installation.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council provide direction on the preferred consultation process the District should employ in
influencing the locational and design decisions respecting communication towers; and
That Council provides direction on whether a second District telecommunications tower is desirable.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The demand for wireless services has increased significantly in recent times due to the proliferation
of cellular phones and the application of wireless technologies to computing. Many new services
have been taking advantage of the inexpensive networking that wireless technologies provide 1.
As a consequence of many more devices in the field, and more companies offering competing
handsets and services, and the burgeoning demand for data services, radio technology has had to
advance at a rapid pace to keep up with demand. Because of these trends, many more
communication towers need to be built. The biggest impact on demand for wireless services has
been, and will continue to be, from the mobile phone industry due to the demand for mobile
computing and the so-called ‘smart phone’ phenomena.
More towers and antenna support structures will be required to improve coverage, to service
concentrations of demand, to support different technologies, and to provide phone company
controlled infrastructure (ie - not shared).
Regulatory Environment:
Radio communication, and associated support structures, is a field exclusively within Federal
authority under the Radio communication Act and is managed by Industry Canada on behalf of the
Minister of Transportation. As a consequence, there is little local ability to regulate this type of land
use. This has proven controversial to many communities across the country.2
1 The District uses radio services to connect up outlying buildings like, Fire Hall #3 or the South Bonson Centre to District Hall, and to
interconnect infrastructure facilities such as reservoirs and pump stations. It is also used to provide data services within District Hall
meeting rooms for example.
2 The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (F.C.M.) is developing a draft consultation protocol with the wireless industry to afford the
chance for Municipalities to influence the design and location of structures. It is anticipated the draft protocol will be ready in the spring of
2013.
3
Industry Canada believes towers and antenna systems should be deployed in a manner that
considers local surroundings and has consultation procedures defined 3. Unfortunately, those
considerations do not extend to prohibiting the construction of a tower.
Industry Canada requires that proponents of new towers consult with the local land use authority (ie
– the District) and the public unless the tower or antenna installation is exempt. Industry Canada
client circular CPC-2-0-03 2008 (Radio communication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems), Section
6, identifies exclusions to their default consultation requirement:
- antenna structures less than 15m in height;
- extensions to towers that are less than 25% of the original height;
- maintenance of an existing tower;
- an installation of temporary duration (ie – less than 3 months).
The same procedures bulletin identifies the default consultation process in Section 4.1 for the local
land use authority, and Section 4.2 identifies the default consultation process for the public.
Industry Canada Default Consultation Processes:
Generally, the default Industry Canada consultation for the land use authority follows this process:
- The proponent needs to discuss the antenna siting proposal with District staff;
- The discussion involves a review of siting options;
- Discussion around local processes is required (eg – consultation, building permit, etc.);
- Addressing relevant concerns around the proposal;
- Obtaining concurrence, or not, in writing from the District.
Where there are ‘legitimate’ specific concerns around a proposal 4, it is expected that the District
would discuss reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures with proponents. The experience to
date has generally been that Industry Canada staff has been responsive to District concerns, within
the realm of available authority and reasonable options available to address concerns.
Generally, the default Industry Canada public consultation follows this process:
- The proponent must provide notice to the land use authority and public;
- This ‘notice’ includes details around:
o the location, siting, design, and purpose of the structure,
o why the project cannot utilize any existing structures in the area,
o the status of the project with respect to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,
o an attestation on the protection of public health,
o an attestation that the structure or installation will meet good engineering practice,
o reference to local requirements (eg – consultation protocols),
o contact information, and
o closing date for written public comments;
- The notice is required to be provided to residents and businesses within a radius of 3 times
the tower height;
- If the tower is greater than 30m in height, a notice in the local newspaper is also required;
3 Industry Canada, Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, CPC-2-0-03, 2008. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-
gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html .
4 Aesthetics and impact on property values are not considered legitimate reasons to prohibit a tower.
4
- The proponent is required to engage and respond to ‘relevant’ public concerns, within a
certain time frame by any suitable means.
The proponent cannot commence construction or installation until Industry Canada is satisfied that
the local land use authority has been adequately consulted, the proponent has carried out public
consultation either through the Industry Canada default process or the consultation process
established by the local land use authority, and all relevant concerns have been addressed (see
Appendix 3).
Under the default guidelines, Industry Canada, only considers the impact of a tower proposal on the
local community from a technical aspect. Of course, concerns about the health impact of exposure to
radio waves are also a concern. Issues of aesthetics are not considered reasonable grounds for
denial of a proposal (see Appendix 2). However, the default process does give an opportunity for
proponents and local governments to negotiate for the aesthetic treatment of wireless antennas and
structures.
Nonetheless, the recognition on the part of the approving authority that some local concerns are
important is the best opportunity for the District to influence the siting and design of the most
obtrusive structures. However, that recognition does not extend to the ability of local government to
prohibit antenna structures.
Although Industry Canada has a consultation process, it does not:
- identify the requirement for a neighbourhood meeting;
- the public notice provisions (eg - residences within 3x the height of the structure) are inadequate;
- certain installations are exempt from consultation, such as tower proposals less than 15m in
height;
- there is a need to clarify what information is to be provided and what feedback options are
available.
However, in utilizing the default process, staff has reviewed details of tower construction from
proponents, have provided public mailing details to proponents, and have collated public feedback.
Concerns and issues raised have been discussed with Industry Canada staff. From the local
government perspective, despite the limitations, the default process provides a somewhat
reasonable opportunity to influence tower design and location.
Proposed Draft District Consultation Process:
Wireless communication services are important to the community and the public, and some
accommodations need to be made. As a consequence, communication tower proposals are
categorized as to their impact: either high or low. It is suggested that, should the District wish to
adopt our own procedure, then only those proposals considered of ‘high’ impact go through a more
involved review process. The proposed District consultation process is noted in Appendix 4.
A District determined consultation process would provide the opportunity to residents and staff to
review the characteristics of proposals and to provide feedback to the proponent in greater detail.
However, even by adopting our own consultation policy, it must be understood that the District would
still not be the approving authority and would still be limited in influencing the characteristics of
proposals. Concerns around impact on property values and health, for example, would not be within
the District’s authority to require a proponent to address.
5
In the District defined process, antenna support structures considered of ‘high’ impact generally
include:
- towers of any height within 100m of residential areas or in ‘sensitive’ areas;
- towers greater than 15m in height within commercial or industrial areas; and
- tower proposals that will increase the height of an existing tower by greater than 25% of the
current height.
Structures of low impact would have a lesser consultation requirement, and some may only require a
building permit. Low impact structures include:
- on roof tops of buildings;
- on street light or telephone poles;
- on existing towers;
- on towers less than 15m in height that are not considered ‘high impact’.
Under the District determined process, a proponent would have a pre-application meeting with the
District to review procedural requirements. The District protocol (see Appendix 4) would identify
submission requirements, and identify setback, design characteristics, screening and lighting
requirements. As well, the protocol would note what public notice is required and whether a public
information meeting is necessary.
The proposals considered of ‘high’ impact would require a public mail-out notification, and a public
information meeting. Issues or concerns pertaining to location, design, residential setbacks, and
colocation opportunities can be addressed at the meeting by the proponent, or in follow-up feedback
to residents. The protocol notes that staff responsibility is to monitor the consultation process and
observe the conduct of the public information meeting. It would be the proponent’s responsibility to
collate and respond to public concerns.
Once the proponent has provided the necessary consultation opportunities and has dealt with
legitimate concerns, they would then formally apply to the District. Staff would review the
submission, and provide a letter of support or non-support with reasons.
Those proposals considered of ‘low’ impact would provide a detailed notice of the proposal to District
staff for their feedback. Once feedback has been gathered, and relevant issues addressed, the
proponent can formally apply to the District for a letter of concurrence.
However, adopting our own process may raise the expectation that the District has greater influence
over siting and aesthetic considerations than we actually do. This more involved process will also
add to costs and involve more staff time.
Co-Location and a Second District Tower:
The current District communications tower on Grant Hill has provided an opportunity for District radio
equipment to be relocated to a central facility, with spare capacity leased out to private wireless
service providers. Presently, the facility is almost fully leased.
There is a need for additional District radio control equipment at several reservoir and water system
sites in the community, and this need presents an opportunity to locate a second Municipal telecom
tower likely in the northern area of the community. There are several possible sites staff are
investigating for a second tower, primarily for District use, but also it would present colocation
6
opportunities for other wireless service providers and may forestall the building of other towers. The
possibility of a second tower is preliminary at this stage, and staff will return with an analysis and
recommendation if the preliminary analysis is favourable and Council supports the effort.
As well, there is work going on in other communities investigating other co-location practices to
ensure that the minimum number of additional antenna support facilities are constructed to support
necessary wireless services, such as at the City of Vancouver. Staff will be investigating these efforts
and will be reporting back on options for the District.
b) Desired Outcome:
The options for the District are:
1. the District can continue to utilize the default Industry Canada consultation process and
perhaps request an increase to the notice provisions from 3x the tower height to 5x; or
2. adopt our own more detailed and rigorous process that provides more opportunity to
influence communication tower design and location, but would still not provide the final
decision-making authority. Appendix 4 contains a draft Maple Ridge protocol.
Council direction is sought on the consultation approach Council would prefer.
Council direction on the consideration of a second District owned communications tower is also
requested.
c) Strategic Alignment:
Although the final approval authority remains a Federal responsibility, adopting our own tower
consultation protocol may provide an improved opportunity to garner more support from Industry
Canada for District concerns. This would be consistent with community development objectives and
the desire for local control of land use issues.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
A consultation approach, whether the default Industry Canada version, or a made-in-Maple Ridge
version, provides for the District, and affected citizens, an opportunity to influence the locational and
land use decisions, and perhaps design characteristics over tower development proposals.
However, the final approval authority still rests with Industry Canada.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The default Industry Canada consultation protocol is typically followed by the Planning Department at
present, and only offers a significant opportunity to influence decisions where the proposed siting or
design has reasonable alternatives in terms of location, siting, or design characteristics.
If the District were to adopt our own consultation protocol, the effort and work required to shepherd
applications through review and consultation processes will become significant. Should this be the
choice of Council, some discussions around internal processes and staffing should occur to ensure
timely delivery of appropriate feedback. Industry Canada has very tight response time requirements
for feedback.
7
As well, an application and review fee should be considered to cover staff time. Additional Fee Bylaw
and Procedures Bylaw amendments would need to be made to identify the application and review
process and required fees.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
If the District decides to adopt our own protocol, then staff time needs to be provided in support of
the more involved review process. A fee for the application process and review should be determined
to cover staff time required.
The District may be able to raise a nominal amount of building permit fees for smaller antenna
installations attached to buildings, although it may not be material. The District would not be able to
collect building permit fees from stand alone structures as they are exempt.
The District should be able to raise significant revenue, and offset some tower installations, by
constructing and leasing out access to our own communications tower, similar to that on Grant Hill.
g) Policy Implications:
If the District were to adopt our own protocol, staff should review, within a year, the performance of
the new process and adjust as necessary. As well, this review will permit consideration for
incorporation of any recommendations arising from the work of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities (F.C.M.) on the issue.
h) Alternatives:
The District could continue to take a more passive role in influencing the locational and design
considerations for telecommunications towers, thereby leaving the approval assessment to the
Federal authorities. The default Industry Canada consultation process does afford the District an
opportunity to comment and influence locational and design considerations, although quite limited.
There will be an additional opportunity to review and possibly adopt a more widely viewed and
approved consultation process that will emanate from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(FCM) initiative to define a model consultation process. This initiative should be ready for
consideration in the spring of 2013. This may provide another opportunity for the District to
reconsider a more involved consultation process.
8
CONCLUSIONS:
Telecommunications towers and antenna support structures are important to the wireless services in
the community. It can be expected that more such installations will be forthcoming as the desire for
improved mobile computing takes hold.
Towers and support structures are a Federal responsibility, but the District has a role to play in the
review and consultation procedures that Industry Canada defines as the minimum requirement.
District staff has followed these default guidelines, but they really only afford an ability to influence
the locational or design choices for poor installations or ones that have an obvious impact on
residents.
Council can continue to support the ‘default’ consultation process, and build on the good
relationship between District staff and Industry Canada, or we could adopt our own, more rigorous
consultation process. A suggested Maple Ridge consultation protocol is noted in Appendix 4 and still
requires Industry Canada support.
A defined District procedure whereby District staff and the public has initial notice of an impending
tower structure, and have every opportunity to evaluate the proposal and influence it’s design and
location based upon the proposal merits comes at a cost however. Having a District defined process
may garner more support from Industry Canada for District concerns that are reasonable, but it
comes at a cost of additional staff time for processing, and perhaps creates the impression that the
District actually has the final decision-making authority.
Council direction is requested.
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: John Bastaja
Director Corporate Support
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Diana Hall
Planner
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill
General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn
General Manager, Public Works and Development Services
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
9
Appendix 1 Radio Communication Antenna Structures
1. Large Antenna Structures
Freestanding or guy
wire supported
Freestanding towers are usually large structures that act as a point
of convergence and retransmission (eg. – backhaul), or of
disseminating signals. These types of towers come in a variety of
heights (eg. – 10 to 60m) and are usually the structures with the
greatest neighbourhood impact. There is some flexibility in placing
these types of structures, but they are typically constrained by the
need to achieve acceptable coverage of a service area, the
availability of suitable sites, technical limitations, and safety2. These
structures do not require local government permits but are subject
to safety standards and Industry Canada approval.
Freestanding antenna structures, which for the purpose of this
memo includes guy wire supported structures, are exempt under
Division A, Part 1, of the B.C. Building Code and therefore do not
require a building permit.
2. Small Antenna Structures
Attached to a building
On rooftop
On utility installations
On light standards
Smaller antenna structures that are attached to buildings are usually of
limited impact and are typically used in more urban areas. These can be on
small poles, on the rooftops of buildings, or on utility structures such as light
standards or telephone poles.
Smaller antennas and associated support structures, if attached to a
building or structure, do require a building permit.
The District and other utility companies also utilize wireless technologies for
data transfer and to communicate with electronic controllers to monitor
performance or adjust settings of equipment.
New so-called 4G cellular technology will place more, and smaller, antennas
closer to areas of demand. In this example, the antenna is the extension of
the pole above the mast arm on an arterial light standard in Surrey in a
residential area.
10
Appendix 2 Industry Canada Review Practices
As noted, Industry Canada has authority over radio communications tower structures and has a review process
to ensure proposals meet certain standards. This review process considers:
• Structural adequacy. Industry Canada requires the design and structural integrity of any tower to meet
CSA standards, and will need to be certified by an engineer.
• Geotechnical. The proposed siting and design of the structure typically requires a geotechnical
assessment to ensure it will be stable.
• Environmental review. Tower proposals must comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. However, there is no legal authority to deny a structure application based upon considerations of
environmental impact, beyond the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
• Aesthetics. There is no authority to consider appearance as reasons for denial, or for undue
modifications such as design of the structure, siting, or screening. Assessments are typically based
upon technical considerations.
• Health. Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, which governs radio frequency
exposure, and requires all operators to comply with the provisions 5.
• Transport Canada. The design and elevation of the proposed structure is referred to Transport Canada
and is reviewed to ensure it is not a hazard to air traffic.
• Zoning Bylaw and Local Interests. A quote from Industry Canada client bulletin CPC-2-0-03:
The Federal Government has the authority to veto any particular site, but only
does on technical matters. For Industry Canada, their policy is to seek
meaningful local input with respect to antenna siting. As outlined in the
Department's Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03, Industry Canada
requires proponents to work with local land-use authorities and to
accommodate reasonable local requirements. On occasion, local
requirements may unduly impede the deployment of radio communication
facilities or land-use authorities and proponents may not be able to reach
concurrence with respect to local requirements. In those cases, proponents
can petition Industry Canada for a decision.
However, Industry Canada does not consider towers under 15m in height to affect local land use
interests, so no consultation is required.
More Information:
• Industry Canada’s website on antennas: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-
gst.nsf/eng/h_sf01702.html
• Industry Canada’s default regulations on tower siting, Client Procedures Circular (CPC-2-0-03):
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html
• Industry Canada’s guide to assist land-use authorities in developing antenna siting protocols:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08839.html
• FAQ on towers in communities: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08788.html; and
• information on health issues associated with radio spectrum management:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08792.html.
5 For a study of electromagnetic radiation in Maple Ridge from cellular and PCS transmitting sites, undertaken by the BC Centre For
Disease Control, please see the following link and select Maple Ridge from the various communities:
http://www.bccdc.ca/healthenv/Radiation/ElectromagRadiation/CellPCSTransSites.htm .
11
Appendix 3 Industry Canada Consultation Process Options
12
Appendix 4 Proposed District Consultation Process
As noted, Maple Ridge will see more proposals for large and small towers to be built, and more
antenna support structures either being proposed, or utilizing existing infrastructure (eg – buildings,
telephone poles, mast arms). The distinction that needs to be drawn between types of
communication towers and structures is illustrated in Appendix 1.
If the District is to adopt our own consultation process, it is recommended that only the high impact
structures be subjected to neighbourhood consultation meetings as recommended. The other
antenna support structures identified in Appendix 1 – primarily the low impact structures – be
subject to basic notice requirements to District staff, and be required to undergo the regular building
permit review process where applicable,
Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols
Purpose:
The purpose of the Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols is to
establish procedural standards that will allow the District to effectively participate in
and influence the placement of telecommunication antenna structures proposed
within the District. The Protocols are also intended to assist Council, District Staff,
Industry Canada, representatives of the telecommunications industry, and members
of the public in being aware of, and understanding the implementation methods,
processes, procedures and criteria, used to achieve this purpose.
The objectives of these Protocols are:
1. To establish a process and criteria for consistently and equitably reviewing,
evaluating and deciding upon each proposal for placing a telecommunication
antenna structure.
2. To provide clear and reasonable requirements for effective participation and
cooperation between the proponents and the District.
3. To minimize the number of towers required for telecommunication antenna networks.
4. To ensure co-location opportunities for telecommunication antenna structures are
explored and acted upon.
5. To encourage and promote opportunities for improved telecommunication antenna
structure design and concealment in order to minimize their visual impacts on the
surrounding area and the District in general.
6. To provide an opportunity for residents located near specific types of proposed
telecommunication antenna structures (structures of significant impact) to make
comments, ask questions or raise concerns relating to the proposal, make the
proponent aware of local considerations and provide recommendations regarding the
placement and/or appearance of the structure.
District Authority :
As noted, Industry Canada requires that, in certain cases, the local land use authority
and the public must be consulted for input regarding the proposed placement of a
telecommunication antenna structure. The District’s Planning and Building
Departments are responsible for reviewing these submissions and, depending on the
13
nature of the proposal, a letter of support (concurrence) or non-support (non-
concurrence) is sent to the wireless service provider upon completion of its review of
the proposal.
The Planning and Building Departments reviews each proposed submission for a
telecommunication antenna structure based on specific physical criteria. This
involves reviewing and evaluating such things as:
- the proposed location of a telecommunication antenna structure and aspects of
its design, including height, colour, type, number of antennae to be placed on the
structure;
- screening of any equipment compound;
- the design and materials to be used for any equipment storage shed;
- the potential for co-location of other proponents on the structure; and
- compliance with the District’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting
Protocol.
Based on this review, a letter of support (concurrence) or non-support (non-
concurrence) is issued.
It is important to note that in cases where the District does not support a proposal, it
cannot prevent a proponent from ultimately gaining permission from Industry Canada
to install a telecommunication antenna structure even if it contravenes these
Protocols.
The District Role at Public Consultation Meetings:
District staff performs three main functions at a public consultation meeting. These
are:
1. To scrutinize the consultation process:
- by observing how and what information is provided to the public by the proponent
about the proposed telecommunication antenna structure and its intended location;
- by observing what questions arise from the public about the proposed installation;
- by observing what answers to these questions are provided by the proponent; and
- by observing how concerns and other issues regarding the proposed
telecommunication antenna structure’s placement are resolved.
2. To clarify the provisions of the District’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting
Protocols as required:
- by explaining the procedures regarding the notification process ;
- by articulating what is expected in terms of resolving the issues brought forward
- at the meeting by the public;
- by communicating the District’s objective regarding the co-location of other
- proponents’ antennas on existing and proposed telecommunication antenna
structures; and
- by outlining the circumstances required for the issuance of a letter of concurrence or
non-concurrence.
14
3. To explain the District’s role in the deployment of telecommunication antenna
structures, which includes:
- ensuring the District’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols are
followed;
- evaluating each proposal based on specific criteria, reasoning and development
guidelines;
- confirming that the proponent has conducted and completed any follow-up work
arising from a public consultation meeting; and
- facilitating communication between other proponents regarding co-location
arrangements.
The District’s Role in Reviewing Telecommunication Structure Submission:
District staff review and evaluate each submission received for a telecommunication
antenna structure. The specific elements and issues observed, reviewed, analyzed,
evaluated and decided upon in reaching a decision to either support or not support a
submission are predominantly, but not limited to, the following6:
1. proposed location in a community or area;
2. existing and proposed on-site uses and structures;
3. adjacent sites and their existing and proposed uses and structures;
4. co-location potentials on this site and on nearby sites with other existing or
5. proposed telecommunication antenna structures;
6. compliance with the Telecommunication Antenna Structures
7. Siting Protocol;
8. conformity with the District’s Official Community policies regarding historic
sites and environmentally sensitive areas; and
9. design aspects of the proposal, including:
a) height,
b) colour,
c) type of structure,
d) diameter (if a monopole or tri-pole),
e) number of antenna arrays (including futures),
f) shrouding of antenna arrays,
g) potential for disguising or camouflaging,
h) screening of equipment compound and shelter(s),
i) plans, arrangement, materials and colour of equipment shelters(s),
j) location on the site,
k) access/egress to the facility,
l) impact on on-site parking facilities and vehicular movement,
m) impact on on-site garbage facilities,
6 The District 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. Any questions or comments the public
may wish to make regarding health issues related to cell phones, cell towers and radiofrequency exposure guidelines (Safety Code
6) should be directed to Health Canada on-line at healthcanada.gc.ca and to the proponent’s representative. Industry Canada,
Lower Mainland District Office may also be contacted for information by phone at 604-666-5468 or by e-mail at
vancouver.district@ic.gc.ca.
15
n) impact on on-site utility R.O.W.s,
o) proposed signage or other markings and
p) lighting, distance to other existing towers, and removal of redundant
structure(s) if a re-build, replacement or co-location.
Types of Submissions to the District:
The District recognizes that different types of telecommunication antenna structures
may create different magnitudes or degrees of impact and concern within the
community and on the existing built environment of the District in general.
High Impact Submissions:
High Impact submissions involve those telecommunication antenna structures
deemed by the District to have potential negative impact on, or concerns for, the
neighbourhood, the environment or the existing neighbourhood fabric of the District
in general, that are proposed:
- on towers of any height to be placed within 100 metres of any residential
development or residential district (the 100 metres to be measured from the
centre of the base of the proposed structure);
- on towers of any height to be placed in areas of environmental, historic, strategic
or operational importance or sensitivity as identified by the District Official
Community Plan;
- to increase the height of an existing tower by more than 25% of the existing
height; and
- on any other telecommunication antenna structure not identified as a Low Impact
or a temporary structure, excluding Amateur Radio Antenna Structures which are
not governed by these Protocols.
A copy of each High Impact submission received will be referred to relevant District
departments for review and comment purposes. A public consultation meeting,
conducted prior to making a submission to the District, will be required pursuant to
the provisions set out below. The District requires at least a two week interval
between the date of the public consultation meeting and making a submission to the
District to ensure time for post-consultation inquiries and comments to be received
from the public and answered by the proponent.
High Impact submissions will be processed by the District within 21 days of receipt of
a complete telecommunication antenna submission.
In addition to the preceding, High Impact submissions also include
telecommunication antenna structures (towers) that are 15 metres or greater in
height proposed in locations designated as a commercial, industrial or institutional
district and further than 100 metres away from any residential development or
residential district. These High Impact submissions will follow the same circulation
and processing procedures as those noted above, however, no public consultation
meeting will be required for this group of telecommunication antenna structures.
16
The use of any District owned park or reserve land proposed for the placement of a
High Impact telecommunication antenna structure will require a public consultation
process pursuant to the provisions set out in these Protocols.
Low Impact Submissions:
Low impact submissions include those telecommunication antenna structures
considered by the District to have low or no adverse impacts or concerns with respect
to the community or the District in general. These include proposed
telecommunication antenna structures in such locations as:
- on roof tops of high rise buildings (the roof top should be higher than any adjacent
residential development(s) or a public consultation may be required at the discretion
of the District);
- on street light poles;
- on parking lot light poles;
- on existing utility towers and similar structures as determined by the District; and
- on towers less than 15 metres in height that are not identified as a High Impact
telecommunication antenna structure.
A copy of the Low Impact submission received will be circulated to relevant District
Departments. A public consultation meeting will not be required and the submission
will be processed within 10 working days of receipt of a complete telecommunication
antenna application.
Temporary Submissions:
Temporary submissions primarily apply to proposals for those telecommunication
antenna structures that will have a limited operational time frame and no or
negligible adverse impacts on the community, the environment or the existing urban
fabric of the District in general, as determined by the District. This category also
includes the addition of telecommunication antenna structures to an existing tower
in specific circumstances.
Temporary submissions include:
- a temporary telecommunication antenna structure for a duration of no longer
than 3 months;
- a time extension request for an existing temporary telecommunication antenna
structure to remain in place beyond the initial 3 month duration limit;
- a telecommunication antenna structure to be used for a special event;
- a telecommunication antenna structure to be used for an urgent situation or
emergency event;
- the co-location of a proponent’s telecommunication antennas on an existing
tower where an increase in tower height is not required; and
- the addition of new shelters, cabinets and other similar enclosures or compounds
required to house a proponent’s equipment associated with the
telecommunication antennas being connected to an existing telecommunication
antenna structure.
17
The proponent will submit a written notification to the District, allowing 10 days for
response time prior to installing any proposed Temporary telecommunication
antenna structure or commencing a time extension for an existing Temporary
telecommunication antenna structure within the District.
Temporary telecommunication antenna structures used to provide service during an
emergency event may be installed without submitting a written notification to the
District and are excluded from the 10 day response period requirement. As a
courtesy, the District encourages a verbal notification in these circumstances, to be
completed within 24 hours of the deployment of the telecommunication antenna
structure.
Design Characteristics:
The District encourages the use of telecommunications structures that are designed
to be disguised and unobtrusive and inconspicuous.
The District encourages screening such as from plantings, fences, or architectural
treatments to assist the structure, compound or equipment shelter to blend into the
surroundings.
The placement of signage on telecom structures is discouraged.
Unless specifically required by Transport Canada, the display of any type of lighting
on a telecommunication antenna structure is discouraged. Where Transport Canada
requires a telecommunication antenna structure to be lit, the lighting should be
limited to the minimum number of lights and the lowest illumination allowable. Any
required strobe lighting should be set to the maximum strobe interval allowed by
Transport Canada. The lighting of telecommunication antenna structure compounds
for security purposes is supportable provided it is shielded from adjacent residential
properties, is kept to a minimum number of lights and illumination intensity and,
where possible, it is provided by a motion detector type of system.
Residential Setback Considerations:
The District recommends the placement of telecommunication antenna structures
(towers) should not be in close proximity to residential developments of any built
form or density. As a guideline, it is recommended that any tower proposed to be
placed on a site abutting existing dwellings should be located:
a) at least three times the height of the proposed tower away from those dwellings
for towers less than 15 metres in height;
b) at least 75 metres away from those dwellings for towers 15 to 30 metres in
height;
c) at least 100 metres away from those dwellings for towers 31 to 45 metres in
height;
d) at least 122 metres away from those dwelling units for towers 46 to 55 metres in
height; and
e) at least three times the height of the proposed tower away from those dwellings
for towers 56 metres or greater in height.
18
Co-location Options:
The District encourages the co-location of telecommunication antenna structures.
This may include, but is not limited to:
- the installation of a proponent’s telecommunication antennas on any existing
telecommunication antenna structure;
- the construction of a new telecommunication antenna structure on which other
proponents are invited to co-locate;
- the reconstruction or modification of an existing telecommunication antenna
structure to accommodate the equipment of additional proponents; or
- the relocation of a proponent’s existing telecommunication antennas to another
proponent’s telecommunication antenna structure followed by the removal of the
redundant existing telecommunication antenna structure.
In cases where a telecommunication antenna structure is being replaced or taken
out of service, the District acknowledges that the existing telecommunication
antenna structure could remain temporarily while a new telecommunication antenna
structure is being built and the telecommunication antennas and equipment
relocated from the existing structure to the new structure.
The proponent is required to provide written evidence of co-location opportunities in
the case of new tower proposals, the discussions that took place, and the outcome
and reasons for that outcome.
Notification and Public Consultation Process:
Prior to physically investigating an area for potential telecommunication antenna
structure site locations, the District requests that proponents provide the District with
a courtesy notification that locations in the community are being assessed for a
telecommunication antenna structure site.
Notification Obligations When a Public Consultation Meeting is Not Required:
When a public consultation meeting is not required, notification of a proposed
telecommunication antenna structure siting submission shall be given to the District
in advance for concurrence. This notification must be made by written means (a
letter, an e-mail or a brief) and must include:
- the proponent’s name and contact information;
- the municipal address of the proposed location;
- the type and height of the telecommunication antenna structure; and
- a brief explanation as to why a public consultation meeting is not required.
19
Notification Obligations When a Public Consultation Meeting is Required:
When a public consultation meeting is required, written notification of a proposed
telecommunication antenna structure siting shall be given by the proponent to the
District. Notification of affected residents shall be by mail. The proponent shall
include in the notification a copy of the plans for the structure and a copy of the
Notice of Public Consultation Meeting. The proponent shall then undertake the
Public Consultation Meeting process by conducting a public meeting prior to making
a telecommunication antenna structure submission to the District in accordance with
the provisions of this Protocol.
Notification to Affected Residential Properties:
Except as may be allowed below, when a public consultation meeting is required,
notification of the proposed siting of a telecommunication antenna structure shall be
sent by the proponent to all affected residential properties within a 300 metre radius
of the proposed telecommunication antenna structure.
Exceptions to the Notification Area Requirement:
The District anticipates that, in certain cases, it may be reasonable to reduce the 300
metre notification area. This may involve, but is not limited to, proposed
telecommunication antenna structures where the location is separated and or
buffered from residential properties within the 300 metre notification area by:
- significant or extensive topographical features;
- a major transportation or utility corridor;
- tall buildings that will block all or most of the proposed telecommunication
- antenna structure’s visibility from those residential properties beyond them; or
- substantial tree cover that will block all or most of the proposed
- telecommunication antenna structure’s visibility from those residential
properties beyond them.
Any reduction of the 300 metre notification area will be at the discretion of the
District and must be negotiated with the District by the proponent at the pre-
submission consultation stage.
Public Consultation Meeting Notification:
When a public consultation meeting is required, the proponent shall issue a
notification in written form in accordance with this Protocol and deliver it, either by
regular mail service or by hand, to all affected residential properties within the
notification area. If the notification is to be given by regular mail service, it must be
sent out at least 21 days prior to the date of the public consultation meeting event. If
the notification is to be hand delivered, it must be delivered to the affected
residential properties at least 14 days prior to the date of the public consultation
meeting event. It is recommended that the proponent keep a log of the mail out,
addresses, dates and times.
20
Notification Form and Content:
A written public consultation notification shall be sent out in an envelope addressed
to the “Occupant” and shall clearly show in bold type on the face of the envelope the
statement: A CELL TOWER IS PROPOSED WITHIN 300 METRES OF THIS RESIDENCE.
YOU ARE INVITED TO A PUBLIC MEETING. INFORMATION IS ENCLOSED. No
advertisement shall be on the outside of the envelope. The notification shall include,
as a minimum, the following information:
- the date, time and place where the public meeting will be held;
- any agenda or itinerary for the meeting;
- the name and telephone number of the proponent’s representative as a contact
- for the public;
- information about the size, type, location on the site and diameter of the
proposed telecommunication antenna structure, as well as the number and type
of antenna arrays to be mounted (such as pin wheel mounted, cluster mounted,
etc.), including any potential for future antenna arrays and co-location
opportunities; and
- any other material the proponent deems appropriate to inform the public.
Details should also be provided to show the proposed telecommunication antenna
structure and its associated equipment shelter(s) in context with the area
immediately adjacent. In this regard, presentation of accurately scaled photographic
simulations depicting the proposed facility and its environs is also recommended, but
is not a mandatory part of the notice.
Public Meeting Format:
It is solely the responsibility of the proponent, at its own cost, to arrange, organize
and conduct a public consultation meeting. The proponent may conduct the meeting
in either a formal manner or an open house format.
A formal meeting entails the public seated facing the proponent’s representatives,
who provide information concerning the proposed telecommunication antenna
structure and answer questions about the proposal and telecommunications in
general.
An open house format involves a meeting with no formal seating provided and the
public being free to walk through a series of displays providing information about the
proposal and telecommunications in general. The proponent’s representatives must
be available to discuss issues and answer questions.
The District recommends the following information be provided:
- the location of the telecommunication antenna structure;
- why / how the location was chosen;
- what other locations were considered and why they weren’t chosen;
- an aerial photograph or plan showing the proposed location of the
telecommunication antenna structure, the notification area and the properties
within the notification area that received a notice of the meeting;
21
- the height, type of telecommunication antenna structure, colour, materials, type
and number of telecommunication antennas (including future antennas) and co-
locations;
- a site plan showing where on the property the telecommunication antenna
structure will be situated;
- plans showing the design and appearance of the telecommunication antenna
structure and any equipment shelters, cabinets, compounds, fencing and
landscaping to be installed;
- accurately scaled photographic simulations showing the property with and
without the telecommunication antenna structure in place;
- the name, phone number, e-mail address and fax number of a contact person
employed by the proponent;
- health and safety information regarding radio frequency transmission (Safety
Code 6);
- technical information regarding radio frequency transmission as it relates to cell
phone and cell tower functions;
- the time frame within which questions, concerns and comments will be received
and addressed by the proponent after the meeting and prior to making a
submission;
- any other material that the proponent considers important to best inform the
public regarding its proposal.
Proponent Obligations After Meeting:
Following a public consultation meeting, the proponent must respond to any
concerns or issues arising from it. It is recommended that 10 working days be
allowed to ensure time for receiving and responding to any concerns from the public
arising as a result of the meeting. Subsequently, the proponent may proceed with a
submission to the District.
Where a public consultation meeting has been conducted and the proponent
proceeds with a telecommunication antenna structure submission, a brief containing
the names and addresses of all attendees at the public consultation meeting must
be included. A copy of any agenda, presentation, minutes or similar record may also
be included at the proponent’s discretion; however, the brief must document the
topics discussed, concerns raised, resolutions reached and, where arising, any
outstanding issues that could not be resolved. The proponent must demonstrate
how the issues have been addressed and subsequently resolved or, where issues
have not been resolved, the brief must explain why.