HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-29 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the July 25, 2016 Council Workshop Meeting
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
•Parks and Leisure Services Commission – June 9, 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
August 29, 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
August 29, 2016
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
August 30, 2016
Public Hearing Cancelled
September 6, 2016
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 2 of 5
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Paul Fast, HCMA Architects 10:15-10:45 a.m.
Presentation on the Maple Ridge Civic & Cultural Facility
5.2 Rental Housing Options Scoping Report 10:45-11:15 a.m.
– Part 1 Regulatory and Infill Measures
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 recommending that staff be directed to
prepare a discussion paper and amending bylaw pertaining to the detached
garden suites program, the secondary suites program, duplexes in single family
zones and a policy to support rental units above commercial.
5.3 Review of Growth in the Suburban Residential and Estate
Suburban Land Use Designation 11:15-11:45 a.m.
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 recommending that the Suburban Residential
and Estate Suburban Policy Options table provided be used as a method to
determine the approach for Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban land use
policies.
5.4 Proposed Exclusion Application of the Former Pelton’s Lands
by the Aquilini Investment Group 11:45-noon
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 providing a history of decisions made by the
Agricultural Land Commission on the Pelton Lands, an update on recent
community feedback and three options in dealing with a proposed Agricultural
Land Reserve exclusion application by Aquilini Investment Group.
5.5 Business & Financial Planning Guidelines 2017-2021 12:00-12:15 p.m.
Staff report dated August 29, 2016 recommending that Appendix 1: Guidelines be
approved.
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 3 of 5
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 Strata Council of Reflections on River at 22327 River Road
Email dated July 12, 2016 from Barb Lamont inviting Mayor and Council to meet
with the Strata Council of Reflection on River.
6.2 Upcoming Events
September 9, 2016
1:00 p.m.
4th Annual Golf Tournament for Epilepsy, Mission Golf and
Country Club
Organizer: The Center for Epilepsy and Seizure Education in
British Columbia – Invitation issued by Mayor Randy Hawes,
Mission, BC
September 10, 2016
9:30 a.m. Registration
11:00 a.m. Walk starts
Parkinson Society SuperWalk, Spirit Square, Pitt Meadows
Organizer: Parkinson Society British Columbia
September 17, 2016
6:00 p.m.
Pub Night & Silent Auction Fundraiser, Maple Ridge Equi-Sport
Centre’s Ranch Pub and Grill
Organizer: Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Community Services
and the Ridge Meadows Youth Diversion Program
September 27, 2016
7:30 a.m.
Marathon Relay of Hope, Greystone Manor, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Greystone Manor
September 16, 2016
1:00 p.m.
Flame of Hope Gold Tournament, Meadow Gardens Golf Club,
Pitt Meadows
Organizer: Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows Chamber of
Commerce
October 5, 2016
TBD
Breast Cancer Awareness Tea, Greystone Manor, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Greystone Manor
October 17 to 19, 2016
Creative City Summit, City of Surrey, BC
Organizer: Creative City Network of Canada
Council Workshop Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 4 of 5
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 Minutes
August 29, 2016
Page 5 of 5
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
July 25, 2016
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on July 25, 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 F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor T. Shymkiw Services
Councillor C. Speirs C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other Staff as Required
D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted with the following amendment:
•Remove Item 4.0 Mayor’s and Councillors’ Reports
2.MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the July 5, 2016 Special Council Workshop Meeting and the July
11, 2016 Regular Council Workshop Meeting
R/2016-324
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the July 5, 2016 Special Council Workshop Meeting and
the minutes of the July 11, 2016 Regular Council Workshop Meeting be
adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
July 25, 2016
Page 2 of 9
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
R/2016-325
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Economic Development Committee Meeting of May
17, 2016, the Public Art Steering Committee Meeting of May 31, 2016 and
the Social Policy Advisory Committee Meeting of June 1, 2016 be received.
CARRIED
2.3 Business Arising from Committee Minutes - Nil
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Public Consultation re: Solid Waste Pick-up, Recreation Facilities, Number of
Councillors
Staff report dated July 25, 2016 recommending that staff be directed to
provide a report on conducting a plebiscite to determine elector opinion on
the provision of road-side waste pick-up as a municipal service, that the
alternate approval process be used to seek assent of the electors for
borrowing bylaws for funding for parks and recreation infrastructure and that
staff be directed to prepare a report on financial implications of increasing the
number of councillors from six to eight as part of the 2017 budget
deliberations.
The Manager of Legislative Services gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining
the three issues for public consultation, the process involved and the options
available.
5.1.1
R/2016-326
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to provide a report on conducting a plebiscite to
determine elector opinion on the provision of road-side waste pick-up as a
municipal service once the service model is determined.
CARRIED
Councillor Robson, Councillor Speirs - OPPOSED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 25, 2016
Page 3 of 9
5.1.2
R/2016-327
It was moved and seconded
That the alternate approved process be used to seek assent of the electors
for borrowing bylaws related to funding for Parks and Recreation facilities
once the priorities are established.
CARRIED
5.1.3
R/2016-328
It was moved and seconded
That, as part of the 2017 budget deliberations, staff be directed to prepare a
report on the financial implications of increasing the number of councillors
from six to eight.
CARRIED
Councillor Robson - OPPOSED
5.2 Considerations for a Municipal Solid Waste Collection Program
Staff report dated July 25, 2016 recommending that the City of Maple Ridge
undertake a Request for Proposal to seek costs for the implementation of
municipal curbside waste collection, that an annual Solid Waste Utility charge
be established for inclusion in a public process to determine public support
for the proposed solid waste curbside collection system and that funds be
allocated from Accumulated Surplus to retain a consultant to prepare the
Request for Proposal.
The Municipal Engineer provided an overview of the staff report.
5.2.1
R/2016-329
It was moved and seconded
That Option B of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for frequency of service and that the Recycling Society be
requested to provide feedback on their ability to collect organics.
CARRIED
Councillor Robson - OPPOSED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 25, 2016
Page 4 of 9
5.2.2
R/2016-330
It was moved and seconded
That Option B of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for service area.
R/2016-331
It was moved and seconded
That Option A be included.
AMENDMENT DEFEATED
Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Masse, Councillor Shymkiw - OPPOSED
MAIN MOTION CARRIED
Councillor Speirs - OPPOSED
5.2.3
R/2016-332
It was moved and seconded
That Option A of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for voter eligibility.
CARRIED
Councillor Duncan, Councillor Speirs, Councillor Shymkiw - OPPOSED
5.2.4
R/2016-333
It was moved and seconded
That Option A of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for collection system.
R/2016-334
It was moved and seconded
That Option B be included.
CARRIED
Councillor Shymkiw - OPPOSED
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED
That Option A or B of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for collection system.
CARRIED
Councillor Shymkiw – OPPOSED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 25, 2016
Page 5 of 9
5.2.5
R/2016-335
It was moved and seconded
That Option B of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for land uses included.
CARRIED
5.2.6
R/2016-336
It was moved and seconded
That Option B of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for totes – default size.
CARRIED
Councillor Speirs - OPPOSED
5.2.7
R/2016-337
It was moved and seconded
That Option A of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for totes – supply and maintenance.
R/2016-338
It was moved and seconded
That the text “including an option for bear proof containers” be added.
CARRIED
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED
That Option A of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for totes – supply and maintenance, including an option for
bear proof containers.
CARRIED
5.2.8.1
R/2016-339
It was moved and seconded
That Option B of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for vehicles.
DEFEATED
Mayor Read, Councillor Bell, Councillor Shymkiw, Councillor Masse - OPPOSED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 25, 2016
Page 6 of 9
5.2.8.2
R/2016-340
It was moved and seconded
That Option C of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for vehicles.
CARRIED
Councillor Duncan, Councillor Speirs - OPPOSED
5.2.9.1
R/2016-341
It was moved and seconded
That Option B of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for education.
DEFEATED
Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Shymkiw,
Councillors Speirs - OPPOSED
5.2.9.2
R/2016-342
It was moved and seconded
That Option A of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for education.
CARRIED
Councillor Masse, Councillor Robson - OPPOSED
5.2.10
R/2016-343
It was moved and seconded
That Option A of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for pilot programs.
CARRIED
Councillor Masse - OPPOSED
5.2.11
R/2016-344
It was moved and seconded
That Option B of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for large item pick-up.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 25, 2016
Page 7 of 9
5.2.12
R/2016-345
It was moved and seconded
That Option A of the LOS Decision Matrix in the staff report dated July 25,
2016 be selected for hazardous waste drop-off.
CARRIED
5.2.13
R/2016-346
It was moved and seconded
That the City undertake a Request for Proposal to seek costs for the
implementation of a municipal curbside solid waste collection from suitably
experienced contractors based upon the Level of Service established by
Council; and
That an annual Solid Waste Utility charge be established for inclusion in a
public process to determine public support for the proposed solid waste
curbside collection system; and further
That $25,000 be allocated from Accumulated Surplus to retain a consultant
to prepare the Request for Proposal document and legal review.
R/2016-347
It was moved and seconded
That the motion requesting that the City undertake a Request for Proposal to
seek costs for the implementation of a municipal curbside solid waste
collection; and that an annual Solid Waste Utility charge be established to
determine public support for the proposed solid waste curbside collection
system; and that $25,000 be allocated from Accumulated Surplus to retain a
consultant to prepare the Request for Proposal document and legal review be
deferred until the plebiscite report is brought forward.
CARRIED
5.3 Traffic Calming Update
Staff report dated July 25, 2016 recommending that the draft Traffic Calming
Policy be amended to seek public approval for consideration of
neighbourhood traffic calming prior to commencing data collection and that
the development of dedicated cycle tracks along 123 Avenue corridor from
203 Street to Laity Street be supported for consideration in future Financial
Plan deliberations.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 25, 2016
Page 8 of 9
R/2016-348
It was moved and seconded
That the draft Traffic Calming Policy be amended to seek public approval for
consideration of neighbourhood traffic calming prior to commencing data
collection; and
That the development of dedicated cycle tracks along the 123 Avenue
corridor from 203 Street to Laity Street be supported for consideration in
future Financial Plan deliberations.
CARRIED
5.4 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (“UBCM”) Ministers’ Meetings
The Chief Administrative Officer provided a verbal update.
R/2016-349
It was moved and seconded
That meetings be arranged at the Union of British Columbia convention with
Premier Christy Clark, the Honourable John Rustad, the Honourable Andrew
Wilkinson, the Honourable Peter Fassbender, and the Honourable Terry Lake
to discuss the proposed Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Facility.
CARRIED
6. CORRESPONDENCE
6.1 Alouette River Management Society (“ARMS”) – Council Liaison Position
Letter from Greta Borick-Cunningham, Executive Director, ARMS requesting
consideration of a Council liaison position on the ARMS Board of Directors
and the attendance of key Maple Ridge staff at quarterly meetings of ARMS.
R/2016-350
It was moved and seconded
That Councillor Masse be appointed the liaison to the Alouette River
Management Society (“ARMS”), and that Councillor Robson be appointed
as alternate.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
July 25, 2016
Page 9 of 9
6.2 Upcoming Events
July 27, 2016
4:00 p.m.
Centra Lawyers Grand Opening, 102-20110 Lougheed Highway
Organizer: Centra Lawyers
July 28, 2016
12:00 p.m.
Celebrate Pride Community BBQ – Memorial Peace Park
Organizer: City of Maple Ridge
July 28, 2016
1:00 p.m.
Pride Crosswalk Dedication Ceremony – 224 Street
Organizer: City of Maple Ridge
July 28, 2016
8:00 p.m.
Candlelight Vigil – Bandstand, Memorial Peace Park
Organizer: Vancouver Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
July 30, 2016
1:00 p.m.
Hammond Public Art Unveiling for Play Ball - Hammond
Stadium Park
Organizer: Parks & Leisure Services
August 6, 2016
10:00 a.m.
Open House & BBQ – 4802 Fraser Street, Vancouver
Organizer: Multicultural Helping House Society
September 17, 2016
6:00 p.m.
Pub Night & Silent Auction Fundraiser – Equi-Sport Centre’s
Ranch Pub and Grill
Organizer: Ridge Meadows Youth Diversion Program
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9. ADJOURNMENT – 12:12 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
2.2
1 | P a g e
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: August 29, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Rental Housing Options Scoping Report - Part I Regulatory and Infill Measures
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On September 14, 2015 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Implementation
Framework. The HAP Implementation Framework contains short, medium and long-term actions to
facilitate and preserve affordable housing in Maple Ridge. Council passed the following resolution:
R/2015-380
That the Housing Action Plan Implementation Framework attached as Appendix A to the
report titled Housing Action Plan Implementation Framework outlining items for Council
discussion dated September 14, 2015, be endorsed.
The HAP Implementation Framework and Council discussion identified rental housing as a priority.
This report presents a list of regulatory and infill measures to facilitate the development of rental
housing. The list of measures varies in terms of resources, time and level of consultation required for
their implementation. This report identifies four measures that can produce the highest benefits
with the least amount of resources to be completed by the end of 2016. This report also includes a
list of financial incentives that will be explored in a follow-up report as well as provide detailed
information on each incentive and a recommended approach to develop a Rental Housing program.
The Rental Housing program will include a selection of the regulatory and infill measures presented
in this report as well as the financial incentives that will be identified in the follow-up report. The
follow-up report is scheduled to go to Council on October 17, 2016.
II.RECOMMENDATION:
1.That staff be directed to prepare a detailed report and amending bylaw package for the
following:
a.Review and expand the Detached Garden Suites Program;
b.Review and expand the Secondary Suites Program;
c.Permit duplexes in Single Family zones without rezoning on minimum lot sizes of
557m2 in the Town Centre, and 750m2 within the Urban Area Boundary; and
d.Develop a policy to support rental units above commercial.
III.DISCUSSION:
a)Background Information
The City has undertaken a number of initiatives to address housing in Maple Ridge in the last several
years. They are as follows: 5.2
2 | P a g e
Housing Action Plan (2014)
The Housing Action Plan (HAP) process began in the fall of 2013 and concluded with Council
endorsement on September 15, 2014. One of the needs identified through the Housing Action Plan
process was the need for more rental housing.
HAP Implementation Framework (2015)
Following endorsement of the Maple Ridge HAP in 2014, an implementation framework was
developed and endorsed by Council on September 14, 2015. The HAP Implementation Framework
reaffirmed the need for both the preservation of existing and creation of additional rental housing.
Emerging Issues: the Changing Housing Market
Since the endorsement of the Housing Action Plan Implementation Framework in September, 2015,
both the rental and ownership markets have become more constrained with limited supply and rising
prices and rents. The following are two examples of how quickly the market is changing:
1. In the Lower Mainland, property values rose significantly, with annual gains being as much as
28% in some areas. In Maple Ridge, a single detached home on the west side was valued at
12% higher than last year.1
2. On July 7, 2016 VanCity released a report that was entitled Renting No Longer Viable
Alternative to Home Ownership for Millennials. Highlights include:
a. Affordable rents can generally be found only in East Hastings, Marpole, Southeast
Burnaby, Delta, Surrey, White Rock, Langley City, Langley District Municipality, Maple
Ridge, New Westminster, Tri-cities and Pitt Meadows yet they may be challenged to
find accommodation due to a lack of vacancy. Transportation costs also have the
potential to erode affordability in these areas.
b. While weekly median wages grew by 6.6% in B.C. between 2011 and 2015, rents
increased at a rate closer to double that—up by 11.4% on average in Metro
Vancouver.
c. High average rents ($1,144 per month) and low vacancy rates (0.8%) throughout the
region are increasingly limiting the options of where younger and lower income
households can live and work.
b) Jurisdiction and Municipal Sphere of Influence
Housing is not a primary responsibility of municipalities; however, local governments have an
important leadership role to play with respect to the planning and facilitating of affordable housing2.
Measures that local governments can use to facilitate and develop affordable housing include:
Regulatory: e.g. zoning, neighbourhood plans, infill options such as lock-off rental suites
Financial incentives: e.g. provision of land, fee reductions
Education and advocacy: guides for developers, advocate to senior levels of government
Direct service provision: e.g. create a housing corporation such as the Resort Municipality of
Whistler, Bowen Island, Metro Vancouver
1http://www.vancouversun.com/metro+homeowners+face+from+rising+property+assessments/11629739/story.h
tml
2 Metro Vancouver, 2012. What Works: Affordable Housing Initiatives in Metro Vancouver Municipalities, page 5.
3 | P a g e
c) Definitions
The accepted definition for ‘affordable housing’ has been established by CMHC and is used across
Canada. Using this standardized definition when comparing housing information in different
municipalities provides the opportunity to identify trends. The CMHC definition and explanation of
affordable housing is as follows:
“In Canada, housing is considered affordable if shelter costs account for less than 30 per
cent of before-tax household income. “The term "affordable housing" is often used
interchangeably with "social housing"; however, social housing is just one category of
affordable housing and usually refers to rental housing subsidized by the government.
Affordable housing is a much broader term and includes housing provided by the private,
public and not-for-profit sectors as well as all forms of housing tenure (i.e. rental, ownership
and cooperative ownership). It also includes temporary as well as permanent housing. In
other words, the term "affordable housing" can refer to any part of the housing continuum
from temporary emergency shelters through transition housing, supportive housing,
subsidized housing, market rental housing or market homeownership.3
Infill is the development or redevelopment of land in an established area . Infill takes advantage of
existing infrastructure and amenities that the area provides. However, infill development is usually
more complicated than greenfield development, and is viewed as more challenging by the
development community. Recognizing this fact, developing tools and strategies that are attractive to
developers such as those presented in this report may encourage more infill and subsequently, more
rental housing.
d) Additional Infill Initiatives Currently Underway
The development of triplex, fourplex and courtyard housing forms along with a policy approach was
presented to Council on April 18, 2016. These housing forms provide new approaches for infill in
established neighbourhoods and along major corridors. This work is intended to increase housing
choices in Maple Ridge. These new forms also have the potential to increase rental housing stock.
Council has directed staff to prepare a bylaw package that will include draft amendments to the OCP,
and draft amendments to the Zoning Bylaw. It is scheduled to go to Council in November, 2016.
e) Regulatory and Infill Measures
Goal Four of the HAP Implementation Framework is to Create New Rental Housing Opportunities.
Those actions associated with Goal Four are regulatory and infill measures that may facilitate the
development of rental housing, and are as follows:
1. Facilitate the development of rental above commercial
2. Facilitate the development of seniors’ rental housing
3. Review the definitions and regulations associated with shared living arrangements such as
home sharing, boarding use and others and consider their use in the Maple Ridge context.
The following regulatory measures have been added because they have been identified by Council or
through staff discussion as contributing to the development of rental housing. They are as follows:
4. Expand the Detached Garden Suites (DGS) Program
5. Review and Expand the Secondary Suites Program
6. Develop Inclusionary Zoning requirements
3 https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/afhoce_021.cfm retrieved July 14, 2016.
4 | P a g e
7. Develop Standardized Criteria for Housing Agreements
8. Develop Criteria for Relaxation of Parking Requirements for Affordable Housing
9. Develop Density Bonusing Scheme for Affordable Housing4
10. Develop Lock-off suites in Multi-family buildings
11. Permit duplexes in identified Single Family zones without rezoning
12. Consider reducing minimum lot size in the RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone to
encourage subdivision
A detailed description of each of these measures is included in Appendix A.
Each measure identified in this report represents further work (i.e. research paper, staff report and
bylaw amending package). It is recommended that staff focus on four regulatory measures this year
in order to also advance the preparation of a detailed report on Financial Incentives which will
include a recommended approach for a Rental Housing program that is scheduled to go to Council
later in the year. These measures are:
1. Review and expand the Detached Garden Suites Program;
2. Review and expand the Secondary Suites Program;
3. Permit duplexes in Single Family zones without rezoning on minimum lot sizes of 557m2 in
the Town Centre, and 750m2 within the Urban Area Boundary; and
4. Develop a policy to support rental units above commercial.
The following table identifies the list of regulatory measures and provides commentary on the status
of each measure. Staff have identified four projects that we feel would have the greatest, short-term
positive impact on rental opportunities in the community (i.e. low staffing impact and high benefit).
Noting that while there are opportunities to strengthen some of the measures that are currently
being successfully utilized, there are other measures (i.e. Inclusionary Zoning and Density Bonusing),
which are very complex matters, and cannot be quickly resolved.
It is further noted that Council may prefer staff to work on more than four projects, which would delay
advancement on the preparation of the recommendations in this report. As noted earlier in the
report, it is believed that the most successful rental housing policies utilize a suite of tools including
regulation, policy, and incentives, and staff are anxious to bring forward options for creating a
bundled package.
Alternatively, if Council wishes to advance the entire program noted below and on the next page,
staff could explore hiring consultants to assist with the preparation of these research papers.
Should this approach be preferred, staff would bring back a report identifying the budget
implications and funding requests.
4 Note: City-wide Density Bonusing is a scheduled work plan item later in 2016.
5 | P a g e
The following measures are recommended as they require the least amount of time and resources to
implement and produce a high benefit:
Regulatory and Infill Measures Comments
1. Facilitate the development
of rental above
commercial.
Currently permitted in the Zoning Bylaw and being done
at Council discretion through rezoning using a Housing
Agreement to secure the rental unit(s).
If mandatory, it would be considered as part of
inclusionary zoning.
2. Review and Expand the
Detached Garden Suites
Program
Explore siting requirements and building size.
Creating building plan templates may also increase
uptake.
Consider allowing a secondary suite and a DGS on one
lot
Consider enlarging size of unit
Consider suites above garages in more single family
zones
Consider eliminating the owner occupancy requirement
3. Review and Expand the
Secondary Suites Program
Explore eliminating owner occupancy
Explore permitting suites in smaller zones such as R2,
R3, and Duplex.
Consider suites and DGS in selected single family
zones.
Explore permitting more than one secondary suite in a
residence.
4. Permit Duplexes in select
Single Family zones
without rezoning
Enables builder/developer to apply directly for a
building permit.
The following measures may be explored during Business Planning to become future work plan items
to facilitate the development of rental housing:
Regulatory and Infill Measures Comments
5. Facilitate the development
of seniors’ rental housing
Covenants and housing agreements are currently used
as well as relaxation of parking requirements to
facilitate this type of development.
6. Review the definitions and
regulations associated
with shared living
arrangements such as
home sharing, boarding
use and assisted living
Amendments to the Community Care and Assisted
Living Act provide for assisted living units in residences.
Boarding is currently permitted.
Boarding for greater than 5 residents is not permitted.
7. Develop Inclusionary
Zoning requirements
This project will require considerable review and
discussion with the Building community. Requires
balanced consideration to ensure development is not
discouraged.
8. Develop Standardized
Criteria for Housing
Agreements
City currently uses housing agreements for secondary
suites, DGS and rental.
9. Develop Criteria for
Relaxation of Parking
The Town Centre has reduced standards for parking.
6 | P a g e
Requirements for
Affordable Housing.
Currently the City uses Development Variance Permits
and parking studies to support relaxations.
10. Develop Density
Bonusing Scheme for
Affordable Housing
Currently part of 2016 work plan.
11. Lock-off Suites Currently permitted in several Lower Mainland
municipalities.
12. Consider reducing
minimum lot size in the
RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) zone to
encourage subdivision
Provides the opportunity for large lot owners to
subdivide without rezoning
Considerations include maintaining acceptable
minimum lot widths, must be within the Urban Area
Boundary, with additional consideration for selecting
areas where this could be most beneficial.
IV. ALTERNATIVE OPTION
The following are recommended items that we feel will provide the highest benefit utilizing the least
amount of resources. Staff are recommending that work commence on:
1. Reviewing and expanding the Detached Garden Suites Program
2. Reviewing and expanding the Secondary Suites Program
3. Permitting Duplexes in select Single Family zones without rezoning
4. Develop a policy to support rental units above commercial
Should Council prefer that staff work on different regulatory measures, the following resolution could
be considered:
That staff be directed to prepare a discussion paper, and amending bylaw package for the
following:
a. (intentionally blank)
b. (intentionally blank)
c. (intentionally blank)
f) Financial Incentives
The following is a list of incentives that have been identified as potential items to include in a Maple
Ridge Rental Housing program. The Rental Housing program will include a selection of the regulatory
and infill measures presented in this report as well as the financial incentives that will be identified
in the follow-up report which is scheduled to go to Council on October 17, 2016. This list has been
developed from a review of best practices from other municipalities, particularly the Secured Market
Rental Housing program developed by the City of New Westminster, and the Rent 100 Program at
the City of Vancouver. In constructing a Rental Housing program, consideration will be given to
allocating different levels of support (i.e. number of incentives) for short, medium and long-term
secured rental housing. This is an approach that has been used very effectively by the City of New
Westminster. The list of incentives is as follows:
Fast-tracking applications
Reduced Development Permit fees
Reduced Building Permit Fees
Payment of fees for legal documents required for the development application process
(Housing Agreements, Covenants)
Parking Requirements relaxation
7 | P a g e
Development Cost Charges (DCCs) waiver or payment in lieu to finance affordable
housing initiatives
Property tax exemptions
Density bonusing
Criteria will be included to evaluate proposed projects such as:
Security of tenure
Requirement of one housing provider for multiple units
Requirement for a certain percentage to accommodate families (2 bedrooms or greater)
A report providing detailed information on each of the incentives is scheduled to go to Council
Workshop on October 17, 2016. The report will also include a recommended approach for a Rental
Housing program.
g) Seniors’ Housing:
Council has identified the importance of increasing seniors’ rental housing. While Council has
identified increasing rental housing as a priority, the special importance of seniors rental housing
was discussed during Council Workshop on July 20, 2015 and also again at Council Workshop on
September 14, 2015. It is noted that all of the regulatory and infill measures and financial
incentives listed above and on previous pages can also apply to proposed seniors housing projects.
V. NEXT STEPS
This report is intended to assist Council with the identification of regulatory and infill measures that
can encourage the development of rental housing in the community. Once these items are selected,
staff will begin work on the projects with a goal of presenting recommendations and bylaw
amendments later in the year. It is noted that annual Business Planning will provide an opportunity
to discuss advancing the options included in this report. A report providing detailed information on
Financial Incentives and a recommended approach for a Rental Housing program will come before
Council in October, 2016.
CONCLUSION:
Regulatory measures and financial incentives are some of the strongest tools within the municipal
sphere of influence to facilitate the development of rental housing. Developing measures to
facilitate the development of rental housing contributes to Strategy 4 of the Housing Action Plan
which is to Create New Rental Opportunities. This also aligns with Goal 4 of Metro 2040 which is to
Create Complete Communities.
8 | P a g e
The regulatory measures presented in this report are action items for Council to choose from, noting
that some items are anticipated to have lower resourcing impacts and higher benefit than others.
Staff recommends that Council select four regulatory infill measures for this year. A report detailing
the components of financial incentives, along with a recommended approach for a Rental Housing
program, will be brought to Council October 17, 2016.
“Original signed by Siobhan Murphy”
Prepared by: Siobhan Murphy, MA, MCIP, RPP
Planner II
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
Approved by: Christine Career, MPL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
Approved by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng, MBA
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Approved by: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A: Regulatory and Infill Measures Descriptions
9 | P a g e
Appendix A: Regulatory and Infill Measures Descriptions
The following are descriptions of the regulatory and infill measures identified in Section III e). It is
noted that each measure represents future work and subsequent reports to Council.
1. Facilitate the development of rental above commercial. Explore the widening of the City’s
residential-over-commercial zoning regulations to consider including more zones, zones that
apply to areas of density transition, density bonuses, reduction in permit fees, or parking
relaxations could be used to encourage this type of investment. It is noted that the City has
had success in achieving rental over commercial when considering rezoning and
development variance permit applications.
2. Facilitate the development of seniors’ rental housing. From a regulatory perspective, there
are a number of tools to assist with facilitating seniors’ rental housing:
Restrictive Covenants (current practice)
Housing Agreements (current practice)
Zoning: there is currently a Residential Elderly Citizens (RE) zone in the Maple Ridge
Zoning Bylaw. The Residential Elderly Citizens (RE) zone could be reviewed to determine
if more flexibility can be applied to the zone to facilitate more seniors housing.
The development of seniors housing may also benefit from financial incentives, which will
be addressed in the Part II Rental Scoping Report – Financial Incentives, scheduled for
later in 2016.
3. Review the Zoning Bylaw definitions and regulations associated with shared living
arrangements. There are no current definitions for home-sharing or rooming house in the
Zoning Bylaw. The concepts and definitions associated with home -sharing, rooming house,
and a licensing regime would be considered in conjunction with the Zoning Bylaw’s current
definitions of dwelling unit, family, and boarding use, to see how they can best work together
to provide more flexibility for these types of uses. There is also an opportunity to broaden
shared living arrangements to include Assisted Living, as defined in the provincial
Community Care and Assisted Living Act The definition of Assisted Living Residence in the
Community Care and Assisted Living Act could be reviewed to look for opportunities to align
it with the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw and associated definitions to create more flexibility for
shared living arrangements.
4. Expand the Detached Garden Suites (DGS) program. The DGS program has been in effect
since November 4, 2008. It is identified as an action in the HAP Implementation Framework
to be reviewed in 2018. Since the creation of the DGS program in 2008, there has been
relatively little uptake.
The DGS program could be reviewed to determine if there are aspects of the program that
could be made more flexible such as building size and siting requirements to increase
program uptake. Another aspect to explore is providing a selection of DGS templates for
potential builders to choose from which could streamline the development process and save
time and money. Another aspect to investigate is permitting DGS on lots smaller than 557m2
as is the current Zoning Bylaw requirements, and also for duplex and triplex. One additional
parking stall is required in the Off-Street Loading and Parking Bylaw for Detached Garden
Suites. It is anticipated that this would not change in a review of the Detached Garden
Suites program.
10 | P a g e
5. Review the Secondary Suites Program. The following issues will be included in a review of
the Secondary Suites Program.
o Owner occupancy. In the 2012/2013 Secondary Suites Review, owner occupancy
was strongly supported by the community. However, the rental market has changed
significantly in 3 years with increasingly higher rents and declining vacancy.
o Secondary Suites on smaller Single Family Lots. Currently, secondary suites are not
permitted on lots smaller than 371m2 (4000 sq.).
o Suites above garages in all Single Family zones. Currently, suites above garages are
permitted in zones that are one acre or greater, and those single family lots with back
lanes.
o When considering a variance for lot width or length for a single family development, if
it is greater than one metre, requiring that a secondary suite is roughed in.
o With regard to bringing existing suites into compliance, there is currently an initiative
being undertaken by building managers in the Lower Mainland to create consistency
across municipalities. Currently the City of Surrey is developing a proposal to the
provincial Office of Housing and Construction Standards to bring to the Minister of
Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing Rich Coleman. The
proposal is expected early fall.
o One additional parking stall is required in the Off-Street Loading and Parking Bylaw
for Secondary Suites. It is anticipated that this would not change in a review of the
Secondary Suites program.
6. Develop Inclusionary zoning requirements. A local government may require a percentage of
the development, or may determine a specific number and type of units in a given project
should be affordable. In some cases local governments permit off-site construction of the
affordable units, while others allow developers pay cash-in-lieu into a housing fund. Local
government usually secures the commitment to building the affordable units at the time of
rezoning. There are examples in British Columbia such as City of Richmond, City of
Vancouver, City of Langford, and others that can be reviewed to identify lessons learned and
applicable examples that could be effective in the Maple Ridge context5.
7. Develop Standardized Criteria for Housing agreements. A local government may, by bylaw,
enter into a housing agreement under section 483 of the revised Local Government Act with
a land owner. The trigger for this is as part of a rezoning or strata conversion. Tenure,
availability of units to classes of persons, rents, and lease, sale or share prices may be
specified, as well as time duration, among other criteria. It is noted that this tool is currently
used and is negotiated on a case by case basis. It was noted during Council Workshop on
July 20, 2015 that short time duration for a housing agreement was a concern. Criteria
could be developed to ensure housing agreements have minimum time requirements for
rental tenure.
8. Develop Criteria for Relaxation of Parking Requirements for Affordable Housing Projects:
Allocating off-street parking for dwelling units is a significant cost to a developer. Reducing
the amount of parking required per dwelling unit can provide a significant benefit to a project
in terms of increased developable area, and lowered costs that are incurred to install them,
particularly in large multi-family buildings where they go underground. Currently there are
relaxations for parking requirements within the Town Centre Area Plan boundary to
encourage increased density and to take advantage of proximity to transit and amenities.
The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw could be reviewed to explore opportunities to
provide relaxation for parking in rental housing developments city-wide.
5 Note: City-wide Density Bonusing is a scheduled work plan item later in 2016.
11 | P a g e
9. Develop Density Bonusing Scheme for Affordable Housing: Section 482 of the revised Local
Government Act establishes conditions to entitle an owner to a higher density relating to the
provision of affordable and special needs housing. Currently Density Bonusing is only
permitted in the area governed by the Albion Area Plan. Staff has been directed to bring a
report to Council regarding options for a City-wide Density Bonusing program later in 2016
which will include a component focused on affordable and special needs housing.
10. Explore the development of regulations to permit lock-off suites in multi-family buildings: A
lock-off suite is a small rental unit contained within a dwelling unit in a multi-family
development (e.g. suite within a townhouse, row house, apartment building) It is similar to a
secondary suite in a single family house, but smaller (typically 280-400ft2). Implementation
of this type of housing forms has been implemented in the City of Vancouver and the City of
Burnaby.
11. Permit Duplexes in select Single Family zones without rezoning: Currently the RT-1 duplex
zone has a minimum lot size of 557m2 in the Town Centre and has a proposed minimum lot
size of 750m2 within the Urban Area Boundary in the new Zoning Bylaw. To streamline the
process for duplex development, removing the requirement of rezoning will shorten the
process and applicants can proceed to apply for a building permit. Allowing either a
secondary suite or detached garden suite will also be permitted.
12. Consider reducing minimum lot size in the RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone to
encourage subdivision: In some of the established neighbourhoods within the Urban Area
Boundary there are many RS-1 lots. These lots have a minimum lot size of 668m2 (7200ft.2),
but many of the lots are much larger. If the minimum lot size for RS-1 was reduced, this
could make it more attractive for owners to apply directly for subdivision without rezoning.
This would streamline the development process and save the homeowner time and money.
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: August 29, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Review of Growth in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use Designation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the May 24, 2016 Council Meeting, staff was directed to prepare a report on development in the
Suburban Residential land use designation. This was precipitated by a rezoning application that
would result in the creation of 0.4 ha (1 acre) lots. Additionally in 2014, a similar scenario was
contemplated for the Estate Suburban land use designation.
The Purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current development and growth patterns,
and to contemplate how and where growth should take place in the Suburban Residential and Estate
Suburban areas.
Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential are similar with the expectation that Estate
Suburban Residential land use designation is located within the Fraser Sewer Area and as such can
be serviced by municipal sewer. Suburban Residential can only be serviced through on-site septic
disposal methods.
Previously in 2009, this issue was explored in a report that outlined the current policies and servicing
framework that guided suburban development in Maple Ridge. The report also provided
development projections for these land use designation areas. At the writing of the 2009 report,
servicing was a major consideration for development in these designation areas. Since this 2009,
water servicing has been extended throughout many of these areas and is no longer a major barrier
to development.
When considering the overall growth of the City, development in the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban areas has been modest with just over 300 new lots being created since 2009.
This Report provides an update to the overall development projections, a summary of the policies
influencing development, specifically the Official Community Plan (OCP), Zoning Bylaw, and the
recently adopted Commercial Industrial Strategy that identifies future employment lands.
Finally, the report will offer a series of options for directing growth in the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designations.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Table “Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Policy Options” in the Report “Review of
Growth in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use Designation” dated August 29,
2016 be used as a method to determine, by resolution, the approach for Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use policies.
5.3
2
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
As noted above, Council directed that a report be prepared regarding the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designations in the Official Community Plan, as a result of the discussions
relating to recent rezoning applications. This direction was a result of concerns raised regarding the
effects of 0.4 ha (1 acre) subdivisions outside the Urban Area Boundary.
Overall the Estate Suburban Designation accounts for 2% of the total land base in the City.
Furthermore, the Suburban Residential land use designation accounts for 7% of the land in the City.
This is a modest amount of land in the overall scheme of development and growth in the City. And
yet, it provides significantly to the rural-like character of the City.
Historical Growth Pattern
Generally, the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban land use designation areas are located
outside the Urban Area Boundary. However, in many cases the lands are located adjacent to this
boundary. The Agricultural Land Reserve also borders many of areas lands. The OCP provides
guidance that density and the majority of growth should be directed to areas within the Urban Area
Boundary. This is evidenced through redevelopment and infill that has been taking place in the City.
The Official Community Plan provides direction and guidance on where development should take
place in the city and the densities that can be achieved in different areas. When identifying the type
of development and the proper location for it, the following items are contemplated:
Majority of growth will take place in the Urban Area Boundary this includes housing and
jobs
Highest levels of density will be directed to the Town Centre area, and along Major
Corridors close to transit
Growth will also be directed to commercial community nodes and neighbourhoods with
in Area Plan areas
Development patterns should continue to reflect the character and vision of the
community
Servicing and infrastructure should be efficient and sustainable while meeting the
required needs of a growing community.
Development in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban designations is primarily in the form
of subdivision of large lots into 0.4 ha (1 acre) parcels. This is a pattern that has historically taken
place in Maple Ridge. At the time the OCP was reviewed, community members expressed their desire
to continue to provide a wide range of subdivision options, including 0.4 ha (1 acre) and 0.8 ha (2
acre) lots. The range of lot sizes and housing forms allows people to choose urban settings with little
yard space, large rural properties, or alternately a more suburban setting that allows for yards,
greenspace and access to natural settings. This is part of what many residents believed expressed
the character of Maple Ridge.
2009 Analysis of Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use Designation
A report was prepared in 2009 that undertook an analysis of the Suburban Residential and Estate
Suburban land use designation. The report presented today, is an updated version of the original
2009 report. Since the writing of the 2009 report, the Estate Suburban area has modestly increased
in the number of lots (30 new lots) and the land base has largely remained the same. The Suburban
Residential land use designation has seen an increase of approximately 300 lots.
3
This is an average of 37 new lots per year over the last seven years. Since 2009, 1,633 single family
units have been constructed in Maple Ridge. New construction in the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designation areas account for 20% of these new single family units.
Furthermore, 3,322 dwelling units (multi-family, townhouse and single family) have been constructed
since 2009. Construction in these two land use designations account for less than 10% of all new
dwelling units constructed between 2009-2015 in the City. Therefore, the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designation areas have not been large growth areas for the City.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Generally speaking, the Official Community Plan provides for 3 levels of residential growth within the
community: Urban (lands within the Urban Area Boundary); Suburban and Estate Suburban (on
community water); and Rural (on private services). Section 2.2 Land Use Designations of the Plan
defines the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential land use designations and
identifies that the only distinction between the two land use designations is that E state Suburban
Residential properties are within the GVS&DD Fraser Sewer Area. The definitions are as follows:
Suburban Residential - The Suburban Residential designation permits single detached or
duplex housing in areas located outside of the Urban Area Boundary that has water service
but which are not connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system.
Estate Suburban Residential - The Estate Suburban Residential designation permits single
detached or duplex housing in areas outside the Urban Area Boundary. The properties are
within the Fraser Sewer Area or on property where sewer services have already been
connected.
The Official Community Plan also prescribes the zones that can be used in the Suburban Residential
and Estate Suburban Residential Land Use designations as follows:
Table 1
Excerpt from Official Community Plan, Appendix C Zoning
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
ZONES Lot Size
Suburban Residential Designation
RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential
0.4 ha (1 acre) with community
water
RG-2 Suburban Residential
Strata
0.4 ha (1 acre) with community
water and private sanitary sewer
system
Estate Suburban Residential Designation RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential
0.4 ha (1 acre) with
community water
*properties are located in the Fraser
Sewer Area and have the ability to
connect to the regional sewer system.
o Number of Parcels and Area
Currently, there are 1750 parcels designated Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban
Residential in Maple Ridge, and total 1103 hectares (2725 acres) in area. These properties are
predominately located in the central and eastern portions of the City, with the bulk of these
4
properties situated north of Dewdney Trunk Road. The breakdown by land use designation is as
follows:
Table 2
Land Use Designation, Area and Parcels
Land Use Designation Area Number of Existing Parcels*
Suburban Residential 860 ha 967
Estate Suburban 243 ha 783
TOTAL 1103 ha (2725 acres) 1750
*This is the number of existing parcels (developed and undeveloped). The overall area and number do not take into
account site constraints such as steep slopes, streamside protection areas, etc. that limits the overall development
potential for a parcel.
The Suburban Residential land use designation has the larger land base and accounts for a
greater amount of development potential when compared to the Estate Suburban land use
designation area. In the development projection section of the report, the overall number of
parcels is reduced to reflect lots with development potential to provide a more accurate account
of future development in these land use designation areas.
o Parcel Size
The majority of lots (71%) in the Estate Suburban land use designation are less than 0.8 ha (2 acres)
and therefore do not have the ability to further subdivide into 0.4 hectares (1 acre) lots. The balance
of parcels (29%) are greater than 0.8 ha and may have some ability to subdivide to a smaller lot size.
The chart below indicates that 71% of existing parcels in the Suburban Residential designation are
greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres), and may have the ability to subdivide into smaller lots (0.4 ha with a
connection to the community water system). Approximately, 29% of existing parcels are less than
0.8 ha (2 acres) in the Suburban Residential designation and do not have the ability to subdivide.
It is important to note that these figures are gross numbers and d o not include watercourse
setbacks, geotechnical restrictions, or other limiting factors that would impact the overall
developable area. These figures do not account for lot consolidation or land assemblies.
Table 3
Lot Size by Land Use Designation
Designation 0 < 0.4ha
(0 < 1 ac)
0.4 < .8ha
(1 < 2 ac)
.8 < 2.0ha
(2 < 5 ac)
2.0 < 4.0ha
(5< 10ac)
> 4.0 ha
(> 10ac)
Total
Suburban
Residential
31 ha
(4 %)
217 ha (25
%)
225 ha
(26 %)
217ha
(25 %)
170 ha
(20 %)
860 ha
(100%)
Estate
Suburban
Residential
59 ha
(24 %)
112 ha
(46 %)
40 ha
(16 %)
20 ha
(8 %)
12 ha
(5 %)
243 ha
(100%)
Total 90 ha 329 ha 265 ha 237 ha 182 ha 1103 ha
No Subdivision Potential Subdivision Potential
In consideration of the tables above, Estate Suburban has limited subdivision potential. While
Suburban Residential has greater subdivision potential. Since 2009, many of the larger parcels have
been subdivided. Based on anaylsis of parcel size in the Suburban Residenital land use designation,
approximately 387 ha (956 acres) of land remains that could be developed (0.8 ha lots). While this
figure appears to provide a large land base for subdivision opportunities, the amount of developable
land will be reduced as limiting factors are discussed in the section below, Subdivision
Considerations.
5
SUBDIVISION CONSIDERATIONS
Potential Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential Development
In preparing this report, an assessment was undertaken of lands designated Suburban and Estate
Suburban Residential in the Official Community Plan. This assessment is intended to provide scope,
and to generate discussion on the subject. However, detailed information on parcel limitations such
as steep slopes, watercourses, parcel geometry, and access were not factored into the calculation
and could affect the veracity of the numbers. Therefore development calculations were based on a
percentage (50-75%) of the parcel size to account for possible limiting factors. The estimate also
assumes that community water is available or is feasible for all RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential lots. Additionally, the total number of parcels and area may differ from those identified
in Table 2 as the report focuses on the predominate zones and/or larger parcels in both land use
designations (areas where development is complete have been eliminated from the calculations).
Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985
The majority of properties in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential land use
designations are zoned RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential (42%), RS-3 One Family Rural
Residential (24%), and A-2 Upland Agriculture (16%). Other zones include CS-3 Recreation
Commercial, M-2 General Industrial, A-1 Small Holding Agriculture, RS-1d One Family Urban (Half
Acre), RS-1 One Family Urban Residential and RG-2 Suburban Residential Strata, many of which,
predate comprehensive land use planning within the community (i.e. OCP), and reflect the historic
use of the property. For the purpose of this report, information is focused on the RS-3 One Family
Rural Residential and RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential zones since they are the most
prevalent or represent large land holdings.
Based on Official Community Plan policies and Zoning Regulations (see on Table 1), properties zoned
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential and A-2 Upland Agriculture in the Suburban Residential and
Estate Suburban land use designations have the potential to be rezoned to RS-2 One Family
Suburban Residential. This would allow for a lot size of 0.4 ha (1 acre).
However, many of these properties can avoid rezoning to RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential as
they can subdivide under the existing RS-3 One Family Rural Residential zone. The following chart
identifies the Zoning Bylaw regulations pertaining to lot size and width for these two zones:
Table 4
Zoning Bylaw Requirements
Zone Description Minimum Parcel Size hectares (acres) Min.
Width m
RS-3 One Family Suburban
Residential*
0.8 ha (2 acres) with community water*
2.0 ha (5 acres) without community water*
60 m
60 m
RS-2 One Family Rural Residential 0.4 ha (1 acre) 36 m
* Please note the difference in permissible lot size based on water availability in the RS-3 zone
Infrastructure Requirements
Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993 regulates the subdivision and development of land
within the community, and prescribes the servicing standards for development according to each
6
zone. A summary of the Bylaw as it pertains to the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential and RS-2 One
Family Suburban Residential zones follows:
Table 5
Subdivision Servicing Requirements- Suburban Residential
Zone Description Water
Distribution
System
Private
Water
Sanitary
Sewer
On-site
Sewage
Disposal
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
0.8 ha lot
2.0 ha lot
Not
available
RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential
Not
available
As shown in the table above, connecting to the sanitary sewer system is not permissible in the
Suburban Residential land use designation. Any new lot created must be serviced with an individual
on-site sewage disposal system. In the past this has been a limiting factor for some subdivision
proposals. However, there have been a couple of instances whereby sewage disposal in a strata
subdivision was provided by a privately owned and operated system. Generally, this approach has
not been supported by the City. If the system should fail in the future, often the City is requested to
intervene and help address any health and safety issues at a significant cost.
It should be noted, that a connection to the community water system is required for subdivisions that
would result in parcels 0.4 ha (1 acre) in size.
Table 6
Subdivision Servicing Requirements – Estate Suburban
Zone Description Water
Distribution
System
Private
Water
Sanitary
Sewer
On-site
Sewage
Disposal
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
0.8 ha lot
2.0 ha lot
RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential
* If available, properties in the Fraser Sewer Area may connect to municipal sewer
The table above demonstrates that the Estate Suburban land use designation allows for connection
to the regional sewer system. This is a significant difference from Suburban Residential properties
that have on-site septic systems. Subdivision in the Estate Suburban land use designation is not
limited by the capacity of a property (soil conditions) to provide on-site sewage disposal or the
potential environmental impacts.
It should be noted, that a connection to the community water system is required for subdivisions
that would result in parcels 0.4 ha (1 acre) in size.
o Water
Based on the Subdivision Servicing requirements, the link between land use and servicing is clear.
In the absence of community water, subdivision in the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential zone is
7
limited to 2.0 ha lots, and subdivision in the RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential zone would not
be permitted.
In the late 1990’s the municipal water supply was extended to the Rothsay Garibaldi area in
response to health related concerns with the on-site private water systems. Water has previously
been provided to the Whispering Falls area. The Kanaka Business Park and the Grant Hill Estates are
also on municipal water.
The City’s Drinking Water Master Plan identifies that a reliable, safe, maintainable supply system is
optimized when interconnected or “looped”. This is also a key factor in emergency response.
The Servicing and OCP Designation Map attached to this report identifies the extent of water
availability in relation to the Suburban and Estate Suburban Residential designations. The system
has expanded significantly throughout the area. The majority of properties are within a distance that
is feasible for a water connection. Therefore, unless the City creates a policy that prevents future
connections in this area, properties will continue to connect to the water system in support of some
form of subdivision.
o Sewer
Generally, properties located outside of the Urban Area Boundary are not connected, or permitted to
connect to the regional sewer system. In the suburban Residential land use designation, properties
have on-site septic systems with the expectation of properties zoned RG-2 Suburban Residential
Strata (the Bosonworth subdivision) which has a privately operated sanitary sewer system.
Subdivision is only supportable in the Suburban Residential land use designation if it can be proven
that the parcel is suitable for the installation of an on-site system in accordance with regional and
provincial sewage disposal regulations.
A second circumstance that allows for connection to the regional sewer system are properties
located outside the Urban Area Boundary are land in the Estate Suburban land use designation. The
Official Community Plan established the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation to
differentiate between properties that are already connected to the regional sewer system or are
included in the GVS&DD Fraser Sewerage Area, and therefore may connect to sewer (when
available), from those properties that cannot connect to the sewer system. Based on Metro
Vancouver’s Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan the extension of the sewer
system outside of the Fraser Sewer Area is not permitted, and the City’s Official Community Plan
policies reflect this.
Given that properties designated Estate Suburban Residential are connected to, or have the ability to
be connected to the regional sewer system, issues regarding impacts on the environment (i.e. creeks
and watercourses) resulting from potential failing private systems are not applicable. It is noted that
potential impacts on softer services (such as parks and schools) and rural character remain.
o Estate Suburban Development Potential
As noted earlier in the report there are 783 parcels, totaling 243 ha (600 acres) designated Estate
Suburban Residential. 345 of those parcels are currently zoned RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
(668 m2), and would not have any further subdivision potential unless consolidation or a land
assembly occurs.
8
Based on an assessment of parcel size in the Estate Suburban designation, it is estimated that in
the absence of community water, subdivision under current RS-3 One Family Rural Residential zone
is very restricted as the minimum lot size is 2.0 ha (5.0 acres), and may result in an additional 6 lots.
However, if community water is available, it is estimated that there could be a range of between 41
RS-3 One Family Rural Residential lots (0.8 ha) to 182 RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential (0.4
ha) lots. Recognizing that most properties have some form of development constraint, it is realistic
to assume that only 75 % of potential lot yield would be attainable, resulting in an estimate that
ranges from 30 (0.8 ha lots) to 136 lots (0.4 ha).
It is noted however, that properties in the Estate Suburban Residential designation have the
regulatory ability to connect to the regional sewer distribution system and would not necessarily be
developed using on-site systems.
The 75% calculation is based on an evaluation of limiting factors on development such as
environmental and conservation setbacks, road and lot layout patterns. In the Estate Suburban land
use designation, few properties are impacted by steep slopes, a major limiting factor for
development and the ability to connect to the sanitary sewer system makes subdivision more viable.
o Suburban Residential Development Potential
There are 967 parcels, totaling 860 ha (2,125 acres) in the Suburban Residential designation, the
majority of which are zoned RS-3 One Family Rural Residential (321 parcels and 410 ha) and RS-2
One Family Suburban Residential (435 parcels and 248 ha).
Based on the size and number of parcels in the Suburban Residential designation, it is estimated
that there could be an additional 85 RS-3 One Family Rural Residential lots (2.0 ha), utilizing on-site
water and septic. If municipal water is available, there is the potential for an additional 304, 0.8 ha
(2 acre) RS-3 One Family Rural Residential lots.
If all properties greater than 0.8 ha in size were to be rezoned to RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential, and municipal water was available, there is the potential for an additional 848 lots (0.4
ha/ 1 acre). It is noted that these additional lots in the Suburban Residential designation would not
be connected to the regional sewer system and would be developed utilizing on-site septic systems.
The figures above suggest that while there is significant amount of land and potential lot yield, there
are many influencing factors that limit the subdivision potential in the Suburban Residential land use
designation. As part of the analysis of development potential in the Suburban Residential land use
designation area, staff evaluated specific neighbourhoods where a high concentration of suburban
development has taken place. These include Rothsay Garibaldi, Whispering Falls, and Bosonworth.
They have largely been built out. In the Rothsay Garibaldi area,for the few remaining pockets of
developable area consideration should be given to allowing development to continue to full buildout
from a consistency perspective in addition to completing servicing (specifically water system looping)
throughout the area.
Additionally, lands that were identified as potential industrial lands were excluded (industrial
potential lands are discussed later in this report), and finally a 50% land area calculation was
applied to the remaining lands. Unlike the Estate Suburban properties, many of the remaining
Suburban Residential properties have limited subdivision potential due to steep slopes and
watercourse/environmental constraints. Properties that are easily developed have often already
been subdivided. Many of the existing parcels have some level of constraint that may limit
development potential.
9
Therefore, taking all of these factors into account, subdivision potential is likely reduced to
approximately 22 (2 ha) lots, or 152 (0.8 ha) lots, or 424 (0.4 ha) lots.
Adding an additional 424 lots, while not insignificant, in the overall growth scheme for the City this
accounts for approximately 2% of future planned growth. This is a small amount of the overall
potential growth in the City.
o Commercial Industrial Strategy
The Commercial Industrial Strategy was endorsed on August 25, 2014. It identified the need for
future employment lands in the City. As part of the Strategy, potential sites were identified as
possible employment locations. The lands adjacent to Kwantlen First Nation were identified by the
Strategy. Staff was directed to prepare a report on the feasibility of these lands as appropriate
location and site for employment use. Should these lands be redesignated from Suburban
Residential to Industrial approximately 192 ha would be removed from the Suburban Residential
land use designation.
To provide a comprehensive overview of the Suburban Residential land use designation is it
appropriate to consider: (1) the amount of residential development that can be achieved if these
lands were excluded; and (2) whether redesignating these lands at this time is advantageous rather
than in the future. The subject lands are identified on the attached map (Appendix C) for your
information.
The Strategy analyzed lands in the 256th Street area. At the time the Strategy was developed it was
thought that the distance to major arterials from 256th Street was a hindrance, and the area was
viewed as being a long term employment location (e.g. to be developed once other areas were at
capacity). However, market conditions have changed, and both Business Parks in the vicinity of
these lands are experiencing rapid growth. As a result of this pressure, staff has been considering
suburban land use in the area and is recommending that the Suburban Residential lands and
Institutional lands in the vicinity of 256th Street be designated Industrial (see Appendix C). This would
increase employment potential in the community by adding an additional 104 ha (256 acres) of
Suburban Residential and Institutional lands, while reducing the amount of Suburban Residential
land and reducing potential land use conflicts. Should Council support this recommendation to
designate these lands for industrial, staff will begin to prepare bylaws to designate these lands for
Industrial use. While not the subject of this report, in considering the Suburban Residential land use
designation in the vicinity of 256th Street, it is noted that there are vacant institutional properties in
the area that could also be designated Industrial.
Should these Suburban Residential lands be designated for Industrial use, approximately 192 ha
(474 acres) would be removed from the Suburban Residential land use designation. This reduces
the overall Suburban Residential from 860 ha to 667 ha in size. Thus limiting the available lands for
future suburban residential development.
Total Development Potential in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Land Use
Designations
Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that in the absence of municipal water there is
limited subdivision potential in both the Estate Suburban and Suburban Residential land use
designations. In considering the servicing requirements it is clear that the availability of municipal
water in the Suburban Residential land use designation has a significant influence on development
potential. As noted in the report, the RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential Zone requires that the
10
lot be serviced by municipal water. In the absence of water, rezoning to RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential is not supportable. It is important to note since the writing of the original report in 2009,
the majority of areas now have access to water.
Below is a table that combines the number of potential lots that could be created under the RS-3
One Family Rural Residential and the RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential zones. Also included is
the projected development numbers should the future employment lands be designated Industrial
and removed from the Suburban Residential land use designation.
Table 7
Development Potential for Estate Suburban and Suburban Residential
Zone Minimum Lot Size Number of Potential New
Lots
Number of Potential
New Lots less
Proposed Industrial
Lands and completed
subdivisions
100 %
(Maximum
site potential)
50-75% of
development
potential
100 %
(Maximum
site
potential)
50-75% of
development
potential
RS-3 2 ha (5 acres) without
community water
91 46 50 26
RS-2 0.8 ha(2 acres)
without community
water
468 243 345 182
RS-2 0.4 ha (1 acre) with
community water
1261 725 666 560
Should the Suburban Residential lands, as identified on Appendix C be redesignated to Industrial the
number of potential new residential lots would decrease. The lands adjacent to Kwantlen First
Nation are 88 ha (217 acres) and the lands in the vicinity of 256th Street is 104 ha (256 acres). If
both Suburban Residential land adjacent to Kwantlen First Nation and 256th Street area were
redesignated to Industrial this would remove 192 ha (474 acres) of land from the Suburban
Residential land use designation and would eliminate up to 61 RS-3 or 165 RS-2 future lots from the
inventory.
b) Desired Outcomes:
As discussed above, the ability to connect to the community water system is an influencing factor
under the current policy framework to permit subdivision in the Suburban Residential and Estate
Suburban land use designations. Over the past several years, the community water system has been
expanded throughout many of these areas, making water easily available to a significant portion of
the undeveloped properties. However, the capacity of the existing system may limit the ability of
proposed new lots from connecting to the system.
The focus of this report was to provide an overview of the existing conditions and potential for further
subdivision in the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban land use designations. For Council’s
consideration, several options are provided that would result in either limiting further subdivision in
these areas, redistributing development to an area, or allowing the current growth pattern to
continue.
11
The following table identifies a number of options for Council’s consider ation. It is intended to
provide direction to staff and to help guide next steps:
12
Options Comments Council Resolution
1. Estate Suburban:
The Estate Suburban Residential
designation permits single
detached or duplex housing in
areas outside the Urban Area
Boundary. The properties are
within the Fraser Sewer Area or on
property where sewer services
have already been connected.
a) Growth by way of subdivision
continues in the same pattern
with lots ranging from 0.8 ha
(2 acres) to 0.4 ha (1 acre)
Would allow for the looping
of the community water
system
Limited subdivision over the
last 7 years (average of 4
lots per year)
Maximum potential new lots
– 136
That one of the following resolutions be
selected:
1a) No resolution required; or,
b) Increase density by permitting
0.2 ha (1/2 acre) or 0.1 ha
(1/4 acre) lots. This can
include clustering of lots to
preserve site features
including environmentally
sensitive areas.
This could yield between 927 to
1,854 lots.
Smaller lot sizes could be
available to properties that
are connected to the sanitary
sewer system
Properties are connected to
servicing, reducing impacts
to the environment, system
efficiency, and increasing the
number of users contributing
to the financial sustainability
of the system
Permitting higher density
allows for clustering which
offers opportunities to
preserve environmentally
sensitive areas
Estate Suburban land use
areas are located in the
Regional Urban Containment
Boundary
1b) THAT staff be directed to prepare a
report on options for reducing the
minimum parcel size in the Estate
Suburban land use designation; or,
c) Decrease density by either
increasing the minimum
parcel size or redesignating
the area as Rural Residential
Reduces the number of lots
Potentially prevents water
system from finishing looping
and other servicing system
1c) THAT staff prepare and bring
forward a report on options for
increasing the minimum parcel size in
the Estate Suburban land use
13
Options Comments Council Resolution
efficiencies
Maintains existing character
designation.
2. Suburban Residential:
The Suburban Residential
designation permits single
detached or duplex housing in
areas located outside of the Urban
Area Boundary that has water
service but which are not
connected to the municipal
sanitary sewer system.
a) Development to continue in
the same pattern with lots
ranging from 0.8 ha (2 acres)
to 0.4 ha (1 acre)
Would allow for the looping
of the community water
system
Continues current growth
pattern
Provides for a variety of lots
sizes in the community
That one of the following resolutions be
selected:
2a) No resolution required; or,
b) Decrease density by
increasing the minimum
parcel size
Minimum parcel size could
be increased to 4 ha or
greater. This would limit
subdivision potential
Maintains the current
number of parcels
2b) THAT staff prepare and bring
forward a report and bylaws that would
increase the minimum parcel size in
the Suburban Residential land use
designation; or,
c) Redesignate large parcels to a
Suburban Residential Large
Lot land use designation that
would prevent further
subdivision
Minimum parcel size could
be increased to 4 ha or
greater. This would limit
subdivision potential
High level of transparency
Maintains the current
number of parcels
2c) THAT staff draft a bylaw
amendment for the Suburban
Residential Land Use designation and
staff report to create policies for a
large lot sub-category in the Suburban
Residential Land Use designation; or,
d) Designate a portion of larger
parcels to Suburban
Residential Large Lot land use
designation, however, lots in
the Whispering Falls, Rothsay
Garibaldi and Bosonworth
would complete existing
subdivision patterns
Would allow for the looping
of the community water
system
Allows current growth
pattern to complete in
specific neighbourhoods
Provides for a variety of lots
sizes in the community
2d) THAT staff draft a bylaw
amendment that would allow portions
of the Suburban Residential Land Use
designation, specifically Whispering
Falls, Rothsay Garibaldi and
Bosonworth areas to complete
subdivisions while maintaining the
remainder of land use designations in
14
Options Comments Council Resolution
parcels larger than 0.4 ha (1 acre).
3. Commercial Industrial Lands a) Designate lands in the 256
Street area for industrial use
as shown on Appendix C
Removes 104 ha (256 acres)
from Suburban Residential
Limits the number of new
lots by up to approx. 260
Increases land available for
employment use
This includes an Institutional
Parcel
That one of the following resolutions be
selected
3a) THAT Staff draft a bylaw
amendment to the Official Community
Plan to redesignate lands in the 256
Street vicinity to Industrial from
Suburban Residential and Institutional.
b) Designate lands adjacent to
Kwantlen First Nation from
Suburban Residential to
Idustrial as shown on
Appendix C
Removes 88 ha (217 acres)
from Suburban Residential
Limits the number of new
lots by up to 222 lots
Implements the Commercial
Industrial Strategy to provide
more land for employment
lands to meet future
demands
A previous resolution was
passed by Council to
examine the feasibility of
industrial use for these lands
No resolution required.
15
c) Policy Implications:
An OCP amendment may be required, should Council pass a resolution to change the land use
designation for properties with a 4.0 ha parcel size or larger; or alternatively, if staff is directed to
change the minimum parcel size in the Suburban Residential and/or Estate Suburban Residential
land use designation. As with any OCP amendment, Council must consider if early and on -going
consultation is required, in addition to the statutory requirement for a public hearing. If an OCP
amendment is required, the first reading report will be presented outlining a proposed consultation
strategy.
CONCLUSIONS:
This report provides an overview of the Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban land use
designations in the City of Maple Ridge and highlights the accompanying zoning, subdivision and
servicing regulations relating to those land use designations. The calculations in this report
represent a scoping exercise that took a high level overview of individual site topography. But did not
evaluate lot geometry, access, or detailed site specific environmental features. The figures
presented in this report are simply intended to generate discussion.
One of the findings of the report identifies that the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation
has less development potential than the Suburban Residential land use designation. The limited
development potential in the Estate Suburban Residential designation illustrates that many of these
properties have previously been rezoned and/or subdivided under the RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential zone.
The report findings identify that the potential number of additional lots ranges from approximately
243 lots under current RS-3 One Family Rural Residential zoning (with water available), to 725
additional lots should lands be rezoned and/or subdivided under RS-2 One Family Suburban
Residential. While this represents a small portion of the overall projected growth for the City, it is not
an insignificant number of new lots being created in these areas. However, 0.4 ha (1 acre) lot sizes
do provide for a range of lot and housing options for the community. Providing a range of housing
options was expressed by the community as an important characteristic of the community.
A number of options are presented for consideration, including increasing density in the Estate
Suburban land use designation, limiting future development in the Suburban Residential land use
designation, to finally, redesignate strategic lands to Industrial to meet future employment needs.
Following Council’s decision, staff will prepare any required bylaw amendments and associated
consultation.
16
Lastly, it is noted that in order to achieve the maximum number of additional lots (i.e. 1713) the
parent parcels must be subdivided into 0.4 ha lots (1 acre) and rezoned from RS-3 One Family Rural
Residential to RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential. Should Council not support rezoning
applications to RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential, the number of lots created may be
approximately 525, with lot sizes 0.8 ha (2 acres) or greater.
“Original signed by Lisa Grant”
Prepared by: Lisa Grant, M.Plan, MCIP, RPP,
Planner 2
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.Pl, MCIP, RPP,
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng,
GM: Public Works and Development Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A: Overiview Land Use Designation Map, Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban
Appendix B: Developable Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Areas
Appendix C: Potential Industrial Land Use
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: August 29, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Proposed Exclusion Application of the Former Pelton’s Lands by the Aquilini
Investment Group
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On June 6, 2016, Council received correspondence from Aquilini Investment Group, advising of their
intent to proceed with an application to exclude the former “Pelton” lands from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, to enable development of a job creation area (see Appendix A). Amongst other things, the
correspondence noted historical damage to the site, their intention to commission an economic
analysis to review alternative development options, and included a request that a community
consultation program be facilitated by a third party managed by the City, noting that any reasonable
expenses would be paid by the Aquilini Group. At that meeting Council passed the following
resolution:
“That the letter dated June 1, 2016 from Jim Chu, Senior Vice-President Aquilini
Investment Group be received for information and that staff be directed to provide a
report outlining both the planning implications and resources required for the
process for the proposed exclusion application by the Aquilini Investment Group”.
On August 24, 2016, the Aquilini Group submitted additional information in support of their
proposed exclusion application, which includes further rationale for the exclusion; detailed economic
analysis; and an introduction to their company (see Appendix B).
As noted above, the Aquilini Group have asked that the City commence the management of a third
party consultation program on their behalf. While this has not been the practice of the City on other
applications, nor is it recommended in this instance, the report outlines the implications and
resources should Council decide to have the City lead the consultation. Also included in the report is
a history of ALC decisions and an update on recent community feedback.
II.RECOMMENDATION:
That one of the following options be selected:
Option 1. – Current Practice
That pursuant with current practice regarding the processing of ALR Exclusion applications, that
Aquilini Investment Group be advised to lead their own consultation program and provide the results
of that program to the City as a component of their application submission; and further
That City staff be directed to attach the consultation information received to the staff report that
would be submitted for Council consideration.
OR 5.4
2
Option 2. - Third Party, City Managed Consultation
That staff be directed to prepare a Scoping Report providing further details on a Third Party -City
Managed Consultation Program for the ALR Exclusion of the Aquilini lands at 203rd and Golden Ears
Way.
OR
Option 3. - Public Information Meeting
That pursuant with current practice regarding the processing of ALR Exclusion applications, that
Aquilini Investment Group be advised to lead their own consultation program and provide the results
of that consultation to the City as a component of their application submission; and further
That City staff be directed to:
i. attach any information received to the staff report that would be submitted for Council
consideration; and
ii. refer the matter to a Special Public Information Meeting as described in Section VI. (b)(iii) of the
report titled “Proposed Exclusion Application of the Former Pelton’s Lands by the Aquilini
Investment Group, dated August 29, 2016.”
III. BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 2016, Council received a letter dated June 1, 2016 from Jim Chu, Senior Vice President,
Aquilini Investment Group, regarding the former “Pelton’s” Land. The following is a summary of the
key messages in the letter (please refer to Appendix A for specifics). The letter states:
the Aquilini Group intends to pursue the exclusion of 202 acres from the Agricultural Land
Reserve.
there is no cultivation of the lands; they are not productive; cannot be productive barring
extensive remediation.
their intention to undertake a thorough economic analysis to review alternative development
options and the relative number and quality of jobs that would result.
A request that the City consider facilitating a third party to manage community consultation.
Aquilini Group believe that a well-rounded application will garner the support of the ALC.
They have developed a strategy that includes contributing local replacement acreage into the
ALR and making sure those lands are farmed; and that there will be a co mprehensive
development plan that will create a tangible net benefit for both Maple Ridge and agriculture in
the region.
Addendum from Aquilini Group
On August 24, 2016, the Aquilini Group submitted further information in support of the proposed
exclusion application. The information included the rationale for exclusion; an economic analysis
with information on direct and indirect construction jobs, and projected permanent
business/industrial jobs; and an introduction to the Company. This information is attached as
Appendix B to this report, and the summary in that document reads as follows:
“The application to trade-in lands to the ALR to remove the PRN [Pelton Reforestation Nursery] lands
is a distinctive proposal and is characterized by the following:
3
The Aquilini Group has current land holdings and can trade-in non-ALR land that is suitable
for farming to ensure there is a greater than one-for-one trade;
As farmers, we have the expertise and experience to guarantee that the new ALR inclusion
lands are farmed, thus improving net overall food output;
As builders, we pledge to develop the PRN lands in a manner that is environmentally friendly
and is reflective of community input and interests;
Subject to community consultation and the necessary approvals, the Aquilini Group plan to
build a six to 15 studio complex, with a hotel property that will house a well-known and
established film production studio;
The PRN site is uneconomic to farm, the soil is poor and has been damaged;
The PRN lands are located near existing city developments and will offer positive
environmental benefits because workers can walk, bike or use public transportation to get to
their jobs;
The PRN lands are located near major road networks which minimizes the impact of truck
and business traffic for the other parts of the community;
The project will create over 500 direct and indirect construction jobs over an eight year
buildout, and a projected 3300 permanent and well-paying business/industrial jobs
following the buildout;
Annual property tax revenue for the City of Maple Ridge will increase by over $10 million per
year;
If the equivalent 202 acres of non-ALR lands that the Aquilini Group has acquired are not
turned into farms, and are instead developed as residential and/or industrial sites, there will
be more problematic pressures on local roads and neighboring farms; and
Both the cities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, with their limited public transportation,
long driver commuter times, and small non-residential tax base, will benefit immensely from
this project.
As stated earlier, the Aquilini Group intends to partner closely with the City of Maple Ridge and
to engage in an extensive public consultation process to help mold this development to be one
which best fits and serves the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows communities, and to uphold the
principles of the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan.
This proposal is unique and will create a net benefit to farming, the people of Maple Ridge, the
local and provincial economy, and the environment”.
The subject lands:
Aquilini Group holdings are identified in Appendix C.
Area: 82 ha (202 ac.)
OCP: Agricultural
Zoning: A-2 Upland Agriculture
ALR: 100%
Metro RGS: Agriculture
IV. AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION:
Given that the letter from the Aquilini Group advised the City of their intention to pursue the
exclusion of lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve, it is important to understand the history of
ALR exclusion decisions on the property; ALC regulations; and recent feedback from the ALC staff.
4
ALC Decisions
There have been 2 unsuccessful exclusion applications made on the subject properties – the first in
2004 (AL/053/04) and the second in 2010 (AL/027/10). The following section of this report
provides an overview of the applications and related decisions.
File AL/053/04
In 2004, Council gave consideration to an exclusion application to remove approximately 110
hectares (271 acres) of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. This specific application
included the former “Pelton’s” lands, in addition to lands owned by others located on the north
side of Abernethy Road (refer to Appendix D).
The 2004 application did not explicitly indicate the redevelopment plans for the properties, but
the report noted that it was believed that the owner’s intention was to use the properties for uses
other than rural residential or agricultural. The applicants noted concerns with the Fraser River
Crossing and road improvements would have on the properties.
The staff report noted that the lands were outside the Urban Area Boundary and were within
what was previously called the Metro Vancouver “Green Zone” under the Livable Region
Strategic Plan. It was further noted that the OCP was also under review.
A review of the file indicates that letters of objection were received from the Pitt Meadows
Farmers Institute, a number of concerned citizens, and a petition in opposition to the Exclusion
application with over 60 signatures.
Council Decision:
The Council practice at that time was that all ALR applications were to be referred to the ALC,
however, Council did not authorize the application to be forwarded to the ALC.
File AL/027/10
In 2010, Council gave consideration to an application to remove 61.5 hectares of land from the
ALR and for a non-farm use for 20.9 hectares of land. The purpose of the application was to
increase employment generating opportunities within the City. The subject map identifies the
properties that were the subject of the ALC applications. (refer to Appendix E)
Specifics of the proposal were as follows:
To Remain in the ALR 20.9 hectares (51.7 acres)
Non-Farm use 10.6 ha
Community Park 3.3 ha
Experimental Incubator 2.6 ha
Community Gardens 2 ha
Agri-product terminal 1.2 ha
Horse Trailer Parking 0.4 ha
ALR Exclusion 61.5 ha (152.2 acres)
Agricultural Specialty Sales 1 ha
Employment generation 52.2 ha
5
Road 5.5 ha
Storm Water Detention Pond Open Space 0.8 ha
SE Corner Remnant 0.2 ha
The staff report that was presented to Council provided an overview of OCP policies, noting that
the lands are designated Agricultural in the OCP and are located outside of the Urban Area
Boundary. The OCP policies support agriculture and the protection of agricultural lands.
However, the staff report also acknowledged that there was policy support for the creation of
additional employment lands in the City. The staff report identified:
The City needs an additional 220-300 acres of industrial/employment land.
The sites compliance with the locational criteria in the OCP (i.e. land is flat, conducive to
industrial development, contiguous to municipal services, located near regional
transportation network).
And the proposals compliance with the Economic Development Strategy.
The staff report also identified that the proponent had identified a number of contributory
measures to offset the loss of agricultural land within the community, noting that the application
proposes to provide a net benefit to agriculture and the community by providing the following:
Funds for drainage improvements to help increase the capability of soils in Maple Ridge to
their productive potential and new upgraded infrastructure to serve agricultural needs
($5000 for each acre excluded)
Creation of an Agri-Product Terminal for the sales and distribution of area agricultural
products;
Establishment of community gardens for local residents use and experimental farm plots for
agricultural innovation, incubator and educational purposes;
A community park with sports fields;
Multi-use trails and ALR buffers;
Horse trailer parking area loading and unloading;
Opportunities for top-soil reclamation to local farms.
Council Decision:
The staff report noted that the ALC Act provides Local Government with an option to hold a
Public Meeting upon receipt of an application. Council discussed this matter, and defeated a
motion to host a Public Information Meeting on the ALR application. The application was
authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council
Comments and the staff report.
With regards to the application, it is noted that much public feedback was received, including a
letter to the ALC from the Member of the Legislative Assembly, and a 2,300 name petition
noting opposition to the proposed exclusion.
ALC Decision:
In October 2010, the ALC advised the applicant that the application was refused (refer to
Appendix F). The reasons provided in the decision were:
the lands had significant agricultural capability and could support a broad range of
agricultural activity. It was noted that the lands had been successfully utilized as an
agricultural operation for nearly 40 years.
The Commission did not believe there were external factors that would make the lands
unsuitable for agriculture.
6
The subject lands are surrounded by other parcels of similar size.
The proposal, if approved would negatively affect the agricultural suitability of neighbouring
properties.
The Commission recognized that there is a perceived need for employment lands in the City,
but noted that lands are set aside for industrial purposes that were not fully utilized.
Acknowledged that proximity to major transportation routes makes the lands well suited for
employment use, however the Commission did not believe that this was a justifiable reason
to allow the conversion of farmland.
The benefits to agriculture did not compensate for the proposed exclusion.
“It was the Commission’s view that the subject lands have good potential for agriculture, and
are in a productive agricultural area. The Commission believed that the proposed exclusion
would act as an intrusion into the ALR and would only serve to further erode remaining
farmland, by fueling speculation and precipitating similar requests from adjacent property
owners. As such the Commission believes the proposal would negatively impact existing or
potential agricultural use of surrounding lands”.
All commodities go through cycles, if the Commission were to exclude property based on
commodity cycle, market conditions or economic hardship, eventually the supply of
agricultural land would be diminished.
The decision letter included the following conclusion:
o “That the land under application has agricultural capability and is appropriately
designated in the ALR.
o That the land under application is suitable for agricultural use.
o That the proposal will impact agriculture.
o That the proposal is inconsistent with the objective of the Agricultural Land Commission
Act to preserve agricultural land.”…
o Resolution #2672/2010 – That the application be refused”
b) ALC - Regulations
Section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act stipulates the purpose of the Commission, and all
ALR proposals are weighed against the following:
“Purposes of the commission
6 The following are the purposes of the commission:
(a) to preserve agricultural land;
(b) to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of
interest;
(c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable
and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in
their plans, bylaws and policies.”
In addition, the ALR Regulations specify such things as notification requirements and application
procedures. Sections 20 and 21 of the Regulations state that a Local Government may hold a Public
Information Meeting with respect to an exclusion application. If a meeting is held, the municipality
has 90 days from receipt of the application to send materials to the Commission, rather than 60 if
there is no public Information meeting.
“20 If an exclusion application is filed under section 15 (1) of this regulation, the commission or
the local government or first nation government in whose jurisdictional area is located the
land to which the exclusion application relates may hold a public information meeting with
respect to that exclusion application.
7
Local government or first nation government forwards exclusion application
21 (1) Subject to section 19, within the applicable time limit under subsection (2) of this
section, the local government or first nation government in whose jurisdictional area is
located the land to which an exclusion application relates must send to the commission all
of the following:
(a) the exclusion application, including the materials required under section 15 (2) and
copies of responses received as a result of a notice under section 16;
(b) its comments and recommendations required under section 34 (4) of the Act in a form
acceptable to the commission;
(c) a certified copy of any resolution required under section 30 (4) of the Act or of any law
required under section 30 (4.1) of the Act;
(d) a report of the public information meeting if one is held;
(e) the comments, if any, of a local government or first nation government to which the
exclusion application has been sent under section 16.1 of this regulation;
(f) any other information it wants the commission to consider concerning the exclusion
application.
(2) The time limit for sending materials under subsection (1) is
(a) 90 days after receipt of the exclusion application, if a public information meeting is held
under section 20, and
(b) 60 days after receipt of the exclusion application in all other cases.”
ALC – Recent Discussions
In considering the possible advancement of an exclusion application it is important to understand
the challenges that such an application might encounter. To that end, it is important to understand
the comments, advice and statements of ALC staff and officials . Prior ALR exclusion applications
have all demonstrated that the resulting decisions on those applications were all consistent with the
advice and statements from ALC officials prior to applications being made.
In recent conversions with ALC staff regarding potential exclusion application for the former Pelton’s
property, city staff has been advised of the following:
Commission staff cannot identify anything that would have changed regarding this application.
The Commission’s previous decision identified that they felt the lands had agricultural capability
and suitability; the exclusion would impact agriculture in the area; and was inconsistent with the
ALC Act and regulations. ALC staff believes the same concerns will remain.
ALC staff stated “this is not a packaging issue” and the Chair has publically stated that exclusion
decisions are not to be tied to inclusions. There is a sense that agricultural off-sets will not sway
the decision.
ALC staff have noted that a favourable exclusion application on this property is unlikely given
that it would be viewed as being precedent setting.
ALC staff were very clear that they do not speak for the Panel.
In considering, the history of exclusion applications for the former Pelton’s land, the ALC considered
the 2010 application in light of the Act, and denied the request noting that the lands have
agricultural capability. ALC staff have recently advised that they believe the lands have agricultural
capability and suitability, and exclusion would be inconsistent with the ALC Act and regulations.
8
V. HISTORY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Over the past decade, there has been much discussion in the City regarding the role and value of
agriculture in the community, as well as specific feedback regarding the proposed exclusion of the
former Pelton’s lands from the ALR. The following section of this report provides some background
on feedback received to date.
a) 2006 OCP Visioning:
As a component of the OCP review, the City retained Stantec Consulting Ltd to host a community
Visioning process. The process ran over a 2 day time period, asking question s directed at identifying
what needs to be changed, enhanced or protected in the community. An on-line survey was also
available to residents to participate in the visioning exercise. Based on the information received, the
Maple Ridge Community Visioning Report was submitted which included 45 principles, organized
into 10 theme areas: Agriculture, Community Character and Sense of Place, Community
Engagement and Governance, Culture/Recreation/Education, Downtown, Economic Development,
Environment, Growth and Development, Services, and Transportation. These principles were
imbedded in the OCP. The relevant excerpts from the Visioning report are as follows:
Agriculture:
1. Protection of agricultural lands is considered a strong element of protecting environmental
values.
2. Agriculture is an important part of the community’s character and economy. Citizens value
methods to enhance and protect a diversity of agriculture in Maple Ridge.
3. Rationalization of the ALR is important to ensure compatibility between municipal objectives and
the objectives of the GVRD and ALC.
Economic Development:
19. There is value in identifying new lands for commercial and industrial uses to secure locations for
future employment that will help to create a balanced community. Citizens prefer locations
where commercial and industrial activities ‘fit’ within the community context.
Environment:
24. The community recognizes the environmental contribution made by lands within the ALR.
b) Agricultural Plan
In 2009, an Agricultural Plan was prepared to “provide an overview of local agriculture, identify
opportunities, and recommend strategies for agriculture”. The Plan included a Public Open House,
questionnaires, and input from the Agricultural Advisory Committee.
One of the key issues identified in the Plan was the Loss of the Agricultural Land Base, with specific
reference to “Continued conversion pressure from the District of Maple Ridge’s urban growth”. The
corresponding goal in the Plan is to protect the Agricultural Land Base and includes the following:
“In light of uncertainty attributable to food safety (see Glossary) and food security concerns
and climate change, most agree that developing a local food system must be a high priority
goal of the District’s Agricultural Plan. To this end, it is considered time to provide certainty
that the agricultural land base will not be undermined by short term decisions that result in
agricultural land being forever lost to development in Maple Ridge…”
9
c) Commercial & Industrial Strategy
In 2014, Council endorsed the Commercial & Industrial Strategy which is intended to provide the
City with a road map to help navigate the industrial and commercial landscape and position the city
for future growth. There was considerable consultation undertaken as a component of this Strategy,
including stakeholder meetings, open houses, and discussion with the Agricultural Land
Commission. The results indicated that there is a need for approximately 200 acres of industrial
land in the municipality before 2041.
As a component of the Strategy, the Consultants met with the ALC officials and Section 8.1.1 of the
Strategy contains the following information:
“Agricultural Land Reserve
According to conversations with ALC officials recent changes in how the Crown
Agency operates would see the ALC dedicate more time to promoting agricultural
uses and uses that support agriculture on ALR lands. With the ALC, Maple Ridge has
the opportunity to promote uses that compliment farm production on ALR lands
including processing, accessory produce sales, agritourism, agro-industrial uses, etc.
The Agricultural Lands Commission has not permitted many ALR lands to be re-
designated for industrial purposes in recent years. Counting on exempted ALR lands
to provide Maple Ridge with its needed additional industrial lands is a risky strategy.
The ALC was approached during the writing of this study, and it confirmed that the
Commission position on granting ALR exclusions has changed and lands with
agricultural potential would have less chance at receiving an exclusion than in the
past.
The Pelton Lands in particular were offered as an example of a site that would be
even less likely to receive an ALR exclusion than in the past, due to a more clear
process for reviewing applications. The 2010 application for excluding the Pelton
Lands was unanimously denied by the ALC.
Beyond being more strict with ALR exclusion applications, the ALC is becoming more
stringent with application submissions, increasing the time and cost required by the
applicant.
Regarding the Albion Flats lands south of 105th Avenue, the ALC has recommended
to the District of Maple Ridge that it pursue on large application that includes all of
the lands south of 105th Avenue rather than multiple applications for these lands.
The ALR is currently considering applications for excluding lands north of 105th
Avenue on the Albion Flats. A timeline for these decisions was not provided.”
Based on the above, Strategy #8: ALR Exemptions was included in the Strategy:
“Pursuing ALR exemptions for future land supply is considered a risk filled strategy
that should only be pursued in the long term future if other initiatives prove
insufficient for meeting demand for industrial land. The Agricultural Land
Commission has changed the process of reviewing applications for ALR exemptions,
and they are becoming stricter than in years past.
The ALC official that was interviewed gave the example that an application to exempt
the Pelton Lands would have less chance of gaining approval than it did in 2010
when it was unanimously denied by the ALC board.”…
10
The Commercial Industrial Strategy also identified other strategies to address the demand for
industrial lands including:
Providing incentives for the redevelopment of the Albion Industrial Park (2014 Employment
Incentives Program was adopted by Council and discussions are ongoing with the Albion
Industrial Property owners)
Pursuing exclusion of lands in the Albion Flats and ensuring that employment is a major
component of the lands (underway)
Redesignation of lands at 128th Ave/232nd Street for employment use (underway)
Determining the feasibility of the resignation of lands adjacent to the Kwantlen First Nation
(underway)
As a result of recent discussions regarding the Suburban Residential land use designation, some
Institutional and Suburban Residential designated lands have been identified for redesignation to
Industrial. If supported by Council, this resignation would result in the addition of 104 ha (256
acres) of land to the City’s industrial inventory.
d) Recent Community Engagement:
Over the years, there has been considerable community engagement and public input received on
related issues, including the need for more local employment, and the need to support agriculture.
The two previous exclusion applications on the subject sites in 2004 and 2010 were highly
contentious in the community. Since receipt of the letter Aquilini Group letter in June 2016, there
has been informal consultation occurring in the community regarding the proposed exclusion
application.
The News Newspaper featured an editorial, and included letters to the Editor. That newspaper also
ran an online survey as a ‘Question of the Week’. The question asked was “Should the former Pelton
land be removed from the ALR?”. The final results were that 81% of the respondents said ‘no’. It is
recognized that this survey is not a statistically valid survey, however it does provide a snap shot of
respondent opinion at that time.
There was also an online petition started that has over 1200 signatures, most of which note
opposition to the exclusion of lands from the ALR. The following is a link to that petition and
comments. https://www.change.org/p/maple-ridge-mayor-and-council-no-agricultural-land-exclusion-
for-aquilini
VI. IMPLICATIONS AND OPTIONS:
As mentioned earlier, on June 6, 2016, Council received a letter dated June 1, 2016 from Jim Chu,
Senior Vice President, Aquilini Investment Group, regarding the former “Pelton’s” Land. The letter
advised the city of their intent to proceed with an exclusion application for the former “Pelton’s”
property and included a request that the City consider facilitating a third party to manage community
consultation. Following the receipt of the letter, Council directed staff to prepare a report “outlining
both the planning implications and resources required for the process for the proposed exclusion
application by the Aquilini Investment Group.”
a) Resources Required:
Over the years, City staff has worked with a number of consultants on a variety of projects. In all
cases, staff resources were assigned to the project. Should Council direct that the City facilitate a
11
third party to lead this consultation program it would require a staff person to be assigned to it. If
tasked with managing a third party it is anticipated that responsibilities would include:
Drafting of RFP for consultant – would involve Planning, Economic Development, Purchasing and
Finance staff
Review of RFP and interviewing of consultants.
Consultant selection
Meeting with consultant throughout project
Providing mapping, resource materials and guidance throughout the project
Reviewing consultation materials, advertisements and posting materials on the City’s website
and social media forums
Attendance at open houses or meetings.
Participation in reporting out at Council meetings and follow up staff reports
b) Options for Council Consideration:
1. Current practice – Applicant Lead Consultation Program
The City’s current ALR exclusion practice is that an applicant is responsible for preparing and
submitting their own application and supporting materials. Upon receipt of the application, staff
reviews the materials and prepare a report for Council consideration, and citizens are able to
submit comments directly to Council for consideration during deliberation. The current practice
does not include a City hosted Public Information Meeting.
This approach to dealing with ALR exclusion applications is supportable because it treats all
applicants the same; retains neutrality when reviewing and considering applications; and would
not impact staff resourcing. There is concern that Municipal involvement in the consultation
program may imply tacit support for the application prior to a comprehensive staff review. It is
also noted, that there has been a significant amount of feedback received regarding these
properties during previous exclusion applications, Community Visioning and Strategies, and most
recently as a result of the letter from Aquilini advising of its intention to proceed with an
exclusion application for the properties.
Should Council prefer this option, the following Resolution would apply:
That pursuant with current practice regarding the processing of ALR Exclusion applications, that
Aquilini Investment Group be advised to lead their own consultation program and provide the
results of that program to the City as a component of their application submission; and further
That City staff be directed to attach the consultation information received to the staff report that
would be submitted for Council consideration.
This option is supportable by staff.
2. Third Party, City Managed Consultation Program:
Experience in coordinating municipal projects is that working with consultants requires a
significant amount of staff time. Should this task be assigned, this project would become the
priority project for that staff person, and progress on current projects is likely to be delayed.
Of particular concern in staff coordinating this program, is the preceden t that could be set. Staff
are not aware of City staffing resources ever being used to advance a private property owners
12
exclusion or development application, regardless of whether OCP policies were supportive of the
proposed use or not, or the application satisfied a community need. It is also noted tha t staff
seek neutrality when reviewing applications to ensure that the reports are objective and
balanced. Staff are concerned that the City involvement may suggest that the City supports the
exclusion application, and staff will likely be placed in a position of defending the application.
Given the amount of discussion that has historically and recently occurred in the city regarding
ALR exclusion on this property, it could be suggested that up-to-date feedback has been received
and a City led consultation program is not necessary to gauge public opinion on this matter.
It is noted that a City facilitated community consultation using a third party, could take place in a
variety of ways including statistical surveys, on-line questionnaires, focus group meetings or open
houses.
Should Council prefer this option, the following Resolution would apply:
That staff be directed to prepare a Scoping Report providing further details on a Third Party-City
Managed Consultation Program for the ALR Exclusion of the Aquilini lands at 203rd and Golden
Ears Way.
This option is not recommended by staff.
3. Public Information Meeting
The ALC Act identifies that Local Government may hold a Public Information Meeting to consider
an exclusion application, and notes that the minutes of the meeting can be submitted to the
Commission as a component of the application. Should Council be interested in obtaining
targeted feedback on the Aquilini exclusion, the hosting of a Public Information Meeting (in a
similar format to a Public Hearing) would be an effective mechanism to receive commentary from
the community. The ALC does not prescribe the notification requirements for hosting a public
information meeting. Should Council be supportive of this option, it is recommended that
notification be complied with as follows:
The ALC requires that a sign advising of the exclusion application be placed on the property
and the City would request the applicant to affix a label advising of the date, time and
location of the Public Information Meeting;
A newspaper advertisement and neighbourhood notification in keeping with the City of Maple
Ridge Public Hearing Bylaw and Section 892 of the Local Government Act.
Notification letters to be sent to:
o City of Pitt Meadows
o Environmental groups including ARMS, KEEPS, Pitt Polder Preservation Society
o Council Advisory Committees;
o Downtown Business Improvement Area
o Chamber of Commerce.
That Aquilini Investment Group be responsible for all advertising and mail-out costs.
The exclusion application report prepared for Council consideration is to include a
recommendation that the item be referred to a Special Public Information Meeting.
Should Council prefer this option, the following Resolution would apply:
13
That pursuant with current practice regarding the processing of ALR Exclusion applications, that
Aquilini Investment Group be advised to lead their own consultation program and provide the results
of that consultation to the City as a component of their application submission; and further
That City staff be directed to:
i. attach any information received to the staff report that would be submitted for Council
consideration; and
ii. refer the matter to a Special Public Information Meeting as described in Section VI.(b)(iii) of the
report titled “Proposed Exclusion Application of the Former Pelton’s Lands by the Aquilini
Investment Group, dated August 29, 2016.
This option is recommended.
VII. BUSINESS PLAN/FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The request to have City staff manage a third party lead public consultation program for the ALR
exclusion application for the former Pelton’s land is not in the Business Plans of any municipal
Departments, and would likely result in a shifting of priorities.
Aquilini Group has noted a willingness to cover the expenses related to retaining a consultant, so it is
unlikely that this consultation would have budgetary implications. However, it is noted that staff time
could be considerable, therefore should Council support the City managing the consultation program,
it is recommended that the City be reimbursed for its staff time at a rate comparable to that of a
consultant.
VIII. INTER-DEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
Should Council direct staff to manage a third party to coordinate a public consultation program for
the Aquilini Investment Group, it is anticipated that the work programs in the Economic
Development, Engineering, Clerks and Communications Departments are anticipated to be
impacted.
IX. CONCLUSION:
On June 6, 2016, Council received correspondence from Aquilini Investment Group, advising of their
intent to proceed with an application to exclude the former “Pelton” lands from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, to enable development of a job creation area. The correspondence noted historical
damage to the site, their intention to commission an economic analysis to review alternative
development options, and included a request that a community consultation program be facilitated
by a third party managed by the City, noting that any reasonable expenses would be paid by the
Aquilini Group. At that meeting Council directed staff to prepare a report on the implications related
to this request.
Since that time, Aquilini Group has submitted additional information in support of their proposed
exclusion application. Their rationale for the exclusion includes damaged soil and lack of water; the
lands ideal location for job creation; the need for industrial land in the region and city; and the
economic benefits of the proposal (including 500 construction jobs and 3300 permanent jobs). The
Aquilini Group has also noted that they intend to provide a greater than one-to-one trade of local
Non-ALR land and commit to farming those lands. Other benefits identified include increases in
annual property tax revenue, and positive environmental benefits, noting the Aquilini Groups
expertise in farming.
14
The staff report provides an overview of the history of ALC decisions relating to the property; an
update on recent community feedback; planning implications, and resources should the City
commence the management of a third party lead consultation program on behalf of the Aquilini
Investment Group. The report also includes 3 options for Council consideration: Current Practice
(Applicant lead consultation Program); Third Party-City Managed Consultation Program; and Public
Information Meeting. It is not recommended that the City lead a consultation program for a private
company, as previous exclusion applications have proven to be a contentious community concern;
would be precedent setting; and would impact municipal resources, and staff’s ability to focus on
other Council priorities. Rather, staff recommends that the Aquilini Group be advised to coordinate
their own Consultation Program to be submitted as a component of the application package and that
the exclusion application be referred to a Special Public Information Meeting.
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Christine Carter, M.PL., MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A Letter from Aquilini Investment Group dated June 1, 2016
Appendix B Additional Information from Aquilini Investment Group received August 24, 2016
Appendix C Subject Property Map
Appendix D File subject property map AL/053/04
Appendix E File subject property map AL/027/10
Appendix F ALC Decision Letter and Minutes, October 20, 2010
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Aug 11, 2016 BY: DT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
POWELL AVE203 ST203 ST210 ST132 AVE
203 ST
GOLDEN EARS WAY203 STGOLDEN EARS WAY
132 AVENEAVES RD208 ST209 ST206 STPOWELL AVE
BROOKS
A
V
E
KNOTTSSTBLANSHARD ST202B ST125 AVE
POWELL AVE
125 AVE
125 AVE
SKILLEN ST
204 S
T
202A ST125 AVE205 ST
0.2073 Ha4.514 Ha
4.044 Ha
24.77 Ha
17.13 Ha
3.997 Ha
16 Ha
5.976 Ha
5.079 Ha
SUBJECT
PROPERTIES
´
Scale: 1:9,000
Aquilini Investment Group Holdings
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: August 29, 2016
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Business and Financial Planning Guidelines 2017-2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Business and Financial Plans for the 2017-2021 period are guided by parameters set by
Council. A public consultation period was held between June and August, which included a review of
the Business and Financial Planning Guidelines, and a live-streamed public question and answer
session. The questions and answers from the session and public feedback obtained during this
period are attached. Council approval of the guidelines will provide staff direction in preparing
business and financial plans over the coming months, for presentation to Council later this year.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Appendix 1: Guidelines attached to the August 29, 2016 report entitled “Bu siness
and Financial Planning Guidelines 2017 -2021” be approved.
DETAILS:
a)Background Context:
Development of Business and Financial Plans for the 2017-2021 period will be guided by
parameters set by Council. Typically, Council would approve those parameters, or guidelines, in
the spring, giving staff direction. The resulting plans would be presented to Council in late
November/early December, followed by a public information and question/answer session to
seek public feedback prior to approval of the Financial Plan.
Public feedback received last year suggested that citizens wanted an opportunity to provide input
earlier in the process. As a result, the City changed the process to accommodate the suggestion.
Staff proposed guidelines to the Audit and Finance Committee on June 13, 2016, and then to
Council Workshop on June 20, 2016. Council approved the Audit and Finance Committee’s
endorsement in principle of those guidelines, and directed that staff seek public feedback.
On July 26, 2016, the guidelines were reviewed in a live-streamed Business and Financial
Planning Q&A session which included a question and answer session. Questions were accepted
via Facebook, Twitter, email, telephone and in-person. While answers from the City’s senior
management team were live-streamed from Council Chambers, staff in the background were
publishing summaries of those answers through social media and to individuals.
Of the 15 questions that came in during and prior to the session, 13 came through Facebook,
one via email and one from an in-person attendee. While time constraints provided for 14 to be
answered live, all have since been answered, and a Q&A document was published to the website
within 48 hours, The feedback period extended through August 15, 2016. Following the July 26
session, no further questions came in, despite further efforts to elicit more feedback.
5.5
b) Desired Outcome:
Council approval of the Business and Financial Planning Guidelines 2017 -2021 will set
parameters for staff to begin preparing the business and financial plans, ensuring those plans
that Council receives in November/December 2016 are in alignment with Council direction.
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Approved guidelines inform citizens, the business community, community groups, and others of
Council expectations around the rigour of the City’s business planning process, and their
parameters for the next financial plan, which influences property taxes and service levels in the
community. A second question and answer session will be held in November/December 2016.
NEXT STEPS:
d) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The guidelines provide direction for staff work in preparing the business and financial plans.
Those plans will be developed over the summer and fall, and presented to Council during
the week of November 28, 2016;
A second question and answer session will be held following the Council presentations,
seeking public feedback on the business and financial plans;
Council approval of the financial plan is desired early in 2017.
CONCLUSION:
The Business and Financial Planning Guidelines for 2017-2021 were introduced in public meetings
on June 13 and June 20, 2016, and a public question and answer session was held July 26, 2 016.
Council approval of the guidelines will direct staff in moving ahead with the next planning cycle.
“Original signed by Laura Benson” “Original signed by Catherine Nolan for”
Prepared by: Laura Benson, CPA, CMA
Manager of Sustainability
and Corporation Planning
Approved
by:
Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA
GM: Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments: Appendix 1 – Business and Financial Planning Guidelines 2017-2021
Appendix 2 – Public Business and Financial Planning Q&A Documentation
Appendix 1: Business and Financial Planning Guidelines 2017-2021
1. Guidelines for Financial Planning:
1.1. General Purposes Property Tax Increase – 1.90% in 2017 and 2018, and 2.0% in 2019,
2020 and 2021.
1.2. Infrastructure Sustainability Property Tax Increase – 0.70% per year.
1.3. Parks, Recreation and Culture Property Tax Increase – 0.25% per year.
1.4. Storm Water Property Tax Increase – 0.30% per year.
1.5. Water Levy Increase – 4.50% per year.
1.6. Sewer Levy Increase – 3.60% per year.
1.7. Recycling Levy Increase – 2.75% per year.
1.8. Growth in Property Tax Revenue Assumption – 2.00% per year.
1.9. Provision for costs associated with growth, subject to available funding.
1.10. Allocation of growth revenue from incentive programs to fund Infrastructure
Sustainability.
1.11. The Financial Plan will include a funding strategy to deliver on Council-identified priority
community infrastructure. Various funding methods will be considered: debt financing,
borrowing from internal reserves, amenity contributions, and other revenue sources.
1.12. Budgets include operating and capital components for a five-year period.
1.13. The Financial Plan must be in accordance with Council’s strategic Financial Sustainability
Plan policies approved in October 2004.
1.14. Collective Agreements – the financial plan needs to include sufficient financial capacity
to address collective agreement settlements or the emerging patterns.
1.15. Grants – Targeted grant funding sources should be reflected in the financial plan, along
with the associated project costs.
1.16. Community Amenity Charges should be forecasted in the financial plan, along with the
associated capital project costs.
1.17. Transition costs related to the Parks and Leisure Services Agreement dissolution should
be built into in the financial plan.
New*
New*
New*
New*
Appendix 1: Business and Financial Planning Guidelines 2017-2021
2. Guidelines for Business Planning:
2.1. Council-raised issues are to be considered in developing workplans, respecting the
criteria for establishing priorities and recognizing that capacity is needed for
opportunities or issues that might be discovered throughout the year.
2.2. Property tax rates will be reviewed annually to ensure we are competitive with other lower
mainland municipalities.
2.3. Utility Charges will be reviewed annually with a view towards using rate stabilization
practices to smooth out large fluctuations in rates.
2.4. Public Consultation Plan developed and operationalized. Public consultation to gauge
community support for major capital investments merits special consideration.
2.5. Evaluation of services to ensure alignment with Council direction.
2.6. Identify and measure outputs/outcomes. Performance measures will be published in the
Annual Report and on the website.
2.7. Performance reports are to be presented to Council at open Council meetings, both in
relation to Council priorities and departmental commitments.
2.8. Identify key processes to undergo formal process improvement reviews.
2.9. Identify potential new revenue sources (i.e. be creative). Increase revenue from existing
sources by about 5.00%.
2.10. Reduction packages should reflect significant changes to an area’s operation. The
requirement is less about meeting a specific target reduction, and not about trimming
costs around the edges, but rather should result in a fundamental shift in what or how
services are delivered. Given the degree of cross-functional projects and service delivery,
departments should consider collaborative reduction packages in partnership with other
departments.
2.11. Incremental packages must include a business case to support new
programs/projects/staff.
2.12. Organizational/structural change – is the current organization adequate to deliver the
service? Are there better options? Contract for services, or bring services in-house, where
and when it makes sense organizationally and financially.
2.13. Succession planning – review organization charts in relation to service delivery with a
view to long-term planning. What positions do you see as potentially becoming vacant by
retirement and what organizational options may be available as a result?
2.14. Vacant position review and management – all positions that become vacant are subject
to a detailed review prior to being refilled.
2.15. Contracting/Consulting review – all consulting work should undergo a review at not only
budget time, but also when services are being contracted to determine the best way to
acquire services. This will involve potentially contracting out where it makes sense and
contracting in where there are available staff resources.
2.16. Technology – review business applications and technology tools to identify upgrade or
obsolescence issues. Ensure workplans, budgets and Information Services
workplans/projects reflect the resources necessary to support the changes if required.
2.17. Workplans will identify short-term, medium and longer-term action items that Council
may consider, as we work towards carbon neutrality.
Appendix 2: July 26, 2016 Public Business and Financial Planning Q&A Documentation
Public Business and Financial Planning Q&A Documentation
On July 26, 2016 at 6:00 pm staff from the City of Maple Ridge hosted a live question and answer
period as part of a public consultation process regarding the 2017-2021 Business and Financial
Planning Guidelines. Listed below are responses to all the questions we received through social
media, email and telephone during and in the lead-up to the Q&A session.
If you missed the presentation or would like to watch the Q&A follow this link to a recording of the
session. You can also get to the video from any question by clicking the Q&A link in the answer.
Question #1
Facebook- July 22, 2016
With a growing population (i.e. new homes/developments) and increasing tax assessments - why do
mill rates keep rising?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
This question speaks to the fact that we are a growing community and with that growth comes more
tax dollars from new construction. So why do taxes keep going up? The answer is that the dollars
that we get from new construction are much less than the cost increases that we are experiencing.
For instance, if you refer to the Financial Overview Report that we produce each December, growth
revenue works out to about $1.6 million each year. Labour costs, policing and fire department costs
are going up close to $2 million each year. And then there are other cost increases such as utilities.
Our mill rates are adjusted each year as assessed values change. The mill rate is the rate per one-
thousand dollars of assessed value. In 2000 for instance, our mill rate was around $4.70 for
Residential properties. In 2016, 16 years later, it is $4.40.
Question #2
Facebook- July 22, 2016
Standard procedure for most business during budgeting is to start the process with reviewing what
can be removed, what's not necessary. There is a difference between must have and nice to have -
and Maple Ridge appears to be spending a lot of money on 'nice to have'. What is the city 'cutting'
back on?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
Each December when Council looks at the budgets, they also hear from each department about what
they are doing and why. They also see the budget line items on an area by area basis. In other words,
the rigour that the writer is expressing is exactly what is built into our Business and Financial
Planning Guidelines.
Also, in the Financial Overview Report that I referenced earlier, there are three pages that speak to
some of the changes that we have made over the past few years. Where changes make sense, we
implement them. We don’t wait until budget time. That’s just how we operate.
Appendix 2: July 26, 2016 Public Business and Financial Planning Q&A Documentation
Question #3
Facebook- July 22, 2016
The entire concept of taxes charged on resale value or homes is not very good. If property values
plummet - how will that affect the City budget and taxes in Maple Ridge?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
This question refers to the fact that the property tax system is a value based tax. That is the system
we have; we have no discretion to use a different system.
With respect to property values that are taxed, adjustments are made for overall value changes.
When values go up, tax rates go down to offset the market value increase. If values go down, tax
rates would go up. The experience of each individual property will vary depending on how their
change compares to the overall average.
Question #4
Facebook – July 23, 2016
How does the City justify higher taxes than Burnaby and half the services?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
Council received a survey of taxes a few months ago and it showed that Maple Ridge taxes are lower
than Burnaby. It is true that the tax rate in Burnaby is much lower than ours however the assessed
value of their average home is also about twice our average.
Also in Burnaby, at the start of the year, most properties get a separate bill for some things such as
utilities and the rest is billed later. In Maple Ridge, properties get one bill, except for brand new
properties or those on a water meter.
Burnaby also has a much greater non-residential tax base. It hasn’t always been that way but the last
few decades has seen a lot of non-residential development in Burnaby. Residents have seen the
benefits of this in terms of the services that Burnaby is able to provide.
Question #5
Facebook – July 23, 216
Are the proposed tax increases compounding?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
Yes they are.
Appendix 2: July 26, 2016 Public Business and Financial Planning Q&A Documentation
Question #6
Facebook- July 24, 2016
In 2014 Mr Gill presented an alarming report on infrastructure sustainability and deficit. Increases in
funding were unable to keep up with explosive growth, so between 2008-2014 (the date of the
report) dedicated funding, as well as gaming revenue were directed to infrastructure. Can you give us
an update on the status of the current deficit and how it will be handled moving forward?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
When this issue was raised many years ago, it was projected that we needed to be setting aside
around $30 million per year to properly look after our infrastructure. At the time, we were spending
under $5 million per year. Through the efforts of Councils, that amount has nearly doubled.
Question #7
Facebook- July 25, 2016
Why do my taxes keep going up and you keep spending more on new things? Without asking? Is the
City running a deficit? Why?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
Taxes are going up for the reasons in questions 1 and 6. We do not run a deficit. Also, all decisions
around the budget are made in meetings that are open to the public. It’s interesting that as a
growing community, we get a number of requests for people wanting us to do more, not less. At the
end of the day, those are community decisions.
Question #8
Facebook- July 26, 2016
When will sidewalks along 216 Street from River Road to Dewdney Trunk be in the budget? Many
children walk to school daily on this busy road, along with many other people that I see daily.
Answer
Answered by Mr. Quinn during the live Q&A
Like many municipalities the mature areas of our community were built to the standard of the day;
this often included ditches, no sidewalks, no storm drains, unlike today’s new subdivisions where
this infrastructure is built and paid for by developers. There are hundreds of sections of streets in the
municipality that were built to the standard of the day.
To address this, Council has adopted an annual sidewalk program to construct sidewalks in the
mature areas of the City. This program is funded through general taxation and priority is given to
those sections of streets next to schools. Sidewalks on this section of 216 Street are identified in our
capital planning and are currently beyond the 5 year horizon.
Appendix 2: July 26, 2016 Public Business and Financial Planning Q&A Documentation
Question #9
Facebook- July 26, 2016
Are there any plans for sidewalks up 232 Street to serve our growing neighbourhood?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Quinn during the live Q&A
232 Street is within a developing area. The City has been collecting Development Cost Charges
(DCCs) to construct 232 Street to an urban standard for a number of years. DCCs are fees paid by
developers at the time of development. This project is scheduled for next year, 2017. The project is
currently under design and will include sidewalks, curb and gutter, street lighting and a bicycle path.
As stated this project is largely funded by developers through development cost charges.
Question #10
Facebook- July 26, 2016
How about a bus route in Silver Valley?
Answer
This question was not addressed during the live Q&A
Bus services falls under the jurisdiction of TransLink and the Provincial Government. Mayor and
Council have been lobbying TransLink to improve and enhance Bus Service to both Silver Valley and
Albion. As a result, additional bus service to Silver Valley and Albion has been identified in the
Investment Strategy that lower mainland mayors are working on with TransLink and the Province as
part of the Federal Infrastructure Program. We are hopeful that through that process those additional
buses to Silver Valley will happen in the near future.
Question #11
Facebook- July 26, 2016
Sidewalks from River Road to Dewdney Trunk Road are needed on 216 Street. When will it be in the
budget to keep the kids safe?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Quinn during the live Q&A
Also see Question 8.
Like many municipalities the mature areas of our community were built to the standard of the day;
this often included ditches, no sidewalks, no storm drains, unlike today’s new subdivisions where
this infrastructure is built and paid for by developers. There are hundreds of sections of streets in the
municipality that were built to the standard of the day.
To address this, Council has adopted an annual sidewalk program to construct sidewalks in the
mature areas of the City. This program is funded through general taxation and priority is given to
those sections of streets next to schools. Sidewalks on this section of 216th St. are identified in our
capital planning and are currently beyond the 5 year horizon.
Appendix 2: July 26, 2016 Public Business and Financial Planning Q&A Documentation
Question #12
Email- July 25, 2016
Provincial Sport Organization has communicated to our organization that they will not approve BC
Summer Games without a legal throws area in place before bids/applications are approved. What
has been put aside for funding and the time line to rectify the deficiencies of the Maple Ridge
Secondary School throws area for Track and Field? Has the Maple Ridge organizing committee been
in touch with Provincial Sport Organization about this matter?
Answer
Answered by Ms. Swift during the live Q&A
The acquisition of a property adjacent to Merkley Park provides an opportunity to do a mini Park
Master Plan to achieve three goals: to introduce a new synthetic field at this site, to re-assess the
ball diamond and to address the historic limitations of the throws area. Staff have discussed this
project with the Club Executive. The mini Master Plan will be developed this Fall and will include
consultation with the Club and with School District No. 42.
Question #13
Facebook- July 26, 2016
Can we improve and expand the Port Haney Wharf? Can we get some money from Justin?
Answer
Answer by Ms. Swift during the live Q&A
The City has a vision for the waterfront. Maple Ridge has signed on to the Experience the Fraser
Initiative for the development of a walkway along the river. The development community plays a role
in the timing of these improvements through DCCs and parkland contributions. As development
occurs the trail, walkways and other improvements will unfold. This is a long-term vision that will take
many years to achieve, but it is a cost-effective approach.
Regarding senior government grants, typically the federal government looks for shovel ready projects
that are well into the planning process. The City has applied for grant funding for projects that are
further along in terms of planning for this particular round of funding. The Wharf may be a good
candidate for future rounds.
Appendix 2: July 26, 2016 Public Business and Financial Planning Q&A Documentation
Question #14
Facebook- July 26, 2016
In the tax increase slides, you showed an increase of around 3%. Citizens often speak about
increases higher than this. How can this be the case?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
When we speak about increases, we are speaking about increases to the average home. By
definition, this means that there will be those with higher increases and those with lower ones. An
individual’s own experience will depend on how the change in their assessed values compares to the
overall average for that class.
If individuals focus on their experience over multiple years, they may find that some years they do
better than the average and some years worse; when several years are consolidated, the tax
increase may be “average” after all.
Question #15
In Person- July 26, 2016
Why don’t we fundraise for community infrastructure needs?
Answer
Answered by Mr. Gill during the live Q&A
There is no bar to that. As the community has discussions about different investments, community
centres and the like, the other part of the community conversation is, where the money is coming
from? Every idea, including partnerships, will be welcome. You will also recall that we had a large
fundraising effort when the Arts Centre was constructed.
From: Barb Lamont
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:14 PM
To: Mayor Council and CAO Users List
Dear Mayor Read and Maple Ridge City Council;
Following a phone conversation between resident Marilyn Cowie and Mayor Nichole Read on
July 12th, we the members of the Strata Council of Reflections on River at 22327 River
Road extend a formal invitation for all of you to visit us, at a time appropriate for you, to view
our beautiful outlook and get a feel for our challenges as we sit on the front lines of what we
hope will become a beautiful vibrant area in the near future.
As residents here we are challenged with many issues, new to most of us, however we do
see the wonderful potential and look forward to showing you a "birds eye view" of what could
be.
We would be pleased to host you on Marilyn and Ted Cowie's deck, at a time of your
choosing, in the near future.
Many thanks for all you do and we look forward to meeting you all.
Please contact Marilyn Cowie to RSVP
Sincerely;
Barb Lamont
President
Reflections on the River Strata Council
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
6.1