HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-09 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the May 2, 2016 Council Workshop Meeting
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
•Agricultural Advisory Committee – March 24, 2016
2.3 Business Arising from Committee and Commission Minutes
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
4.MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
May 9, 2016
10:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by
the City of Maple Ridge.
REMINDERS
May 9, 2016
Closed Council following Workshop
May 10, 2016
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
May 9, 2016
Page 2 of 4
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Reconsideration of Decision to Deny a Tree Cutting Permit
• Bill Webster
5.2 Reconsideration of Decision to Deny a Tree Cutting Permit
• Donada Industries, David Telep / Elle Fraser
5.3 Development Procedural Bylaw No. 5879-1999 – Extension Applications Review
Staff report dated May 9, 2016 providing options for extension of the rezoning
process.
6. 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.
6.1 City of Pitt Meadows – E-Comm Board of Director’s Designate and Length of Term
Letter dated May 4, 2016 from Chief Administrative Officer Mark Roberts, confirming
acceptance of the agreement regarding the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows E-Comm
Board and requesting that the City of Maple Ridge’s Council sanction the structure
including Pitt Meadows’ 2016/18 nominee: Councillor Bell.
6.2 Upcoming Events
May 29, 2016
1:30 pm
Tea Garden 2016 – The ACT
Organizer: The ACT Maple Ridge
June 10, 2016
Time: 6:15 pm
Maple Ridge Secondary School 2016 Graduation
Chandos Pattison Auditorium, Surrey
Organizer: School District #42
Council Workshop
May 9, 2016
Page 3 of 4
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
Links to member associations:
• Union of British Columbia Municipalities (“UBCM”) Newsletter The Compass
o http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/main/resources/past-issues-compass/2016-
archive.html
• Lower Mainland Local Government Association (“LMLGA”)
o http://www.lmlga.ca/
• Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”)
o https://www.fcm.ca/
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
May 9, 2016
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.
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
May 2, 2016
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on May 2, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the
Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the
purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor K. Duncan Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor B. Masse P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor G Robson C. Carter, Acting General Manager Public Works and
Councillor T. Shymkiw Development Services
Councillor C. Speirs C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other Staff as Required
W. McCormick, Director of Recreation
C. Crabtree, Director of Information Technology
L. Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate
Planning
S. Matthewson, Social Planning Analyst
T. Cotroneo, Recreation Manager Youth, Seniors &
Neighbourhood Services
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as circulated.
2.MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the April 18, 2016 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2016-247
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of April 18, 2016 be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
May 2, 2016
Page 2 of 6
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council – Nil
2.3 Business Arising from Committee Minutes – Nil
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4 MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Councillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs attended the Goodbye Chums event, the end of the season
reception and performance at the ACT, the opening of the Beckman
Apartment, the Earth Day celebration and a Council of Councils meeting. He
participated in interviews for the Municipal Advisory Committee of Accessibility
Issues and the Community Heritage Commission. Councillor Speirs also
attended the opening of the new Meridian Meats location and the Maple
Ridge Community Foundation Citizen of the Year awards.
Councillor Masse
Councillor Masse attended the RMCP Awards Banquet and a meeting
pertaining to the Youth Wellness Centre.
Councillor Duncan
Councillor Duncan participated in interviews of committee members for the
Active Transportation Advisory Committee. She visited with the local Scouts
group while they were working on the gardens at the Ridge Meadows Hospital.
Councillor Duncan attended a Celebrate Recovery event at the Maple Ridge
Baptist Church, the RCMP Awards Banquet, the Maple Ridge Home Show, a
Walk for Alzheimer’s event and a Ridge Meadows Family Division of Family
Practice event.
Councillor Bell
Councillor Bell attended meetings of the Audit and Finance Committee, the
Metro Vancouver Performance and Procurement Committee, and the Fraser
Valley Regional Library. She provided an update on the Lower Mainland Local
Government Association conference. Councillor Bell also participated in a
Parcel Tax Review meeting.
Deputy Mayor Shymkiw
Deputy Mayor Shymkiw attended meetings of the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows
Chamber of Commerce, the Open Government Task Force and Council of
Councils. He also attended the RCMP Awards Banquet, the Maple Ridge
Home Show and a meeting of the Audit and Finance Committee.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 2, 2016
Page 3 of 6
Councillor Robson
Councillor Robson attended the Home Show and participated in a Parcel Tax
Review meeting.
Mayor Read
Mayor Read attended a meeting with staff from the Fraser Regional
Correctional Centre. She provided an update on dialogue from the Mayors’
Council on regional transportation and the potential funding from the Federal
Government. She also attended a meeting of the Metro Vancouver Housing
Corporation and met with Mayor Derek Corrigan, City of Burnaby and Mayor
Ted Schaffer, City of Langley. Mayor Read attended the RCMP Awards
Banquet. She had meetings with School District No. 42 Board of Education
Chair Mike Murray to discuss school buses, the Seniors’ Network and
members of the Arts Council. She attended a Metro Vancouver Regional
Prosperity Forum, participated in meetings pertaining to post-secondary
education, met with Chief Susan Miller and Val Patenaude re: Civic Concept
and attended the Home Show.
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Civic Concept
Presentation by Paul Fast, HCMA Architecture + Design
The General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation
Services introduced the item and Paul Fast and Darrell Condon of HCMA
Architecture + Design.
Mr. Fast gave a power point presentation providing an overview of the siting
and conceptual plan for new civic facilities on a section of Memorial Peace
Park fronting on 224th Street.
R/2016-248
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to prepare a report providing options for funding and
design details for the four other identified civic facility bundles; and further
That staff be directed to proceed with identifying the funding and the public
engagement process for the conceptual plans for the civic facilities
identified in the presentation at the May 2, 2016 Council Workshop.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 2, 2016
Page 4 of 6
5.2 Provincial Investment in Affordable Housing Program
The Social Planning Analyst provided an overview of the requirements for
applying for the Provincial Investment in Affordable Housing Program. She
identified a need for additional seniors housing in Maple Ridge and the
opportunity this program could provide to assist with this need.
R/2016-249
It was moved and seconded
That staff explore potential locations for the Provincial Investment in
Affordable Housing Program; and further
That details of this program be publicized in the community.
CARRIED
5.3 BC Housing – Permanent Purpose Built Shelter
Staff report dated May 2, 2016 recommending that staff be directed to work
with BC Housing to develop a detailed process regarding the construction of a
permanent purpose built shelter and housing facility.
R/2016-250
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to work with BC Housing to develop a detailed process
regarding the construction of a permanent purpose built shelter and housing
facility in the City of Maple Ridge.
CARRIED
Note: The meeting recessed at 12:08 p.m. and reconvened at 2:35 p.m.
5.4 Mayor’s Open Government Task Force Recommendations
Staff report dated May 2, 2016 recommending that staff be directed to
develop a work schedule and cost recommendations, that the work of the
Mayor’s Open Government Task Force be concluded and that appreciation be
expressed for the work of the task force.
Mayor Read introduced the item.
The Director of Information Technology gave a power point presentation
outlining the outcomes of the Task Force and the recommendation of staff to
respond to the recommendations of the Task Force.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 2, 2016
Page 5 of 6
R/2016-251
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to develop a work schedule and cost estimates for the
staff recommendations outlined in Appendix A of the May 2, 2016 report
titled, “Mayor’s Open Government Task Force Recommendations” for
Council’s consideration; and
That the work of the Mayor’s Open Government Task Force and the Citizen
Representatives Working Group (CRWG) be concluded, and that the Mayor
express appreciation for the work of the CRWG on behalf of Council.
CARRIED
6. CORRESPONDENCE
6.1 City of Pitt Meadows – Sportsfield Maintenance Service
Letter dated April 20, 2016 from Mayor John Becker, City of Pitt Meadows,
requesting that the City of Maple Ridge undertake sportsfield maintenance for
the City of Pitt Meadows.
R/2016-252
It was moved and seconded
That staff prepare a report on the provision of sportsfield maintenance for
the City of Pitt Meadows by the City of Maple Ridge.
CARRIED
6.2 Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister
Responsible for Translink – Provision of Transportation and Accommodation
Services
Letter dated April 8, 2016 from Peter Fassbender, Minister, Ministry of
Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for
Translink requesting input on the availability and provision of transportation
and accommodation services in the Province of British Columbia.
R/2016-253
It was moved and seconded
That staff prepare a report in response to the letter dated April 8, 2016 from
Peter Fassbender, Minister, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural
Development and Minister Responsible for Translink requesting input on the
availability and provision of transportation and accommodation services in the
Province of British Columbia.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 2, 2016
Page 6 of 6
6.3 Upcoming Events
May 6, 2016
3:00 p.m.
2016 Youth Open House & Job Fair – Maple Ridge Library
Organizer: Various Partner Groups
May 7, 2016
11:00 a.m.
Haney Farmers Market Grand Opening Ceremonies – Memorial
Peace Park
Organizer: Haney Farmers Market
May 14, 2016
11:00 a.m.
Meridian Meats Opening – 11980 227 Street
Organizer: Meridian Meats
May 17, 2016
10:00 a.m.
Surrey Biofuel Plant Information Session – Burnaby City Hall
Organizer: Earthvoice Strategies
May 26, 2016
7:30 a.m.
Regional RENT Forum on Affordable Housing – Vancouver
Convention Centre
Organizer: BC Non-Profit Housing Association
June 11, 2016
2:00 p.m.
Confluence Exhibit Grand Opening Event – the ACT
Organizer: Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure
Services
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9. ADJOURNMENT – 3:11 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
City City City City of Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridge
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, held in the Blaney Room,
at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall on Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 7:00 pm.
____________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENTCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Margaret Daskis, Chair Community at Large
Al Kozak Agricultural Sector
Councillor Speirs City of Maple Ridge
Bill Hardy Member at Large
Chris Zabek Regional Agrologist, Ministry of Agriculture & Lands
Candace Gordon Haney Farmers Market Society
Ian Brooks Member at Large
Stephanie James, Vice-Chair Equestrian Agricultural Sector
Jennifer Zickerman Agricultural Sector
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENTSTAFF MEMBERS PRESENTSTAFF MEMBERS PRESENTSTAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Siobhan Murphy Staff Liaison / Planner 2
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
REGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTSREGRETS/ABSENTS
Kimberley Lauzon Member at Large
Tony Pellet Agricultural Land Commission
Lorraine Bates Agricultural Fair Board
1.1.1.1. CALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDERCALL TO ORDER
There being a quorum present the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
2222.... AGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTIONAGENDA ADOPTION
R16-006 It was moved and seconded
That the Agenda That the Agenda That the Agenda That the Agenda bebebebe amended to addamended to addamended to addamended to add ItemItemItemItemssss 5.3 Funding Requests, 65.3 Funding Requests, 65.3 Funding Requests, 65.3 Funding Requests, 6....3 Albion Flats Update3 Albion Flats Update3 Albion Flats Update3 Albion Flats Update
and 7.3 Educational Subcommittee Update and 7.3 Educational Subcommittee Update and 7.3 Educational Subcommittee Update and 7.3 Educational Subcommittee Update and and and and be be be be adoptedadoptedadoptedadopted as amendedas amendedas amendedas amended....
CARRIED
3333.... MMMMINUTE ADOPTIONINUTE ADOPTIONINUTE ADOPTIONINUTE ADOPTION
R16-007 It was moved and seconded
That the That the That the That the Minutes of January 28, 2016 be amended to Minutes of January 28, 2016 be amended to Minutes of January 28, 2016 be amended to Minutes of January 28, 2016 be amended to correct Item 7.6 Water Availability andcorrect Item 7.6 Water Availability andcorrect Item 7.6 Water Availability andcorrect Item 7.6 Water Availability and
Pricing by removing Pricing by removing Pricing by removing Pricing by removing “she attended” and “she attended” and “she attended” and “she attended” and to correct to correct to correct to correct Roundtable Roundtable Roundtable Roundtable –––– Margaret Daskis byMargaret Daskis byMargaret Daskis byMargaret Daskis by
replacing replacing replacing replacing Canadian Institute of Food TechnologyCanadian Institute of Food TechnologyCanadian Institute of Food TechnologyCanadian Institute of Food Technology with with with with Canadian Institute of Food ScienceCanadian Institute of Food ScienceCanadian Institute of Food ScienceCanadian Institute of Food Science
TechnologyTechnologyTechnologyTechnology and be adopted as amended.and be adopted as amended.and be adopted as amended.and be adopted as amended.
CARRIED
Jennifer Zickerman entered at 7:10 pm.
2.2
AAC Minutes
March 24, 2016
Page 2 of 5
4444.... DELEGATIONS DELEGATIONS DELEGATIONS DELEGATIONS ---- NilNilNilNil
5555.... NEW BUSINESSNEW BUSINESSNEW BUSINESSNEW BUSINESS
5.15.15.15.1 True North Fraser websiteTrue North Fraser websiteTrue North Fraser websiteTrue North Fraser website
The Staff Liaison reported the True north Fraser website is still up but is not being
updated. The committee discussed responsibility for maintaining the site and a
communication strategy for the brand. Criteria for allowing the brand to be used
were also discussed. The Staff Liaison will contact Diana Hall (former Staff Liaison)
for the True North Fraser documentation previously gathered and contact the City of
Pitt Meadows to check the status of their Agriculture committee.
5.25.25.25.2 CommitCommitCommitCommittee Recruitmenttee Recruitmenttee Recruitmenttee Recruitment
The Committee Clerk updated the committee on the status of AAC membership.
There are still two vacancies on the committee – one member at large and one
member from the agricultural sector.
5.35.35.35.3 Funding requestsFunding requestsFunding requestsFunding requests
A request for funding was received from the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Agricultural
Association. A $1,200 contribution from the AAC would support the “Grow Food, Not
Waste” program, which is organized to promote growing food for all types of people,
and reducing and/or reusing organic wastes in a sustainable manner.
R16-008 It was moved and seconded
That That That That $$$$1,2001,2001,2001,200 from the Agricultural Advisory Committee budget be provided from the Agricultural Advisory Committee budget be provided from the Agricultural Advisory Committee budget be provided from the Agricultural Advisory Committee budget be provided tttto o o o thethethethe Maple Maple Maple Maple
Ridge Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association to Ridge Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association to Ridge Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association to Ridge Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association to support the support the support the support the Grow Food, Not Waste Grow Food, Not Waste Grow Food, Not Waste Grow Food, Not Waste program. program. program. program.
CARRIED
The committee discussed how to evaluate funding requests. The Staff Liaison will
create a draft application form for funding requests. The form will be available online
once it is finalized.
6666.... UNFINISHED BUSINESSUNFINISHED BUSINESSUNFINISHED BUSINESSUNFINISHED BUSINESS
6.16.16.16.1 Backyard ChickensBackyard ChickensBackyard ChickensBackyard Chickens
Councillor Speirs reported that Council has not yet addressed the issue of backyard
chickens. Stephanie James reported that West Vancouver now has a bylaw allowing
backyard chickens. Councillor Speirs volunteered to discuss the issue with Frank
Quinn, General Manager, Public Works and Development Services. A response is
required for the citizens who originally requested a backyard chicken bylaw.
6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 Water PWater PWater PWater Pricing and Availability ricing and Availability ricing and Availability ricing and Availability
An update from the Metro Vancouver Ag Committee will be provided at the next AAC
meeting.
6.36.36.36.3 Albion Flats UpdateAlbion Flats UpdateAlbion Flats UpdateAlbion Flats Update
The Staff Liaison reported Jim Charlebois, Manager of Community Planning, recently
met with Council regarding the Albion Flats plan. Feedback from Council and City
AAC Minutes
March 24, 2016
Page 3 of 5
departments will be incorporated into a draft plan. Potential land uses and the plan
process were discussed. The Staff Liaison will provide an update at a future meeting.
7777.... SUBSUBSUBSUB----COMMITTEECOMMITTEECOMMITTEECOMMITTEE REPORTSREPORTSREPORTSREPORTS
7.17.17.17.1 Golden Harvest 2016 Subcommittee UpdateGolden Harvest 2016 Subcommittee UpdateGolden Harvest 2016 Subcommittee UpdateGolden Harvest 2016 Subcommittee Update
Candace Gordon will set a meeting date for the Golden Harvest subcommittee prior
to the next AAC meeting.
7.27.27.27.2 Agricultural Plan UpdateAgricultural Plan UpdateAgricultural Plan UpdateAgricultural Plan Update
Councillor Speirs reported that Council has not yet reviewed the Agricultural Plan.
7.37.37.37.3 Education Subcommittee Education Subcommittee Education Subcommittee Education Subcommittee
Al Kozak made a presentation which outlined the history of the Farmer’s Market and
their plans for the future. Mr. Kozak recently met with Lino Siracusa, Manager of
Economic Development to discuss his ideas to develop the growth of local
sustainable agriculture.
Mr. Kozak is organizing an event to bring together local stakeholders to discuss
agriculture in Maple Ridge. The draft agenda for the “Exploring Ways to Foster Local
Sustainable Agriculture in Maple Ridge” event was reviewed. The event will be held
on June 9th, 2016, with the support of Cinema Politica. It was suggested a request
be made to have the City to promote the event. Jennifer Zickerman, Councillor Speirs
and Ian Brooks volunteered to help with the event.
8888.... CORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCE ---- NilNilNilNil
9999.... ROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLEROUNDTABLE
Bill Hardy reported on the recent International Green City Conference held in Vancouver. The
successful event hosted 140 delegates from 18 different countries. The International
Association of Horticultural Producers, in partnership with the Canadian Nursery Landscape
Association, provided delegates with a chance to see innovations in urban green
infrastructure and planning first hand. A working committee was formed to publicize the idea
of living, green cities through the use of living, green infrastructure. Visit canadanursery.com
to see presentations from the conference.
Stephanie James explained the idea of the “Wonky Vegetable Box” which promotes the use
of less than perfect looking fruits and vegetables. She shared the experience of a local
grower who could not sell 30% of their cucumber crop due to aesthetics. Candace Gordon
reported on a successful pilot project undertaken last year by Loblaws Supermarkets, which
sold less than perfect produce at a discount. It was suggested that stores who haven’t taken
up this cause be challenged to get involved. It was suggested that a report be sent to
Council requesting that Council encourage local grocery stores to adopt a “wonky produce”
policy.
Councillor Speirs reported on a recent court case that ruled that people who were previously
approved to grow their own marijuana for medical purposes can continue to do so. The
federal government is expected to provide a new policy, taking the ruling into account, in the
next six months.
AAC Minutes
March 24, 2016
Page 4 of 5
Jennifer Zickerman reported the Grower’s Coop is coming along. Growing season is getting
going.
Candace Gordon reported the Farmers Market is hosting a fundraiser in April – a five course
meal will be provided and the event is already sold out. The Market will be part of the Earth
Day celebrations on April 23rd before beginning their regular season the second week of May.
GE Feast has received United Way funding to cover planning table costs, a senior’s
community kitchen and a program aimed at parents of young children. A second grant has
been received from the Fraser Health Authority to update food security data. The Salvation
Army is closing their public kitchen food program and Ms. Gordon explained the impacts of
that closure. It was suggested that community gardens could be contacted to provide
produce.
Al Kozak reported they are hoping for a week of nice weather soon to get the planting season
started.
Margaret Daskis reminded the committee of the upcoming launch of the Circle Farm Tour
and encouraged members to attend. Ms. Daskis will be presenting a rock buffet created by
her parents at the upcoming Rock and Gem show in Abbotsford.
11112222.... ADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded
That the meeting be adjourned at That the meeting be adjourned at That the meeting be adjourned at That the meeting be adjourned at 9999::::11112222 pm.pm.pm.pm.
Chair
/ss
From: Georgi Webster
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 6:59 PM
To: Mayor Council and CAO Users List
Subject: Variance request re Tree Bylaw
May 1, 2016
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read and Council
Dear Mayor Read and Council
My family and I purchased the property on 22852 127th Avenue in November 2015. Initially my first
task was to rake the front yard of leaves. I discovered a great deal of exposed roots were growing from
the base of a decorative cherry tree approximately 2 M from the sidewalk and spreading into the lawn
area about 2 .5-3 M. My granddaughter tripped on these roots and suffered a minor abrasion. I am a 71
year old pensioner that has peripheral neuropathy and normally use a cane on uneven surfaces and
because of these roots I tripped and fell also. It was at this moment that I decided to remove the tree and
contacted a faller I knew who came out for an inspection. He informed me that I required a removal
permit before he could fell the tree.
In March of 2016 I contacted the city and a Ms.Gail Szostek visited the site and in the following week
and informed me that the tree was healthy and I was not eligible for a removal permit. I attempted to
explain that the tree maybe was healthy but my feet certainly are not. This was to no avail . Several
weeks later I contacted Mr.Chuck Goddard ,Mgr. Development and Environmental and after discussion
with him he directed me to contact the Mayor and Council for a resolve of my dilemma.
To that, I am applying for a variance of your tree bylaw to enable me to remove a cherry tree on my
property. The tree is approximately 30 feet in height with a 35 foot crown and a girth of 53 inches. Upon
further research and information from nursery and tree experts I discovered that one of the characteristics
of these trees is an excessive amount of exposed roots which in this case cover a 12-15 foot growth circle
around the base of the tree. This has made our lawn very difficult to mow and is basically nonexistent
with moss occupying the majority of my front yard. I have included a few articles from the internet for
your perusal of root problems with some trees (I am sending in a separate email). There is some mention
in these articles of remedial techniques for dealing with roots but apparently there is no guarantee of
success.
I do not intend to leave my yard bereft of any trees ,plants or shrubs. If we are granted the variance it is
my intention to have a consultant from one of the local nurseries provide some guidance in creating a
drought resistant theme (Japanese) in our front yard which will include a number of trees and shrubs eg.
Hakuro nishiki willow, minature pines, Spruces, etc. I feel the display when finished would be very
suitable to the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Bill Webster
5.1
5.2
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: May 9, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/050/06
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Development Procedural – Extension Applications Review
Maple Ridge Development Procedural Bylaw No. 5879-1999
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :
This report analyzes and considers possible alternatives to the current process outlined in Maple
Ridge Development Procedural Bylaw No. 5879-1999 (the Development Procedural Bylaw) for
rezoning extensions following third reading being granted by Council (See Appendix A).
Zone amending bylaws have a one year “shelf life” after third reading. If an applicant cannot
complete the terms and conditions within a year, Council may extend the completion period twice,
with two one-year extensions. This part of the rezoning process is referred to in the Development
Procedural Bylaw as an “extension process”. An applicant’s request for mo re time is included in a
staff report, allowing for Council to make a decision on the request. The Development Procedure
Bylaw allows for Council to grant or deny the request or refer the item to Public Hearing.
The focus of this report is on the effectiveness of the current procedure of giving applicants one
year, followed by two one-year extensions, if necessary, in completing a rezoning application in a
timely manner. Applicants can be granted a maximum of three (3) years after third reading to
complete their applications. That is – one year following third reading and two (2) one year
extensions. There is a balance to be struck between a variety of factors including: encouraging
applicants to compress completion time; insuring terms and conditions reflect emerging community
issues or concern to Council when extensions are considered; allowing developers to respond to
changes in market conditions; and keeping surrounding residents informed given neighbourhood
growth and change over a three (3) year period.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council selects the preferred option or options described in Appendix B Extension Decision
Matrix attached to this Workshop Report dated May 8, 2016, and staff be directed to prepare
amendments to the Maple Ridge Development Procedural Bylaw No. 5879-1999 accordingly.
BACKGROUND :
Recently considered rezoning extension applications prompted some discussion and questions from
members of Council about this step in the application approval process. The extension issue has
been reviewed a number of times, most recently in 2009. The Maple Ridge Development Procedural
5.3
2
Bylaw No. 5875-1999 (the Development Procedural Bylaw) was amended to make the process more
flexible, reflect changes in the local housing market and to address the changing needs of the
development industry.
This report assesses the process between third reading and adoption, and statistically analyses
those applications that required extensions. Possible alternatives are summarized for Council to
discuss and direct staff to follow up with changes Council may deem to be necessary to the current
extension process.
As part of this assessment, Council may wish to refer this report to the UDI Liaison Committee, to
consider their comments before making a decision on any changes to the rezoning extension
process.
DISCUSSION
1. The Rezoning Process Simplified:
The following flowchart is a simplified version of the process for approving rezoning applications. The
Development Procedural Bylaw allows a one year period following the date of third reading for an
applicant to complete the terms and conditions (the “T&C”) of the zone amending bylaw before
Council considers granting final adoption. This same process applies to heritage applications that
involve a use or density change. The steps in the process where a Council decision is required are
shown as bold and underlined words.
2. After Third Reading:
When an application reaches third reading, the bulk of the responsibility for completing an
application rests on the shoulders of applicants to satisfy the terms and conditions for approval as
determined by Council. The terms and conditions required to be completed by an applicant can be
numerous, varied and complex. Typically they include the following:
Rezoning servicing agreement with securities;
Submission of restrictive covenants and other legal documents;
Lot consolidation;
Park and road dedication and corner truncations by survey plans;
Proof of the removal of underground fuel tanks;
Rental housing agreements;
Demolition of structures; and
Community Amenity Contributions (CAC’s).
Also required to be done in parallel with the rezoning process, may be:
Approvals of associated applications (e.g. form and character development permits,
environmental development permits, development variance permits, etc.);
A complex subdivision application process;
3
Legal documents and agreements such as a Phased Development Agreement and a
Housing Agreement;
Follow up by the applicant’s civil engineer with the Engineering Department about
engineering matters (e.g. Plans to construct roads and install services, drafting a rezoning
servicing agreements, submission of securities, etc.);
Approvals from other City departments (Parks, Fire, Building);
Outside agency approval (Ministries of Transportation and Infrastructure, Environment and
Forestry, Lands and Natural Resources; Heritage Branch; Department of Fisheries; etc.); and
Submission of associated securities.
3. Extensions - The Process:
Appendix A is an excerpt from the Development Procedural Bylaw of the rezoning extension process.
The file manager will send a reminder letter to applicants 60 days prior to the third reading expiry
date. This enables a reply from the applicant in sufficient time to have an extension report drafted
and sent to Council before the application expiry date. This provides the opportunity for applicants to
complete the requirements, seek an extension, or close the file.
Staff requires a three week lead time to prepare an extension report and have it placed on a Council
meeting agenda before the expiry date. At times, there may be mitigating circumstances where an
extension report goes before Council after the expiry date (e.g. proponent out of town, last minute
issue beyond an applicants control, a senior level government approval being delayed, etc.) where
Council may choose to interpret its bylaw to retroactively approve an extension.
Applicants seeking extensions are requested to respond with the following information:
To provide a written explanation why the rezoning requirements have not been completed.
This often will include information on what has been completed and the status of completing
the remaining items;
An estimate of the time frame to complete the rezoning requirements; and
The prescribed application fee ($678.00).
In considering the Extension Report, Council has a “snap shot” of the current status of a project and
the applicant’s reasons for delay. The Development Procedural Bylaw provides for the following
three decision alternatives for Council to consider:
i. Grant the request for extension : This gives staff and the applicant a new one year (1) target
date to coordinate reports and plans to be submitted by consultants, reviewed by staff and
completed by the applicant.
ii. Deny the request for extension : This alternative would kill the application and require the
project to start again. This may occur if Council is not comfortable with the degree of
progress, new issues come to the fore that, in Council’s view, need to be addressed; or
applicants are faced by insurmountable obstacles and the application needs to be changed
or a new one pursued; or
4
5
iii. Repeal Third Reading of the bylaw and refer it back to a new Public Hearing: This may be
necessary due to significant changes of information or plans presented at the original Public
Hearing, or simply that Council may, at its discretion, repeal third reading and send
applications back to Public Hearing.
Council may simply wish to take an application back to Public Hearing due to delays to
provide residents a new opportunity to speak to Council at a Public Hearing. There are no
specific terms in the Development Procedural Bylaw indicating the maximum length of time
that can pass after a Public Hearing to require a new one being held. One of the alternatives
discussed later in this report, is to incorporate a “stale date” for Public Hearings into the
process as an alternative to having extensions.
4. Statistical Analysis – Rezoning Applications (2001 – 2016):
4 (a) Background
The current extension process is designed to give applicants and their consultants a target date to
engage staff and complete requirements in a timely and coordinated manner. Therefore, the project
manager for the applicant and the file manager for the City ca n better coordinate their efforts. Staff
resources can be allocated for review and discussions with consultants and avoid “a last minute
rush” to complete the potentially complex and numerous terms and conditions to meet deadlines for
returning to Council for approval.
To gain a better understanding of the post third reading application processing dynamics, statistics
were generated from the AMANDA file tracking system based on their stage in the process as of
February 24, 2016. As such, it is a “snap shot” of applications in process.
To simplify explaining the analysis, percentages rather than application numbers are mainly used in
the analysis and the alternatives this analysis reveal are summarised in the table attached as
Appendix B.
4 (b) Timeframe – Third Reading to Final Approval:
Using the mileposts of third reading and final adoption, the average application considered by
Council on average, took just over 9 months for an applicant to complete their application after
Council granted third reading.
Considering applications individually, a large majority (69.6%), achieve adoption within one year of
third reading and did not require extensions. A closer look reveals about one-third (33.9%) of all
applications are completed within 6 months of third reading.
Therefore, the average time for completing the bulk of the rezoning applications can be comfortably
completed by applicants within the current one year completion period set in the Development
Procedural Bylaw.
6
Focusing on extensions, 27.8% of the applications required one extension and very few (under 4%)
required second and final extensions. The following chart shows these percentages:
33.9%35.7%
27.8%
3.5%
Completed less than
6 months after 3rd
Completed 6
months to 1 year
after 3rd
Completed 1 to 2
years after 3rd
Completed 2 to 3
years after 3rd
Application Completion Statistics:
Third Reading to Adoption Time
Third to Adoption Extension Process
Specifically considering those applications that require extensions, their average time from third
reading to adoption is just under 18 months or 1 ½ years.
On average, nearly all applications requiring an extension are completed 6 months into the first
extension period. Few applications need a second extension and for those that do go into a second
extension, there is a strong likelihood those applications will not be completed, are changed and go
back to another Public Hearing or are closed and replaced by new applications.
Therefore, the following can be generally concluded:
A significant majority of the applications complete prior to the extension phase;
The first extension period provides twice the time that is needed on average to allow an
applicant to complete an application and only a marginal number of applications seek a
second extension;
Those applying for a second extension are usually complex applications or may be delayed
by outside agency and therefore need the additional time; and
For most other applications in the second extension period, the applicant is not able to
complete the requirement so they expired and often return as new applications at a later
date.
5. The Practices in Other Municipalities:
The Development Procedural Bylaws and Development Fee Bylaws in selected cities were reviewed
and compared to the current practices in Maple Ridge.
7
5 (a) Review of Other Development Procedural Bylaws
The Development Procedural Bylaws in 11 Lower Mainland communities are summarized in the
table below. A review of the provisions and some comments from staff at these municipalities
reveals the following:
Bylaws with Extension Provisions : A total of five (5) municipalities reviewed have provisions
establishing completion periods for rezoning applications, including extensions;
Bylaws with no Extension Provisions : The majority, six (6) municipalities reviewed do not
have an extension process and may not have bylaw expiry provisions in their procedural
bylaws;
Extensions Approved by Councils : In Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows and Port Coquitlam, extension
approval is granted by Council. Coquitlam requires substantial rationale justifying extensions
such as illness of applicant or completion of a local area plan that may affect a proposal;
Delegated Extension Approvals : In Abbotsford and Port Moody, Council delegated the
responsibility to grant extension approval to the General Manager or Director of Planning.
Port Moody is moving away from granting extensions to re-examining proposals under new
applications;
Triggering Process Events: Third Reading date is the trigger for measuring completion
except for Abbotsford that uses the Public Hearing date. For our rezoning bylaws, the Public
Hearing and third reading dates are within a week or two of each other; therefore, measuring
completion from either one is effectively the same period;
Number of Extensions: Abbotsford and Port Coquitlam grant only one 1-year extension;
Same as Maple Ridge: Coquitlam and Port Moody grant a maximum of two 1-year
extensions; and
Shorter Extension Period: Pitt Meadows grants a maximum of two 6-month extensions.
Summary of Extension Practices in Selected Lower Mainland C ommunities
Municipality
Completion
date
requirement?
What is the
time period?
What is it
measured
from?
Are
Extensions
permitted?
How many &
time period?
Approval by
Council or
Delegated?
Maple Ridge YES YES 1 year Third Reading YES Two 1-year Council
Abbotsford YES 1 year Public Hearing YES One 1-year Delegated
Coquitlam YES 1 year Third Reading YES Two 1-year Council
Pitt Meadows YES 1 year Third Reading YES Two 6-month Council
Port Coquitlam YES 1 year Third Reading YES One 1-year Council
Port Moody YES 1 year Third Reading YES Two 1-year Delegated
Delta, Langley
Township,
Mission,
N. Vancouver
(District), Surrey
and W.
Vancouver
NO
No limitation
on the
completion
period.
No regulation
for extension.
8
5 (b) Extension Application Fees
For Maple Ridge and the sampled municipalities that have a rezoning extension process, the
extension application fees are as follows:
Municipality Extension Application
Fee (per extension)
Maple Ridge $678
Abbotsford No Fee
Coquitlam $500
Pitt Meadows $625
Port Coquitlam $200
Port Moody No Fee
6. Extension Process Alternatives:
6 (a) Variables in the Process
Based on the processing time and extension statistics for Maple Ridge applications and the
practices in some other communities, the following are the main variables that can be combined in
different ways to regulate application completion:
Establishing or not establishing a specific completion period for final approvals;
The number of extensions granted (none, reduce to one, retain the status quo of two);
The length of completion period set out (increase or decrease the one year time frame);
The start date for the completion period (third reading, Public Hearing, etc.); and
Extension application fees.
In addition, Council may wish to establish the period of time that passes after which another Public
Hearing is required.
6 (b) Alternatives from Combining Variables
The following existing steps of the development process can be recombined in various ways:
Changing the number of extensions;
Changing the length of time of the extension periods;
Setting a time period after which a new Public Hearing will be required; and/or
Considering delegation to staff.
The possible combinations are described in the Decision Matrix in Appendix B.
The alternatives in the Decision Matrix align with the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC)
Program Policy. CAC payments applies to eligible applications (e.g. not rental or in the Town Centre)
9
that have not been to Public Hearing and given third reading. Applications currently at third reading,
whether or not granted extensions are grandfathered unless Council does impose them.
6 (c) Variations with Delegation to Staff
There already are precedents in the Development Procedural Bylaw involving approval delegated to
the Director of Planning, including the following:
Issuing Environmental Permits (e.g. Natural Features and Watercourse Protection
Development Permits) based on an applicant satisfying requirements of the Watercourse
Protection and/or Natural Features Guidelines established by Council in Sections 8.9 and
8.10 of the OCP, respectively;
Approving minor amendments to Development Permits in accordance with “Guidelines for
Consideration of Minor Amendments to Development Permits”; and
Issuing Heritage Alteration Permits not exceeding a maximum floor area and construction
value.
If Council decides to delegate extension approval, guidelines could set parameters under which the
Director of Planning could approve extensions for developments. This could include developments of
a certain size, a certain type or in a location(s), unless the Director of Planning deems there are
matters and concerns necessary for Council consideration. Council has already established similar
guidelines in Policy 6.20 about projects requiring Development Information Meetings to be held by
applicant where development proposals exceeds certain sized (e.g. subdivisions with less than 10
lots, multi-residential projects with less than 25 units and other projects with less than 10,000
square feet of building area) and the Policy adds:
Where in the opinion of the Director of Planning, that a smaller development could have a significant
impact on the amenities or character of the surrounding area particularly in the area of infill
development, the applicant shall be required to hold a Development Information Meeting.
6 (d) Variations related to Application Fees
Application fees, including extension applications, have been the same ($678) since 2011. A review
is currently underway to make recommendations to Council about application fees, including those
related to rezoning extensions.
Depending on which Alternative is selects, Council may wish to establish the extension application
fee at a level to encourage applicants to complete their applications sooner, thereby avoiding
additional application processing costs. Another option is to make the second extension higher than
the first, since these likely involve complex projects require much more staff time to determine if the
Council set terms and conditions are satisfactorily completed.
10
Other fee adjustments that Council may wish to explore include:
Doubling the fee if Council chooses to reduce the extensions from two to one;
Incorporating the extension fee into the initial rezoning application fee, if extensions are
eliminated or delegated to the Director of Planning;
Requiring fees to be paid for both the first and second (final) Public Hearing.
CONCLUSION:
Application tracking statistics reveal that the vast majority of rezoning applications are completed by
applicants without the need of obtaining a time extension past the one year period granted by
Council after third reading. A third of all applications in fact are completed by applicants within 6
months of third reading. As best as we can determine, Council has not denied an extension request.
Where applications need an extension period, the full one year is not ordinarily needed for an
applicant to complete their application under a first extension. The average time is 6 months.
Therefore, the time it takes an applicant to complete a rezoning application that goes into an
extension period is 18 months from third reading.
About an equal number of applications completed under a first extension or under first and second
extension. Only the most complex application or where delays are encountered due to matters
beyond the control of an applicant or the City such as outside agency requirements or approvals
required two extensions. Most applications under extension that did not complete became new
applications
Therefore, it is recommended that from the options shown in Appendix B - Extension Process
Decision Matrix, the extension process be eliminated and the completion period be folded into 18
months (1 1/2 years). This period matches the statistical average for completion, including the time
necessary of the more complex applications. There are two equal options to choose for measuring
this completion time – from Public Hearing or from Third Reading. This time frame also matches the
18 month time frame of a Development Permit to begin construction or be renewed.
11
However, Council may wish to seek input from the UDI Liaison Committee and to consider their
comments before making a decision on any changes to the Development Procedural Bylaw
respecting the rezoning extension process.
“Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner II
“Original signed by Chuck Goddard” for
_______________________________________________
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” for
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Part of Maple Ridge Development Procedural Bylaw No. 5879-1999
Appendix B – Alternatives Matrix
Inactive Rezoning Applications:
6706-2009
10.Amendment applications will be closed one year following the date of third reading of the Zone
Amending Bylaw with the following exceptions:
(i) where the applicant has applied for a bylaw extension, and has received an extension
from Council.
(ii) Where an application has been granted first reading, the applicant must provide all of the
required information outlined in the staff reported noted in Section 3 (4) and all of the
necessary applications and background material outlined in Schedules A-H as applicable,
within 12 months of the date of receiving first reading. Written notification of the
impending file closure will be sent to the applicant 60 days prior to the expiry of the one
year following 1st reading. Failure to respond will result in the application being closed.
11.Written notification of the impending file closure will be sent to the applicant 60 days prior to
the expiry of the one year period following third reading.
5971-2001
12.An inactive rezoning application extension fee in the amount as set out in Maple Ridge
Development Application Fee By-law No. 5949-2001or amendments thereto must be paid at
the time of written application for an extension.
13.The Council may upon receipt of an application for extension under Section 10 of this Bylaw:
(i) grant the request for extension
(ii) deny the request for extension
(iii) repeal third reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing.
14.Each extension provided by Council may be granted for a maximum of one year.
15.A maximum of two (2) extensions under Section 10 may be granted by Council.
6477-2007
16.Notwithstanding Clause 10 above where no staff or Council action has been taken or where no
submission of outstanding or required application materials by the applicant has occurred on a
file for any 12 month period, applications for Official Community Plan amendment, Zoning Bylaw
amendment, Development Permit or a Development Variance Permit shall be considered
inactive and be closed. The applicant shall be notified upon file closure.
6706-2009
17.New Schedule “I” as attached is hereby added after Schedules A – H
READ a first time this 11th day of January, A.D. 2000
READ a second time this 11th day of January, A.D. 2000
READ a third time this 11th day of January, A.D. 2000
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January, A.D. 2000
____________________
MAYOR CLERK
- 4 -
APPENDIX A
1
APPENDIX B EXTENSION PROCESS DECISION MATRIX (Page 1)
Issue Existing Options Comments Recommendation Council Resolution
1.How many
extensions are to
be allowed?
Maximum 2 a)The status quo of a
maximum of 2
extensions
Current practice
Extension period measured from 3rd reading
anniversary dates
THAT there be a maximum of
two (2) extensions.
b)1 extension Simplifies to a single application & Council reports THAT there be a maximum of
one (1) extension.
c)No extensions Would do away with this applications & the need for
Council reports XTHAT extensions be
eliminated.
2.From what step in
the process are
extensions to be
measured?
Third
reading
a)The status quo of
Third Reading
The initial completion period is one year after 3rd
reading THAT the completion period be
measured from third reading.
b)Public Hearing Very similar timeframe
Better tied to understanding community perceptions
about a project and transparency of process
. THAT the completion period be
measured from Public
Hearing.
3.What is the length
of time for each
extension?
One-year
each
a)6 months With the one year allowed after third reading, this
would result in an 18 month completion period.
This is the typical completion time for most
applications
THAT the period of time for an
extension be a maximum of 6
months.
b)The status quo of
One year
This is the current completion time THAT the period of time for an
extension be a maximum of
one year.
c)No limit Slightly fewer than ½ the Cities surveyed do not have
a time limit on completion
Not recommended
THAT the time period be
eliminated.
4.Who approves the
extension?
Council a)Council Current process THAT extension reports
continue to be brought
forward to Council for a
decision
b)Delegate to staff Would eliminate reports to Council
Staff decision
THAT Council delegates the
decision on extension
approvals to staff
c)Delegate to staff (if
selected, refer to 5 c)
Would eliminate reports to Council
Most would be staff decision, except where Council
consideration needed. THAT Council delegates the
decision on extension
approvals to staff
IF OPTON 1 c) IS SELECTED, THEN PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 7.
APPENDIX B
2
APPENDIX B EXTENSION PROCESS DECISION MATRIX (Page 2)
Issue Existing Options Comments Recommendation Council Resolution
5. What decisions to
be made?
Approve,
Deny or
rescind 3rd
and have a
new Public
Hearing
a) Current Council Approve
process
Current extension process
Could be delegated to staff
THAT the following decision
choices continue to apply: approve,
deny or rescind 3rd and have a
new Public Hearing
b) Split approval into two:
1a. Approve
1b. Approve with additional
conditions.
Current extension process
Council can add more conditions
THAT the following decision
choices be applied: approve,
approve with additional conditions,
deny or rescind 3rd and have a
new Public Hearing
c) If option 4 c) selected,
Setting circumstances for
Council referral by delegate
If delegated to staff, there may be circumstances
where referral to Council for consideration is needed THAT Council establish
circumstances when the delegate
is to forward extension for Council
consideration
6. Application Fees $678 per
extension
a) If 1 a) selected (e.g. 2
extensions)
No change THAT the current extension fees be
retained.
b) If 1 b) selected (e.g. only 1
extension)
Double the fee THAT Council directs staff to
amend the Development Fees
Bylaw accordingly
c) No decision now. Consider
as part development fee
review
A comprehensive review is underway of all fee,
including extension fees.
That Council will consider
extension fees as part of an overall
review of development fees.
PLEASE STOP HERE EXTENSION OPTIONS. MATRIX COMPLETED.
3
APPENDIX B EXTENSION PROCESS DECISION MATRIX (Page 3)
This concerns incidental changes arising from elimination of the extension process
Issue Existing Options Comments Recommendation Recommendation
7. With no
extension
period from
what step in the
process should
completion be
measured?
Third
reading
a) The status quo of
Third Reading
The initial completion period is one year after 3rd
reading THAT the completion period be
measured from third reading
b) Public Hearing Very similar timeframe Council THAT the completion period be
measured from Public Hearing
8. What is the
length of time for
completion?
One-year
after third
reading
a) The status quo of One year No change THAT the current maximum one
year period for completion be
retained
b) 18 months This is the typical completion time for most
applications and half of the current completion
period
THAT the completion period be a
maximum of 18 months
c) No limit Slightly fewer than ½ the Cities surveyed do not have
a time limit on completion
Not recommended
THAT the completion period be
eliminated
THANK YOU. MATRIX COMPLETED.
6.1