HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-20 Public Hearing Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge
PUBLIC
HEARING
November 20, 2012
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. November 20, 2012
1a) 2011-084-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6875-2011
LEGAL: Lots C & D, both of District Lot 404, Group 1, New Westminster District,
Plan 19825
LOCATION: 11133 and 11185 240 Street
PURPOSE: To amend Schedule “A” of the Official Community Plan as follows:
Appendix C. Zoning, Section 2. Zoning Matrix, OCP Designation / Category,
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS, Major Corridor Residential Category is
amended by adding the following in the Zones column: RST (Street
Townhouse Residential), provided this zone shall only be permitted for that
portion of the property described as 11185 240 Street (Lot “C”, District Lot
404, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 19825).
PURPOSE: To Amend Schedule “B” of the Official Community Plan
FROM: Urban Residential, Conservation
TO: Conservation and Urban Residential
AND
FROM: Commercial
TO: Urban Residential
PURPOSE: To Amend Schedule “C” of the Official Community Plan to add to
Conservation and to remove from Conservation.
1b) 2011-084-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6853-2011
LEGAL: Lots C & D, both of District Lot 404, Group 1, New Westminster District,
Plan 19825
LOCATION: 11133 and 11185 240 Street
FROM: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
TO: RST (Street Townhouse Residential), R-1 (Residential District),
R-2 (Urban Residential District) & C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)
PURPOSE: To permit subdivision into 24 RST lots, 39 single family lots and
1 commercial lot.
1c) 2011-084-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6947-2012
PURPOSE: PART 7, COMMERCIAL ZONES, SECTION 701, NEIGHBOURHOOD
COMMERCIAL; C-1 is amended by adding the following in
SUBSECTION 1, PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, after
“d) personal repair services”:
e) Apartment is permitted in the following locations:
(1) 11185 240 Street (Lot “C”, District Lot 404, Group 1,
New Westminster District, Plan 19825)
2) 2011-089-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE HERITAGE DESIGNATION AND REVITALIZATION AND TAX
EXEMPTION AGREEMENT BYLAW NO. 6913-2012
LEGAL: Lots 9, 10 & 11, District Lot 398, Block 5, Group 1, New Westminster District,
Plan 155
LOCATION: 22309, 22319 and 22331 St. Anne Avenue
PURPOSE: To designate the property as a heritage property under Section 967 of the
Local Government Act and to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement
under Section 966 of the Local Government Act and to grant a Tax Exemption
under Section 225 of the Community Charter that will include Conservation of
the Turnook/Morse Residence and the construction of an apartment building.
3) RZ/033/08
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6621-2008
LEGAL: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 13554
LOCATION: 10366 240 Street
FROM: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
TO: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
PURPOSE: To permit future subdivision into 13 single family residential lots.
4) 2012-017-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6909-2012
LEGAL: North ½ Lot 5 Except: Part Dedicated Road on Plan LMP2414,
Section 17, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 8881;
and
Parcel “A” (Explanatory Plan 51052), Lots 107 and 108, Section 17,
Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 42061.
LOCATION: 11736 and 11750 Burnett Street
FROM: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
TO: R-1 (Residential District)
PUPOSE: To permit future subdivision into 5 single family lots.
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TAKE NOTICE THAT a Public Hearing will be held in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Hall,
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, North-East corner entrance, at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 20,
2012 to consider the following bylaws:
1a) 2011-084-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6875-2011
LEGAL: Lots C & D, both of District Lot 404, Group 1, New Westminster District,
Plan 19825
LOCATION: 11133 and 11185 240 Street
PURPOSE: To amend Schedule “A” of the Official Community Plan as follows:
Appendix C. Zoning, Section 2. Zoning Matrix, OCP Designation / Category,
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS, Major Corridor Residential Category is
amended by adding the following in the Zones column: RST (Street
Townhouse Residential), provided this zone shall only be permitted for that
portion of the property described as 11185 240 Street (Lot “C”, District Lot
404, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 19825).
PURPOSE: To Amend Schedule “B” of the Official Community Plan
(as shown on Map No. 820)
FROM: Urban Residential, Conservation
TO: Conservation and Urban Residential
AND
FROM: Commercial
TO: Urban Residential
PURPOSE: To Amend Schedule “C” of the Official Community Plan to add to
Conservation and to remove from Conservation
(as shown on Map No. 821)
Map No. 820 Map No. 821
1b) 2011-084-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6853-2011
LEGAL: Lots C & D, both of District Lot 404, Group 1, New Westminster District,
Plan 19825
LOCATION: 11133 and 11185 240 Street
FROM: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
TO: RST (Street Townhouse Residential) , R-1 (Residential District) ,
R-2 (Urban Residential District) , and
C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)
PURPOSE: To permit subdivision into 24 RST lots, 39 single family lots and
1 commercial lot.
1c) 2011-084-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6947-2012
PURPOSE: PART 7, COMMERCIAL ZONES, SECTION 701, NEIGHBOURHOOD
COMMERCIAL; C-1 is amended by adding the following in
SUBSECTION 1, PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, after
“d) personal repair services”:
e) Apartment is permitted in the following locations:
(1) 11185 240 Street (Lot “C”, District Lot 404, Group 1,
New Westminster District, Plan 19825)
2) 2011-089-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE HERITAGE DESIGNATION AND REVITALIZATION AND TAX
EXEMPTION AGREEMENT BYLAW NO. 6913-2012
LEGAL: Lots 9, 10 & 11, all of District Lot 398, Block 5, Group 1,
New Westminster District, Plan 155
LOCATION: 22309, 22319 and 22331 St. Anne Avenue
PURPOSE: To designate the property as a heritage property under Section 967 of the
Local Government Act and to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement
under Section 966 of the Local Government Act and to grant a Tax Exemption
under Section 225 of the Community Charter that will include Conservation of
the Turnook/Morse Residence and the construction of an apartment building.
3) RZ/033/08
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6621-2008
LEGAL: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 13554
LOCATION: 10366 240 Street
FROM: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
TO: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
PURPOSE: To permit future subdivision into 13 single family residential lots.
4) 2012-017-RZ
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING BYLAW NO. 6909-2012
LEGAL: North ½ Lot 5 Except: Part Dedicated Road on Plan LMP2414,
Section 17, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 8881;
and
Parcel “A” (Explanatory Plan 51052), Lots 107 and 108, Section 17,
Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 42061.
LOCATION: 11736 and 11750 Burnett Street
FROM: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
TO: R-1 (Residential District)
PUPOSE: To permit future subdivision into 5 single family lots.
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the aforesaid bylaws and copies of staff reports and other
information considered by Council relevant to the matters contained in the bylaws will also be
available for public inspection at the Municipal Hall, Planning Department counter, between 8:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. from November 7 to November 20, 2012, Saturdays, Sundays and Statutory
Holidays excepted. Some of this information will also be posted on the District website
www.mapleridge.ca on the Mayor & Council/Council Meetings page.
ALL PERSONS who deem themselves affected by any of these bylaws shall be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to be heard at the Public Hearing before Council on the matters contained in the bylaws
or by making a written submission to the attention of the Manager of Legislative Services or by
sending an e-mail to the Clerk’s Department at clerks@mapleridge.ca , by 4:00 p.m., November 20,
2012. All written submissions and e-mails will become part of the public record.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2012.
Ceri Marlo
Manager of Legislative Services
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FOR FILE 2011-084-RZ
File Manager: Adrian Kopystynski
Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw Amendments: RECEIVED NOT REQUIRED
1. A completed Application Form
(Schedule “A” – Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999)
2. An application fee, payable to the District of Maple Ridge, in
accordance with Development Application Fee Bylaw no. 5949-2001.
3. A Certificate of Title and Consent Form if the applicant is different
from the owner shown on the Certificate of Title.
4. A legal survey of the property(ies)
5. Subdivision plan layout
6. Neighbourhood context plan
7. Lot grading plan
8. Landscape plan*+
9. Preliminary architectural plans including site plan,
building elevations, accessory off-street parking and
general bylaw compliance reconciliation*+.
* These items may not be required for single-family residential applications
+ These items may be required for two-family residential applications, as outlined in Council Policy No. 6.01
Additional reports provided:
Environmental Assessment Report
Geotechnical Report
Arborists Report
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 1, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-084-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First and Second Reading
Maple Ridge OCP Amending Bylaw No. 6875-2011
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6947-2012
Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6853-2011
11185 & 11133 240 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to RST (Street Townhouse Residential Zone), R-2 (Urban Residential District Zone), R 1
(Residential District Zone) and C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial Zone). This would permit 24 RST
lots, 39 R 2 single family lots, one remnant R-1 lot to be subdivided when lands to the south of
111 Avenue are developed, and a mixed use building totaling 702.6 m2 (7,563.5 ft2) on the
proposed C-1 zoned lot.
The C-1 building is proposed to have 4 ground-level commercial tenant spaces with access toward
the streets and each of the 4 rental apartments on the second floor will have its own entrance from
ground level at the south side of the building near the residential-only parking area. The commercial
floor space, excluding the apartment entrance spaces, is 339.4 m2 (3,653.3 ft2) and the apartments
floor space totals 363.2 m2 (3,910.2 ft2). The second storey floor area appears larger than the first
story floor area because the residential floor extends over a portion of the wrapping porch and some
of the first floor area is used for ground level entrances and stairs to the residential units on the
second floor.
There will be four (4) rental apartments – 3 one-bedroom units and 1 two-bedroom unit. The
apartments range in size between about 73.4 m2 (789.9 ft2) for the smallest of the one-bedroom
units to 127.6 m2 (1,373.6 ft2) for the one two-bedroom unit.
This application requires amendments to the Official Community Plan (OCP) and the Zoning Bylaw as
follows:
Adjusting the area designated in Schedules B & C of the OCP as Conservation to correspond
to the boundary determined by the environmental assessment undertaken by the applicant;
Revised
- 2 -
Reducing the area designated in Schedule B of the OCP as Commercial in accordance with
the Neighborhood Commercial Policies in the OCP that buildings on Neighbourhood
Commercial sites have a floor area of less than 929 m2 (10,000 ft2);
Amending the Zoning Matrix in the OCP to allow the RST (Street Townhouse Residential)
Zone under the RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION – Major Corridor Residential Category; and
A site-specific Zoning Bylaw text amendment for the C-1 Zone to allow for four (4)
apartments above the ground level commercial floor provided they are rental units.
The designation changes and the site specific Zoning Bylaw text amendment are required so that
the proposed application will be in compliance with the Official Community Plan and for the
proposed rental apartments to be permitted.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That in accordance with Section 879 of the Local Government Act opportunity for early and
on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan Amending
Bylaw No. 6875-2011 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a
Development Information Meeting, and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any
further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a public hearing on the bylaw;
2. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6875-2011 be considered in
conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
3. That it be confirmed that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.
6875-2011 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
4. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6875-2011 be given First and
Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
5. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6947-2012 be given First and Second Reading and be
forwarded to Public Hearing;
6. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6853-2011 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to
Public Hearing; and
7. That the following term(s) and condition(s) be met prior to final reading:
i. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement;
ii. Amendment to Schedules “A”, “B” & “C” of the Official Community Plan, including
Amendment to Appendix C in Schedule “A” to add the RST Street Townhouse
Residential Zone under RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION – Major Corridor Residential
Category in the Zoning Matrix on a site-specific basis;
- 3 -
iii. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
iv. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant which addresses storm/rain water
management;
v. Road dedication as required;
vi. Park dedication as required;
vii. Registration of a Housing Agreement in accordance with Section 905 of the Local
Government Act and an associated Restrictive Covenant stating that the apartment
units above the ground floor of the commercial building will be restricted to residential
rental units;
viii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the protection of habitat and natural
features;
ix. Removal of the existing building or buildings;
x. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising
whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence,
a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance
with the regulations;
xi. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Residential Parking and the
Visitor Parking.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Damax Consultants Ltd. (Dave Laird)
Owner: INC. NO. 0914038 B.C. LTD.
Legal Description: Lot “C” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan
19825
Lot “D” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan
19825
OCP:
Existing: Urban Residential, Commercial
Proposed: Urban Residential, Commercial
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
- 4 -
Proposed: RST (Street Townhouse Residential), R-2 (Urban Residential
District), R-1 (Residential District), and C-1 (Neighbourhood
Commercial)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Single Family Residential (Proposal for Neighborhood
Commercial and Townhouse)
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
(RZ/044/09 – Proposed C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial)
and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) )
Designation Commercial
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Medium Density Residential, Neighbourhood Commercial
and Conservation
West: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential and Conservation
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential, Commercial with rental
apartments on the second floor, and park
Site Area: 1.693 Ha. (4.2 Acres)
Access: 112 Avenue and 240 Street (future access 111 Avenue)
Servicing requirement: Full Urban Standard
b) Project Description:
The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 11185 240 Street and 11133
240 Street from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RST (Street Townhouse Residential) to front
112 Avenue and 240 Street; R-1 (Residential District) for a small portion of the site to be compatible
with lands to the south and the west; R-2 (Urban Residential District) for the interior portion of the
site; and C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) at the corner. This would permit subdivision into 24 RST
(Street Townhouse Residential) lots, 39 R-2 (Urban Residential District) single family lots, one
remnant R-1 lot to be subdivided when lands to the south along 111 Avenue are developed, and one
(1) commercial property.
The headwaters of Rainbow Creek are located on the western side of the development site. This
environmentally sensitive natural area and associated sloping lands will be dedicated as park. A
Natural Features/Watercourse Protection development permit will govern the necessary
enhancement and protection requirements, including securities and the required environmental
setback for the single family residential lots abutting the park.
- 5 -
Commercial Mixed-use Component:
A mixed-use 2 storey building is proposed to be built at the southwest corner of 112 Avenue and
240 Street. Entrances to the individual commercial units are along the frontage of the two adjacent
roads, with a pedestrian walkway covered by a porch, wrapping along the sides of the bulding.
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to RST (Street Townhouse Residential Zone), R-2 (Urban Residential District Zone), R 1
(Residential District Zone) and C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial Zone). This would permit 24 RST
lots, 39 R 2 single family lots, one remnant R-1 lot to be subdivided when lands to the south of
111 Avenue are developed, and a mixed use building totaling 702.6 m2 (7,563.5 ft2) on the
proposed C-1 zoned lot.
The C-1 building is proposed to have 4 ground-level commercial tenant spaces with access toward
the streets and each of the 4 rental apartments on the second floor will have its own entrance from
ground level at the south side of the building near the residential-only parking area. The commercial
floor space, excluding the apartment entrance spaces, is 339.4 m2 (3,653.3 ft2) and the apartments
floor space totals 363.2 m2 (3,910.2 ft2). The second storey floor area appears larger than the first
story floor area because the residential floor extends over a portion of the wrapping porch and some
of the first floor area is used for ground level entrances and stairs to the residential units on the
second floor.
There will be four (4) rental apartments – 3 one-bedroom units and 1 two-bedroom unit. The
apartments range in size between about 73.4 m2 (789.9 ft2) for the smallest of the one-bedroom
units to 127.6 m2 (1,373.6 ft2) for the one two-bedroom unit.
A site specific zone text amendment will be required to exceed the single one family residential use
allowed as an accessory use in the C-1 Zone regulations. A Housing Agreement will be used to
secure their rental tenure. A similar approach has been given approval (to Third Reading) by Council
on the development to the north of this site. Parking is located to the side and behind the building.
Eleven (11) parking spaces are proposed to serve the commercial uses and 5, including 1 for
visitors for the residential units. The parking for the residential uses will have surface treatment and
landscaping used to distinguish them from the commercial parking spaces.
Access to this building is exclusively off of 112 Avenue. No vehicular access will be permitted from
the lane that abuts a portion of this commercial lot; the lane provides alternative access to RST
dwellings fronting on 111 Avenue and 240 Street. A gate for pedestrian access with an identified
walkway through the parking area will provide convenient pedestrian access from the nearby
residential area to the future stores in the proposed commercial building.
RST Component:
A total of 24 street-oriented RST dwellings are being proposed along 112 Avenue and 240 Street.
Facing 112 Avenue, 2 buildings with 4-units each, for a total of 8 units are proposed, and on 240
Street, 4 buildings with 4-units each, for a total of 16 units. Parking is provided in detached car
garages with laneway access. Two spaces are provided side-by-side in the garages for each unit.
- 6 -
Residential Subdivision:
The remaining portion of the site south and west of the commercial and RST components is a single
family residential subdivision. There will be 39 R-2 zoned (312 m2) lots, and one remnant R-1 zoned
(371 m2) lot to be subdivided when lands to the south of 111 Avenue are developed. These lot sizes
and the proposed pattern will ensure this subdivision is compatible with the recently subdivided
Wynn Ridge project by Genstar.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The subject site is designated Commercial, Urban Residential and Conservation on Schedule B of
the Official Community Plan (OCP). Adjustment between the Urban Residential and Conservation
boundary will reflect ground proofing based on the environmental and geotechnical consultants’
recommendations. The Commercial designation is to be reduced from 1.0 ha (10,000 m2) to 0.32
ha (3,200 m2). The Urban Residential designated area would increase and to increase the urban
residential designation by 0.68 ha (6,800 m2). This is in accordance with the Neighborhood
Commercial Policies in the OCP that buildings on Neighbourhood Commercial sites have a floor area
of less than 929 m2 (10,000 ft2).
This reduction is supportable because it is consistent with OCP policies and it is recognized that the
development of the Neighborhood Commercial Centers at this intersection provides ample
commercial space to service the daily convenience shopping and service needs of the residents in
this area.
The OCP Zoning Matrix currently does not include the RST (Street Townhouse Residential) Zone as a
zone permitted under the Urban Residential designation. The Matrix is proposed to be amended to
add the RST Zone in the RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION – Major Corridor Residential Category. It was
determined this zone would be appropriate for use in this instance because both 240 Street and
112 Avenue are major road corridors.
Section 3.3.6 of the OCP identifies the subject site as part of a Neighbourhood Commercial Centre,
which encompasses three of the four corners at the intersection of 112 Avenue and 240 Street.
Under OCP Policy 6–32, a neighborhood commercial center is to be typically less than 930 m2
(10,000 ft2). The commercial project would consist of 339.4 m2 (3,653.3 ft2) of commercial floor
area and 363.2 m2 (3,910.2 ft2) of residential floor area for a total floor area of 702.6 m2
(7,563.5 ft2).
The justification for this reduction includes the following:
Rental housing, secured in perpetuity, will help to create a wide range of housing choices
and increasing the rental stock in the community and is consistent with OCP policies;
A portion of the former Commercial Designated lands are proposed to be zoned for street
facing townhouses to help achieve the objective of increasing densities along Major
Corridors;
- 7 -
Supports having a commercial development at a scale compatible with the emerging
neighbourhood and attracting the kinds of businesses most suitable to serve the daily
shopping and service needs of surrounding residents;
This is similar in nature to the proposed reduction of the Commercial Designated lands as
part of application RZ/044/09 at the northwest corner; and
The size of the proposed commercial site is appropriate for a neighbourhood commercial
node (i.e. less than 930 m2).
OCP Policy 3-34 supports the provision of affordable, rental and special housing needs throughout
the District, and Policy 3-33 supports the provision of rental accommodation in varying dwelling unit
size and number of bedrooms. A Restrictive Covenant and Housing Agreement will include the
language necessary to secure this as rental housing and prevent rental restrictions in the event the
building is strata titled. The Housing Action Plan has not been completed; however the proposed
rental apartments would be a step in addressing the kinds of housing and affordability issues this
study will be identifying. This approach has been used elsewhere in the District and is also planned
for the neighbouring site to the north.
Zoning Bylaw:
The site is proposed to be zoned a combination of C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial), RST (Street
Townhouse Residential), R-2 Urban Residential District and R-1 Residential District, with the park
area remaining RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). To accommodate the rental apartments, a
separate zone amending bylaw will allow a site specific text amendment to allow this as a principal
use in the C-1 Zone on the subject site only. For the application on the property immediately to the
north (RZ/044/09), a separate C-1 Zone text amending bylaw is in process also to allow for second
floor rental apartments above ground floor commercial uses.
Except for the variances being sought, a preliminary review of the proposed buildings and
associated parking indicates that the proposal complies with applicable provisions of the Zoning
Bylaw and parking regulations. A concurrent development variance permit application proposes to
vary the provisions of the Zoning bylaw as follows:
1. The commercial building is proposed to be sited closer to the two abutting streets, as is the
case for the commercial building proposed across 112 Avenue to the north. Therefore, the
Zoning Bylaw is proposed to be varied as follows:
Section 701 (7) (a) is proposed to be varied from a minimum front yard lot line setback of
7.5 m. to a minimum setback of 5.8 m., and
Section 701 (7) (d) is proposed to be varied from a minimum exterior side lot line setback,
(including the lot line forming the corner truncation), from 7.5 m. to a minimum setback of
2.0 m.
These variances are to include encroachments like roof projections. These setback reductions
are similar to the one proposed for the commercial building project (RZ/044/09) to the north
across 112 Avenue.
- 8 -
2. Entrance porches for the RST buildings along 240 Street and 112 Avenue are proposed to be
sited closer to the respective streets. This will strengthen the relationship of the units to the
streets and provide for an interesting streetscape by allowing the front entry porches and their
roofs to be closer to the sidewalks. Therefore, Zoning Bylaw Section 601D 6.0 is proposed to
be varied from a minimum front yard lot line setback of 4.0 m. to a minimum setback of
2.93 m. These variances are to include encroachments like roof projections.
3. The rear yard setback of the RST building (to the lane) is proposed to be reduced. The
variance being sought is to reduce the requirements of Zoning Bylaw Section 601D 6.0 from
14 m. to 13.4 m.
4. The minimum dimension of the private outdoor space is proposed to be reduced. The variance
being sought will reduce the requirements of 601D 6.0 2 a) from a rectangular shape of 6.0
m. by 7.5 m. to 5.5 to 7.5 m. for the RST building on 240 Street and to 5.0 m. by 7.5 m. for
the RST building on 112 Avenue. The proposed stair wells to the basement entrance in the
back yards will be modified in the development permit plans so they are not in the minimum
private outdoor space.
5. The setback for the detached garages to the rear yard (e.g. to the lane) is proposed to be
reduced. The variance being sought is to reduce the requirements of 601D 6.0 from 1.5 m. to
1.3 m. This reduction will be referred to Engineering and reviewed as part of the terms and
conditions for this application.
The variances will be reassessed and verified, and will be the subject of a future Council report.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Sections 8.5 of the Official Community Plan, a Commercial Development Permit
application is required to foster attractive commercial areas that are compatible with adjacent
development and enhance the unique character of the community. Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the
Official Community Plan, a Residential Development Permit application is required to enhance
existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs and minimize
potential conflicts on neighbouring land uses, and will be required for the RST portion of the
development.
This development permit application will be the subject of a future Council report.
Advisory Design Panel:
The following concerns raised by the Advisory Design Panel are to be addressed by the applicant
with planning staff:
Look at the material treatment on each residential block to better define individual units
Provide complete colored elevations of the commercial building with details for the sign
band and access stairs
- 9 -
Provide complete street landscape design coordinated with civil engineering plans
Provide detailed landscape design and specification for the residential units
Consider a hedge or fence to delineate in the private yards in the gaps between units
Consider relocating the garbage enclosure and provide details
Consider enlarging the porches on the commercial development and consider wrapping the
porch around the south side of the building
Consider simplifying the planting palette of the commercial building
Consider an improved entry feature for residential units in the commercial building
The future Council report noted above about the development permit will describe how these
matters have been resolved by the architect.
Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting was held by the applicant on April 12, 2012 at the Thomas
Haney Secondary School. A total of 15 residents and interested parties attended. The applicant
reported that there were no major objections expressed about the project. The comments made by
those attending included: high traffic volume and speed along 240 Street (there will be a signal at
112 Avenue and 240 Street), having more bike lanes, servicing and timing of the development.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
Comments from Engineering have identified some off site requirements associated with this project.
These include: extending the sanitary and the storm sewers, underground wiring, road widening,
corner truncation, and the usual requirements for a servicing agreement, geotechnical and other
legal instruments.
The applicant has been provided with a copy of the Engineering comments. Registration of a
Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and the security are required for this
application.
Building Department:
Comments from Building are related to confirming the geotechnical and environmental setbacks,
and the storm water and rain water management strategy for this development site, and insuring
restrictive covenants are registered on title. These covenants are included as conditions to be met
prior to final reading.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the subdivision is completed
they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. The required street trees will be provided
- 10 -
and secured through the development permit for the Commercial and Townhouse components and
through subdivision for the single family subdivision.
Fire Department:
The Fire Departments provided comments concerning the usual requirements related to installation
of fire alarm panels, hydrant placement, and sprinklering (all to be addressed at the subdivision or
the building permit application stage), and the requirements for the temporary roads to be finished
to the required allowable widths to accommodate emergency equipment (to be addressed through
subdivision approval stage).
School District:
The School Board has indicated to the District in the past that schools in the area, such as Albion
Elementary School, are beyond their capacity and future homeowners could expect their children to
attend schools beyond their immediate neighbourhood.
e) Intergovernmental Issues:
Local Government Act:
An amendment to the Official Community Plan requires the local government to consult with any
affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section
882 of the Act. The amendment required for this application (adjusting the Conservation and the
Commercial designations) is considered to be appropriate and minor in nature. It has been
determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including
referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations,
the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments.
The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste
Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact.
f) Environmental Implications:
The site abuts a sloping area and watercourse (Rainbow Creek) along the west side of the site. A
Natural Features/Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application is associated with this
rezone application. Geotechnical and environmental setbacks will be established to insure park
dedication, the subdivision layout and siting of dwellings will achieve the environment protection
policies.
- 11 -
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that First and Second Readings be granted to Maple Ridge Official Community
Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6875-2011 to adjust the land use designation boundaries, and allow the
RST Zone on a site specific basis under the RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS - Major Corridor
Residential Designation category of the Zoning Matrix; that First and Second Readings be granted to
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6947-2012 for the site specific zone text amendment to
allow the four rental apartments on the second storey of the commercial building; that Second
Reading be granted to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6853-2011 for the rezoning of this
subject site; and that these bylaws be forwarded to a Public Hearing.
"Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski"
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by Kelly Swift"
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – OCP Amending Bylaw 6875-2011
Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw 6853-2011
Appendix D – Zone Amending Bylaw 6947-2012
Appendix E – Site Plan
Appendix F – Building Elevation Plans
Appendix G – Landscape Plans
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Sep 26, 2012 2012-020-DP BY: JV
11133 & 11185-240 St
CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE
P L A N NIN G D E P A RT M E N T
11 005
23
8
3
6
11 010
11
0
4
8
11
0
8
7
11 007
11 013
11 008
11
0
5
2
11
0
4
3
11
0
5
6
11
0
8
1
11
0
3
711 09
9
11
0
2
3
11
0
2
9
23
8
3
2 2384
4
11
0
5
32384 8
11
0
4
2
11
0
3
1
11
0
4
5
11
0
7
2
11
0
5
0
11 263
1118
4
11 017
238
4
5
11
0
3
9
11 016
11
0
2
6
11
0
3
2
11
0
6
6
11 019
11
0
2
5
11
0
5
3
1113 3
11 213
11 247
11
0
3
2
11
0
8
0
11 300
238
3
7
11
0
3
5
11 006
1
1
0
9
4
11
0
4
0
11
0
3
8
11
0
6
2
11
0
4
7
11
0
6
5
11
0
3
6
11
0
7
6
11
0
9
3
1118 5
11 250
11 011
23
8
4
0
11
0
6
0
11 018
11
0
2
8 2392 02398 5
11
0
5
9
11 020
11
0
7
1
11
0
7
5
11 012
11118
/
5
4K A NA K A W AY
LA
N
E
240 S T.B UC K E RF IE L D DR .HA R RIS DR .BCP 507026
8
PARK
33 41
PARK
24
S 1/2 of 4
2
13
30
17
19
22
20
49
S 1/2 of S 1/2 BRP 3659
3P 17613
NWP5589
21
10
11
36
4331
29
27
23
51
50
47
P 19825
P 26163
20
LMP 24722
12
17
14
16
34
35 39
32 42
BCP 50702
44 48
B
5
B
18
Pcl. 'P'
15
16
28
21
52BCP 507023 P 223474
5
LMP 24722
C
N 1/2 of 4
P 17613
P 17613
7LMP 264835
9
PARK
19
BCP 5070240
45
25
BCP 46902
D
6
P 26163
RP 1224
BCP 5070218
26
46
EP 15665
P 19825
5
S 150' of 1
Rem 1
2
Subject Properties
´
Scale: 1:2,500
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6875-2011
A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan No. 6425-2006
_______________________________________
WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the
Official Community Plan;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedules ”A”, "B" & "C" to the Official Community
Plan Bylaw No. 6425-2006;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open
meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending
Bylaw No. 6875-2011.
2. Schedule “A” of the Official Community Plan shall be amended as follows:
Appendix C. Zoning, Section 2. Zoning Matrix, OCP Designation / Category, RESIDENTIAL
DESIGNATIONS, Major Corridor Residential Category is amended by adding the following in
the Zones column: RST (Street Townhouse Residential), provided this zone shall only be
permitted for that portion of the property described as 11185 240 Street (Lot “C” District Lot
404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 19825).
3. Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and
described as:
Lot “C” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 19825
Lot “D” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 19825
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No 820, a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw.
4. Schedule “C” is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and
described as:
Lot “C” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 19825
Lot “D” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 19825
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No 821, a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adding and removing Conservation.
5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.6425-2006 is hereby amended accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME the day of , A.D. 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ A THIRD TIME the day of , A.D. 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D.20 .
___________________________________ _____________________________
MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER
23836
11048
11087
11052
23833
11043
11056
11081
11037
1
1
09
9
23832
2
38
4
41105323848
11042 11045
11072
11050
11263
11184
23845
11039
11032
11066
11053
11133
11213
11247
11080
23837
11035
1
1
0
9
4
11062
11047
11065
11036
110
7
6
11093
11185
11250
23826
23840
11060 239202398511059
11071
11075
11118/54KANAKA WAYLANE
240 ST.BUCKERFIELD DR.HARRIS DR.8
PARK
PARK
24
2
22
6
13
30
17
19
22
20
3P 17613
NWP5589
21
10
11
29
27
23
47
P 19825
P 26163
20
LMP 24722
12
17
14
16
BCP 50702
44
B
5
B
18
Pcl. 'P'
15
16
28
21
3 P 22347LMP 24722
C
N 1/2 of 4
P 17613LMP 264835
9
PARK
19
BCP 5070245
25
BCP 46902
D
6
P 26163
RP 1224
BCP 5070218
26
46
EP 15665
P 19825
S 150' of 1
Rem 1
2
LMP 30218RP 75056
LMP 41836BCP 50703
112 AVE.240 ST.´SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING
Bylaw No.Map No. From:
To:
6875-2011820Urban Residential, Conservation
Conservation Urban Residential
From:
To:
Commercial
Urban Residential
11087
1
109
9
11184
11133
110801
1
0
9
4
110
93
111852392023985
11118/54
PARK
19 20
P 19825
BCP 50702
B
21
C
D
EP 15665
P 19825
LMP 30218RP 75056
LMP 41836BCP 50703
112 AVE.240 ST.´SCALE 1:1,500
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING
Bylaw No.Map No. Purpose:
6875-2011821
To Add To Conservation
To Remove From Conservation
To Remove FromConservation
To Add ToConservation
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6853-2011
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
___________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6853-2011."
2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as:
Lot “C” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 19825
Lot “D” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 19825
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1539 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RST (Street Townhouse
Residential), R-1 (Residential District), R-2 (Urban Residential District), C-1
(Neighbourhood Commercial).
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 30th day of August, A.D. 2011.
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
23836
11048
11087
23816
23829
23833
11043
11056
11081 11
0
9
923832
2
3
8
441105323848
11042 11045
11072
11263
11184
23845
11039
11066
11053
11133
11213
11247
11080
11300
23820
23837
1
1
0
9
4
11062
11047
11065
11076
11093
11185
11250
23826
23840
11060 239202398511059
11071
11075
11118/54KANAKA WAYLANE
240 ST.BUCKERFIELD DR.7
PARK
PARK
24
2
22
6
13
17
19
22
20
S 1/2 of S 1/2 BRP 3659
3P 17613
NWP5589
23
21
10
11
29
27
23
P 19825
P 26163
20
LMP 24722
12
17
14
16
BCP 50702
B
5
B
18
Pcl. 'P'
15
16
28
21
3 P 22347LMP 24722
C
P 17613LMP 264835
PARK
19
BCP 5070245
25
BCP 46902
D
6
P 26163
RP 1224
18
26
46
EP 15665
P 19825
S 150' of 1
Rem 1
2
LMP 26486LMP 30218RP 75056
LMP 41836BCP 50703
112 AVE.240 ST.´SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No.Map No. From:
To:
6853-20111539RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RST (Street Townhouse Residential) R-1 (Residential District)C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) R-2 (Urban Residential District)
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6947-2012
A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw
No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
___________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6947-2012."
2. PART 7, COMMERCIAL ZONES, SECTION 701, NEIGHBOURHHOOD COMMERCIAL: C-1
is amended by adding the following in SUBSECTION 1, PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES,
after “d) personal repair services”:
e) Apartment is permitted in the following locations:
(1) 11185 240 Street (Lot “C” District Lot 404 Group 1 New Westminster
District Plan 19825)
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended is hereby amended
accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , A.D. 20.
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
architecture + interior11-3080 Heather Street, p: 604-318-5897Vancouver, BC V5Z 3K3e: pierre@planbleuarchitecture.comAPPENDIX F
architecture + interior11-3080 Heather Street, p: 604-318-5897Vancouver, BC V5Z 3K3e: pierre@planbleuarchitecture.com
architecture + interior11-3080 Heather Street, p: 604-318-5897Vancouver, BC V5Z 3K3e: pierre@planbleuarchitecture.com
architecture + interior11-3080 Heather Street, p: 604-318-5897Vancouver, BC V5Z 3K3e: pierre@planbleuarchitecture.com
architecture + interior11-3080 Heather Street, p: 604-318-5897Vancouver, BC V5Z 3K3e: pierre@planbleuarchitecture.com
A metal C channel beam bolted on onto the wood columns will be used for the sign band.signs can be placed either above or in front of the C channel.architecture + interior11-3080 Heather Street, p: 604-318-5897Vancouver, BC V5Z 3K3e: pierre@planbleuarchitecture.com
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FOR FILE 2011-089-RZ
File Manager: Adrian Kopystynski
Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw Amendments: RECEIVED NOT REQUIRED
1. A completed Application Form
(Schedule “A” – Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999)
2. An application fee, payable to the District of Maple Ridge, in
accordance with Development Application Fee Bylaw no. 5949-2001.
3. A Certificate of Title and Consent Form if the applicant is different
from the owner shown on the Certificate of Title.
4. A legal survey of the property(ies)
5. Subdivision plan layout
6. Neighbourhood context plan
7. Lot grading plan
8. Landscape plan*+
Part of Development Permit
9. Preliminary architectural plans including site plan,
building elevations, accessory off-street parking and
general bylaw compliance reconciliation*+.
Part of Development Permit
* These items may not be required for single-family residential applications
+ These items may be required for two-family residential applications, as outlined in Council Policy No. 6.01
Additional reports provided:
2
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 1, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-089-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement
Bylaw No. 6913-2012
22309, 22319 and 22331 St. Anne Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received for a Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption
Agreement Bylaw (HRA Bylaw), which involves the relocation, restoration and adaptive re-use of an
existing heritage house, known as the Turnock/Morse residence. This heritage house, located at
22309 St. Anne Avenue, will be relocated to a more prominent location on the site and this, in turn,
will accommodate the construction of a four-storey multi-family apartment. The proposal includes
adapting the Turnock/Morse residence from a single-family use into a two-unit duplex.
In exchange for protecting the heritage value of the Turnock/Morse residence, the applicant is
seeking to supersede the Off-Street Parking Bylaw requirements to allow for reduced parking
standards and the Zoning Bylaw to allow for reduced building setbacks and increased density.
Consistent with the previous HRA bylaws brought forward to Council, a five-year property tax
exemption, to the municipal portion of property taxes, is requested by the applicant. To date, two
HRA bylaws have been adopted in Maple Ridge and both received five-year property tax exemptions.
The HRA Bylaw was granted First Reading on April 10, 2012, attached here to has been amended as
follows:
Changing the completion date in the Agreement for the lot consolidation requirement from
October 15, 2012 to December 15, 2012 (Section 1 Condition Precedent);
Adding members of the British Columbia Association of Heritage Professionals as recognized
“Registered Professionals” in Section 5 of the Agreement; and
Housekeeping changes to renumber some of the sections in the Agreement.
With these changes and the additional information required from the applicant being received, the
application may proceed to Second Reading and Public Hearing.
- 2 -
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement
Bylaw No. 6913-2012 as amended, be given Second Reading and be forwarded to Public
Hearing; and
2. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading:
i. Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure;
ii. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement;
iii. Road dedication as required;
iv. Consolidation of the development site;
v. Removal of buildings other than the Turnock/Morse residence;
vi. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office
which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development;
vii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office protecting the Visitor
Parking;
viii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising
whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence,
a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance
with the regulations.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc.
Wayne Bissky
Owner: Hiu Yang Lee
Liu-Hsiang Hsieh
Yu-Lun Chiang
Legal Description: Lot: 9, D.L.: 398, Block: 5, Plan: 155;
Lot: 10, D.L.: 398, Block: 5, Plan: 155;
Lot: 11, D.L.: 398, Block: 5, Plan: 155
- 3 -
OCP:
Existing: Port Haney Multi-Family, Commercial and Mixed-Use
Proposed: Port Haney Multi-Family, Commercial and Mixed-Use
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Single-Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation Port Haney Multi-Family, Commercial & Mixed-Use
South: Use: Commercial & Single-Family Residential
Zone: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial); RS-1 (One Family
Urban Residential)
Designation: Port Haney Multi-Family, Commercial & Mixed-Use
East: Use: Single-Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Port Haney Multi-Family, Commercial & Mixed-Use
West: Use: Vacant
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Park
Existing Use of Property: Single-Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential
Site Area: 2,424 m2
Access: St. Anne Avenue and 223rd Street
Servicing: Urban
Companion Applications: Development Permit – Port Haney and Waterfront (for
the form and character of the proposed apartment
building)
b) Project Description:
Turnock Residence
The Turnock Residence, located at 22309 St. Anne Avenue, was constructed by Joseph Dakin
Turnock in 1938 and is listed in the Maple Ridge Heritage Inventory. In 1942, Joseph and his wife
Hilda gave the house to their daughter Iris and her new husband Garnet Robert Morse as a wedding
gift. At that time, Joseph converted the upper floor to a living unit for he and Hilda and they
continued to live in the house, with Iris and Garnet, until Joseph completed construction of a new
home on Fern Crescent.
- 4 -
The development proposal involves consolidating the Turnock/Morse site with the two adjacent sites
on the east side, moving the existing heritage house closer to the corner of St. Anne Avenue and
223rd Street, and constructing a four-storey apartment building behind the heritage house.
A Conservation Plan has thoroughly researched and documented the heritage value and character
of the house to form the basis of guidelines for the preservation and restoration of the original form
of the exterior and a rehabilitation of the interior of the heritage house. Recommendations have
been provided on how to undertake this work, so that the heritage value of the building is protected
throughout the process. The plan also contains the known historical details and architectural
relevance of the site. This plan is attached as Schedule “C” to the HRA bylaw (see Appendix “B”).
The restoration of the existing heritage house is intended to include interior modifications for two
one-bedroom units, adapting the single-family use into a duplex. The four storey apartment is
proposed to have a total of 66 one and two-bedroom units. Resident, heritage duplex and visitor
parking is provided underground.
Apartment Building
The new four-storey building proposed in this application will qualify for the Town Centre Investment
Incentives Program if the building permit is issued by the deadline date of December 30, 2013. A
five-year heritage tax exemption is requested on the existing Turnock/Morse residence, for the
municipal portion of taxes.
The proposal is for a four-storey, 66-unit apartment building, with underground parking. The HRA
Bylaw provides for the RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential District) zone, with variances
noted elsewhere in this report, to be applied to regulate this apartment building.
The design of the building will be subject to a development permit to be issued in conjunction with
Final Reading.
c) Planning Analysis:
Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw
The applicant is seeking to supersede the Zoning Bylaw and the Off-Street Parking Bylaw through the
HRA Bylaw. Section 966 of the Local Government Act authorizes special powers to HRAs in that
they may supersede many local municipal bylaws to enable unique opportunities for heritage
conservation.
If this development application did not include the conservation of a heritage resource, then a
rezoning application for RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential District) would be necessary
to accommodate this proposal. The variations proposed for this project involve building setbacks
that are significantly reduced from what would normally be permitted in an applicable zone and a
slightly greater density.
- 5 -
The applicant is also proposing to provide fewer parking stalls than normally required and therefore,
is seeking to supersede the Off-Street Parking Bylaw. The required number of parking stalls for the
total of 68 units is 75, however, the applicant is only able to provide a total of 72 stalls for the
development.
Heritage Conservation Plan
A Heritage Conservation Plan was completed for the Turnock/Morse residence, by Donald Luxton &
Associates, who has undertaken a number of heritage projects in Maple Ridge over the years,
including the Heritage Inventory where the subject residence is listed. The Plan documents the
history, heritage value, architectural significance, conservation guidelines, and recommendations for
the rehabilitation and preservation of the building’s heritage value. This document serves as a
valuable tool to guide the proposed work and the long-term maintenance of the building. It is
attached to the HRA bylaw, as Schedule “C”, and will aid in the long-term conservation of the
heritage house and in the review of any future Heritage Alteration Permit Applications for the site.
The Statement of Significance, located on page 15 of the Conservation Plan, states that the 1938
house is “valued as a picturesque example of a Cape Code cottage, a style that became increasingly
popular in the two decades that followed the end of World War One.” The Character Defining
Elements listed on page 16 of the Plan are key physical features that contribute to the building’s
heritage value. The Character Defining Elements are:
location at the northwest corner of St. Anne Avenue and 223rd Street in the historic Port
Haney neighbourhood of Maple Ridge;
continuous residential use;
residential form, scale and massing as expressed by its one and one-half storey height, side-
gabled roofline, rectangular plan with projecting setback wing to the east, and offset front
entry;
Period Revival “Cape Cod” details such as: clipped eaves; wide, random-width, cedar shingle
siding with wide exposure to the weather; simple wooden trim; front and rear shed-roofed
dormers; central red brick chimney; multi-paned wooden-sash windows including single and
double fixed and double-hung assemblies; and inset shutter vents beside the fixed windows;
Interior features such as the living room fireplace with dark-red brick and wooden mantle,
interior shutter vent doors, interior single panel doors and wrought iron balustrade.
The Conservation Plan notes that the Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places
in Canada is serving as a guide for this proposal. Two key Guideline principles highlighted in the
Plan for directing the design scheme are as follows:
Designing a new addition in a manner that draws a clear distinction between what is historic
and what is new;
Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the
historic place. In either case, it should be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship
of solids to voids, and colour, yet be distinguishable from the historic place.
- 6 -
The proposed design of the new building is such that it is compatible with the heritage buildings, but
the plans show that the two buildings will be distinct from each other through both building colour
and design. The landscaped garden contributed to the heritage character and setting, therefore a
number of these elements such as a trellis and original planting species are to be reinstated after
construction is completed to harmonize the appearance of the heritage house within its new setting
and to recall the original lush landscaping. Refer to Appendix C for more details.
The conservation Plan notes that the conservation and the reuse of historic and existing structures
supports the following sustainability strategies:
Reduction of solid waste disposal and the reduced impact on landfills;
Retention of embodied energy with the extended use or adaptive use of each existing heritage
building (embodied energy is defined as the total expenditure of energy involved in the
creation of the building and its constituent materials and upkeep over time.);
Conserving original historic materials that are significantly less consumptive of energy than
many new replacement materials (often local and regional materials, e.g. timber, brick,
concrete, plaster, can be preserved and reduce the carbon footprint of manufacturing and
transporting new materials).
Heritage Conservation Recommendations
Various recommendations are made in the Heritage Conservation Plan with regards to the proposal
and the restoration and protection of the building’s heritage character and heritage value. These
include:
Moving the house to the southwest corner is “an acceptable approach to rehabilitation within
the context of the new development”.
Preserving the roof character by introducing potential alterations to the roof structure at the
rear, so they are not visible from the front façade.
Preservation of the original internal brick chimney that is a key Cape Code feature.
That a contractor trained in the repair of historic sash windows be retained to carry out the
necessary restoration and preservation work.
Restore original front door location and reconstruct the original trellis feature.
Use historical building colours (identified from onsite sampling work).
When building is available for interior inspection, assess interior building features for
condition and suitability of retention.
Use landscape materials that are based on those originally used at the site.
Tax Exemption Bylaw
In exchange for the long-term protection of the Turnock/Morse residence, a five-year tax exemption
is requested for the existing heritage building only. Both duplex units will have a tax exemption. An
exemption of the municipal portion of property taxes for protected heritage properties is permitted
under Section 225(2)(b) of the Community Charter. The intent of the legislation is to encourage
heritage conservation by mitigating the costs involved in preservation and restoration of the
building’s heritage value. Five year tax exemptions have been granted for the Miller Residence and
- 7 -
Billy Miner Pub HRA bylaws and one is also proposed (RZ/109/08) for the Beeton/Daykin HRA bylaw
is at Third Reading.
The municipal portion of property taxes for the Turnock/Morse residence for 2011 was $1,943.00.
Official Community Plan:
A number of policies in the Official Community Plan (OCP) apply to this proposal. These include
policies in Chapter 4 Community Services and in the Town Centre Area Plan.
In Chapter 4, the following OCP Policies apply with respect to heritage management:
4-43 The development application review process will include an opportunity to evaluate
the overall impact of proposed development on the heritage characteristics and
context of each historic community or neighbourhood. Conservation guidelines and
standards should be prepared to aid in this evaluation and provide a basis from
which recommendations can be made to Council.
4–44 Maple Ridge will endeavour to use tools available under Provincial legislation more
effectively to strengthen heritage conservation in the District. Other planning tools
will also be utilized where appropriate to establish a comprehensive approach to
heritage management in the District.
The conservation of the Turnock/Morse residence as well as insuring that the proposed apartment
building is compatible with both the heritage building and the historical community has been
achieved through the detailed analysis in the Conservation Plan forming part of the Heritage
Revitalization Agreement that applies to this site. The Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation
of Historic Places in Canada were used by the heritage professional preparing the Conservation Plan
for the Turnock/Morse residence in accordance with these OCP policies.
In the Town Centre Area Plan, the site is designated “Port Haney Multi-Family, Commercial and
Mixed-Use” in the Town Centre Area Plan, which permits four-storey multi-family development, such
as the one proposed. Area Plan policies that support the proposed application include:
3-34 Maple Ridge will continue to encourage the conservation and designation of heritage
properties recognized as having heritage value.
3-35 Adaptive re-use of heritage properties is encouraged to enable the longevity of use
and ongoing conservation of historical resources.
3-36 Parking is encouraged to be accessed from a rear lane or side-street, wherever
feasible.
- 8 -
3-38 Low-rise Multi-Family apartment, Commercial, and Mixed-Use in Port Haney should
be a minimum of three (3) storeys and a maximum of four (4) storeys in height, with
at least 90% of required parking provided underground.
Development of a four-storey multi-family development on the subject sites would result in the
adjacent single-family use site to the east being left to develop on its own. There is currently a four-
storey mixed used building on the east side of this site. The development potential in Port Haney
ranges from ground-oriented townhouse form of development to four-storey development. As such,
the size and dimensions of the remainder lot would permit a RM-1 (townhouse residential)
development, which is consistent with the Official Community Plan designation.
5-10 Laneways should have a maximum paved width of 6 metres.
The laneway right-of-way is 10 metres and the additional width on the development side will be
landscaped and maintained by the strata through a landscape covenant.
Zoning Bylaw, Off-Street Parking & Loading Bylaw, and Variances:
Adoption of HRA bylaws does not replace the existing zoning on a site and currently the three subject
sites are zoned RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential). The subject development proposal is a close
fit for the RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment) zone and it is intended that this zone will guide the
requirements for the site with some setback variations and a slightly higher density. A Heritage
Revitalization Agreement has the power to supersede the Zoning Bylaw and the variations to the
Zoning Bylaw are identified in Schedule “F” to the HRA bylaw (Appendix “B”).
The proposed setbacks are identified in the following table:
Building Setbacks RM-2 Zone Requirements HRA Bylaw Proposal
Front Yard 7.5m 3.6m
Rear Yard 7.5m 4.2m
Exterior Side Yard 7.5m 3.0m
Interior Side Yard 7.5m 4.1m
The density permitted under the RM-2 zone is a floor space ratio of 1.8. The applicant is seeking a
floor space ratio of 1.817.
In addition to superseding the RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment) zone for the specific use and
design of the site, the applicant is seeking to supersede the Off-Street Parking Bylaw to reduce the
parking standard from a required 75 stalls to a minimum of 72 stalls. The Town Centre Central
Business District parking standards, which are the lowest in the municipality, were extended to the
Port Haney area as part of the Town Centre Investment Incentives Program and these are the
parking standards that would normally apply.
- 9 -
The majority of the parking is being provided in an underground parking area, including four visitor
parking stalls. Of the three stalls located at grade, two will be allocated to the heritage house
duplex.
As the proposed HRA Bylaw varies use and density of use provisions, LGA Section 966 (8) requires a
Public Hearing to be held.
Development Permit and Heritage Alteration Permit
The changes proposed to this site affect the existing heritage building and the construction of a new
multi-family building. As such a Development Permit is required for the new four-storey residential
building (pursuant to Section 8.7 of the Official Community Plan) to be processed concurrently with
this HRA application. Apart from intensive residential development, development permits do not
apply to single family houses. A development permit will apply to the proposed apartment and this
HRA will apply to the heritage house with respect to their respective designs. To clarify this, a text
amendment to the Official Community Plan, OCP Amending Bylaw No. 6907-2012, is currently at
Third Reading, intended to waive the requirement of a Development Permit for existing heritage
buildings in such circumstances, because any alterations to protected heritage buildings will be
subject to a Heritage Alteration Permit.
The subject site is located in the Port Haney & Waterfront precinct and as such, will be subject to the
key guideline concepts for this precinct and the more general requirements of the Town Centre
Development Permit Area Guidelines.
Advisory Design Panel:
The multiple residential component of this application was presented to the ADP on July 10, 2012.
The applicant addressed the comments of the ADP as follows:
Design Panel Comments Response
Consider lane way trees (Street Trees along
the lane)
Trees along the lane are provided adjacent to North
property Line on Site, as per the original plan.
Consider providing screening between the
refuse pick-up area and the patios
Cedar hedging provided.
Provide access from the surface parking to
the 2nd heritage unit
Sidewalk extended.
Provide pedestrian access from parking
spaces 41 & 42 to the entrance lobby
Revised as requested.
Consider including the space in the hallway,
north of the elevator on upper floors, into
the adjacent suite
Revised as requested.
Consider the heights of the window mullions
on the north elevation
Revised as requested.
Consider reducing the overall amount of
fencing and trellis by providing an accent at
Fencing and trellis provided to highlight and
personalize entry points, to define public/private
- 10 -
the main entrance of the apartment building space and to compliment heritage theme.
Consider the design and proportions of the
elevator tower
Tower height has been reduced to its minimum
height required for elevator. See revised elevations.
Consider providing some alternate material
to the vinyl siding
Hardy board has been substituted for vinyl.
Consider the window treatment on the south
elevation
Revised as requested.
Consider provision of landscape grading
plan in an effort to minimize the amount of
retaining walls around patio and gardens
Retaining walls have been limited to the South East
area of the site.
Consider additional continuous evergreen
hedging between private patios and along
lane hedge
A continuous hedge would make the narrow space
feel even more constrained. Openings allow light
into this north-facing space and is consistent with
CEPTED principles for safety
Consider reducing the amount of surface
parking and replace with green
space/common amenity area
Surface parking has been relocated to the
underground parking as requested
Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting (DIM) was held by the applicant on Monday, May 7, 2012 at the
CEED Centre Meeting Room. Four individuals attended. The applicant reports that comments were
favorable towards the project. Some of the additional comments made were related to incorporating
more trees at this and nearby sites to encourage birds, the degree of truck activity associated with
construction (applicant to respond to individual directly), plans to construct of new sidewalks (to be
provided by applicant in accordance with municipal standards), and making repairs to a fence
shared by an adjacent property owner if its damaged during construction (applicant to respond to
individual directly).
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
Comments from the Engineering Department were provided to the applicant to resolve directly.
Among the comments are the following: widening the south side of the lane; widening the east side
of 223 Street to a collector standard, corner truncation; road resurfacing, sidewalk construction,
street lighting and street tree planting; and cancelling an unnecessary sewer Statutory Right of Way.
A servicing agreement and securities will be required prior to Final Approval.
- 11 -
Building Department:
The comments provided from the Building Department are related to the location and width of the
ramp to the underground parking, the location of garbage/recycling facilities, and spatial separation
requirements under the Code. The architect has advised all these matters have been addressed.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the subdivision / consolidation
is completed they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. The required street trees will
be provided and secured through the development permit for the multi-family residential use.
Fire Department:
The comments provided from the Fire Department relate mainly to the proposed apartment building,
that will be addressed at the building permit stage.
e) School District Comments:
None required.
f) Intergovernmental Issues:
There are no known intergovernmental issues related with this application.
CONCLUSION:
The Turnock/Morse HRA Bylaw is the fourth application to be brought forward for Council
consideration, within the past two years, and the second for the historic Port Haney area. The
proposed Turnock/Morse residence is one of Port Haney’s few remaining heritage buildings and
preserving this building will help preserve the memories of the past as new development occurs. It
is anticipated that shifting the original use of the existing heritage resources in Port Haney to new
adaptive uses is key to preserving these buildings over the long term. Additionally, the new four
storey building being proposed is sympathetic to the heritage building being preserved and is the
kind of new development and density that is encouraged for Port Haney in the Town Centre Area
Plan.
- 12 -
It is recommended that Second Reading be given to Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement Bylaw 6913-2012, and that application 2011-089-RZ be forwarded to Public
Hearing.
"Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski"
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by Kelly Swift"
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement
Bylaw 6913-2012
Appendix C – Site Plan
Appendix D – Rendering
Appendix E – Landscape Plans
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Sep 19, 2012 2011-089-DP BY: JV
22309/19/31 St Anne Ave
CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE
P L A N NIN G D E P A RT M E N T2225411654
11710
2232822331223402235211641
116302227411739
11664 22319223182233522369/732236211695
11740 22347/51223562237411656
11746
2236211657
11697
22269222702230922345223372235722381116502227722290223282233411671116642223022311
22323223751171522266
11683
11768
22326223442234522351223502237222366ST. ANNE AVE. 223 ST.CALLAGHAN AVE.
117 AVE.
NORTH AVE.
CALLAGHAN AVE.
H
A
N
E
Y
B
Y
P
A
S
S
A
Pcl. A
Rem
2
A
25
Rem
P 155
23
50
P 155
Rem
LMP 39631 41
8
P 16366C
P 155
P 155
1
Rem
22
P 16464
21
P 51411
32
5
BCS 3442
Rem
N44
57
11
47
PARK
12
13
RP 6192
1
18
*PP076
P 59018
Rem 7
Rem
B
10
22
11
Rem
P 155
48
2
ANWS 1811Rem
19
Rem 5
P 155
P 155
P 155
12
14
Rem
Rem
16
18
S 1/2
4
LMS 3814
31Rem 30 29
P11527
28
Rem
45P 289921
46
13 LMS 2749P 50600
P 82887
27
S44
26
20 19
14
P 155
49
A
20
Rem 105
EP 59768
AP 76188
6
Rem
9
RP 53523LMP 39214*PP07717
99
RP 597817
53
P 2899
Subject Properties
´
Scale: 1:1,500
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6913-2012
A Bylaw to designate a property as a heritage property under Section 967 of the Local Government
Act and to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement under Section 966 of the Local
Government Act and to grant a Tax Exemption under Section 225 of the Community Charter
___________________________________________________________
WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge considers that the
property located at 22309 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. has heritage value and that certain
portions of and buildings on the property should be designated as protected under section 967 of
the Local Government Act;
AND WHEREAS the District of Maple Ridge and Hiu Yang Lee, Liu-Hsiang Hsieh, and Yu-Lun Chiang
wish to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement for the property;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge wishes to
exercise its discretion under section 225 of the Community Charter to exempt a portion of the
property from municipal property taxation subject to the terms of an exemption agreement;
AND WHEREAS the District of Maple Ridge has provided notice of a proposed tax exemption bylaw in
accordance with section 227 of the Community Charter;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge enacts as
follows:
Citation
1.1 This Bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement Bylaw 6913-2012”.
Interpretation
2.1 In this Bylaw, the terms “heritage value”, “heritage character” and “alter” have the
corresponding meanings given to them in the Local Government Act.
Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement
3.1 The District of Maple Ridge enters into a Heritage Revitalization and a Tax Exemption
Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the registered owners of the properties located at 22309,
22319, and 22331 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge and legally described as:
PID: 011-539-178
Lot 9, Block 5, District Lot 398, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 155
PID: 011-539-216
Lot 10, Block 5, District Lot 398, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 155
PID: 011-539-259
Lot 11, Block 5, District Lot 398, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 155
(the “Property”).
3.2 The Mayor and Corporate Officer are authorized on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge
Council to sign and seal the Agreement in the form attached as Appendix “1” to this Bylaw.
3.3 Subject to all of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement, that portion of the
Property on which is located the “Existing Heritage Building”, as described in the Agreement,
shall be exempt from District property taxation for a term of five (5) years effective from the
date on which the Agreement comes into force.
Heritage Designation
4.1 Council hereby designates that portion of the Property containing the “Existing Heritage
Building”, as described in the Agreement, as protected heritage property for the purposes of
section 967 of the Local Government Act of British Columbia.
Exemptions
5.1 The following actions may be undertaken in relation to the Existing Heritage Building without
first obtaining a heritage alteration permit from the District:
(a) non-structural renovations or alterations to the interior of the building or structure
that do not affect any protected interior feature or fixture and do not alter the exterior
appearance of the building or structure; and
(b) non-structural normal repairs and maintenance that do not alter the exterior
appearance of a building or structure.
5.2 For the purpose of section 5.1, “normal repairs” means the repair or replacement of
elements, components or finishing materials of a building, structure or protected feature or
fixture, with elements, components or finishing materials that are equivalent to those being
replaced in terms of heritage character, material composition, colour, dimensions and
quality.
READ A FIRST TIME this 10th day of April, 2012.
READ A SECOND TIME this day of , 2012
PUBLIC HEARING held this day of , 2012.
READ A THIRD TIME this day of , 2012.
ADOPTED this day of , 2012.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX “1” – HERITAGE REVITALIZATION AND TAX EXEMPTION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the day of , 2012 is
BETWEEN:
HIU YANG LEE
4668 Irmin Street
Burnaby, B.C. V5J 1X9
LIU-HSIANG HSIEH and YU-LUN CHIANG
24781 Kimola Drive
Maple Ridge, B.C. V2W 0A6
(together, the “Owners”)
AND:
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, British Columbia
V2X 6A9
(the “District”)
WHEREAS:
A. Hiu Yang Lee is the registered owner in fee simple of the land and all improvements located
at 22309 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. and legally described as:
PID: 011-539-178
Lot 9 Block 5 District Lot 398 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 155
(“Lot 9”);
B. Liu-Hsiang Hsieh is the registered owner in fee simple of the land and all improvements
located at 22319 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. and legally described as:
PID: 011-539-216
Lot 10 Block 5 District Lot 398 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 155
(“Lot 10”);
C. Yu-Lun Chiang is the registered owner in fee simple of the land and all improvements located
at 22331 St. Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. and legally described as:
PID: 011-539-259
Lot 11 Block 5 District Lot 398 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 155
(“Lot 11”);
D. Together, Lot 9, Lot 10 and Lot 11 comprise the “Lands”;
E. There is one principal building currently situated on Lot 9, as shown labeled on the sketch
map attached as Schedule “A” to this Agreement (the “Existing Heritage Building”), and the
District and the Owners agree that the Existing Heritage Building has heritage merit and
should be conserved;
F. The Owners intend to consolidate the Lands to create a single parcel, generally in
accordance with the proposed development site plan attached as Schedule “B” (the
“Proposed Site Plan”);
H. The Owners intend to apply to the District for approval to construct a four-storey apartment
building on the Lands, behind the Existing Heritage Building, as shown on the Proposed Site
Plan;
I. Section 966 of the Local Government Act authorizes a local government to enter into a
Heritage Revitalization Agreement with the owner of heritage property, and to allow variations
of, and supplements to, the provisions of a bylaw or a permit issued under Part 26 or Part 27
of the Local Government Act;
J. Section 225 of the Community Charter authorizes a local government to enter into an
agreement with the owner of eligible heritage property that is to be exempt from municipal
taxation, respecting the extent of the exemption and the conditions on which it is made;
K. The Owners and the District have agreed to enter into this Heritage Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement setting out the terms and conditions by which the heritage value of the
Existing Heritage Building is to be preserved and protected, in return for specified
supplements and variances to District bylaws and the exemption of the Existing Heritage
Building from District property taxation for a specified term;
THIS AGREEMENT is evidence that in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) now paid by
each party to the other and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt of which each
party hereby acknowledges) the Owners and the District each covenant with the other as follows:
Condition Precedent
1. This Agreement shall be subject to the satisfaction of the following condition precedent on or
before the date stipulated:
(a) on or before December 15, 2012 a subdivision plan that consolidates the Lands
into a single fee-simple parcel has been deposited in the Land Title Office.
This condition precedent is for the benefit of both the Owners and the District and it
cannot be waived.
In this Agreement, the defined term “Lands” shall mean the fee simple parcel into
which the Lands are consolidated, unless expressly stated otherwise.
The date on which this condition precedent is satisfied is referred to as the “Effective
Date”.
Conservation of the Existing Heritage Buildings
2. The Owners shall, promptly following the Effective Date, commence and complete the
restoration, renovation and conservation of the Existing Heritage Building (the “Work”) in
accordance with recommendations set out in the Conservation Plan attached as Schedule
“C” to this Agreement (the “Conservation Plan”).
3. Prior to commencement of the Work, the Owners shall obtain from the District all necessary
permits and licences, including a heritage alteration permit.
4. The Work shall be done at the Owners’ sole expense in accordance with generally accepted
engineering, architectural and heritage conservation practices. If any conflict or ambiguity
arises in the interpretation of the Conservation Plan, the parties agree that the conflict or
ambiguity shall be resolved in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Second Edition, published by Parks Canada in
2010, or any future update to this edition.
5. The Owners shall, at their sole expense, engage a member of the British Columbia
Association of Heritage Professionals, Architectural Institute of British Columbia or the
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (the “Registered
Professional”) to oversee the Work and to perform the duties set out in section 6 of this
Agreement.
6. The Owners shall cause the Registered Professional to:
(a) prior to commencement of the Work, provide to the District an executed and sealed
Confirmation of Commitment in the form attached as Schedule “D” to this
Agreement;
(b) erect on the Lands and keep erected throughout the course of the Work, a sign of
sufficient size and visibility to effectively notify contractors and tradespersons
entering onto the Lands that the Work involves protected heritage property and is
being carried out for heritage conservation purposes;
(c) throughout the course of the Work, effectively oversee the work of all contractors and
tradespersons and inspect all materials leaving and arriving at the site to ensure that
the Work is carried out in accordance with the Conservation Plans;
(d) obtain the District’s approval for any changes to the Work, including any amended
permits that may be required;
(e) upon substantial completion of the Work, provide to the District an executed and
sealed Certification of Compliance in the form attached as Schedule “E” to this
Agreement; and
(f) notify the District within one (1) business day if the Registered Professional’s
engagement by the Owners is terminated for any reason.
Timing of Restoration
7. The Owners shall commence and complete all actions required for the completion of the
Work in accordance with this Agreement within 12 months following the Effective Date.
Ongoing Maintenance
8. Following completion of the Work, the Owners shall, in perpetuity, maintain the Existing
Heritage Building and the Lands in good repair in accordance with the maintenance
standards set out in Maple Ridge Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw No. 6710-
2009.
Damage to or Destruction of Existing Heritage Building
9. If the Existing Heritage Building is damaged, the Owners shall obtain a heritage alteration
permit and any other necessary permits and licences and, in a timely manner, shall restore
and repair the Existing Heritage Building to the same condition and appearance that existed
before the damage occurred.
10. If, in the opinion of the District, the Existing Heritage Building is completely destroyed and the
Owners wish to construct a replacement building on the Lands, such replacement building
must be constructed in compliance with the District’s Zoning Bylaw, in a style that is
acceptable to the District and substantially similar to that of the destroyed Existing Heritage
Building, after having obtained a heritage alteration permit and all other necessary permits
and licences.
11. The Owners shall use their best efforts to commence and complete any repairs to the
Existing Heritage Building, or the construction of any replica or replacement building, with
reasonable dispatch.
Variations to District’s Zoning and Parking Bylaws
12. District of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 (the “Zoning Bylaw”) is varied and
supplemented in its application to the Lands and the Existing Heritage Building in the
manner and to the extent provided in the table attached as Schedule “F” to this Agreement.
13. District of Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking & Loading Bylaw 4350-1990 (the “Parking Bylaw”),
is varied and supplemented in its application to the Lands and the Existing Heritage Building
in the manner and to the extent provided in the table attached as Schedule “G” to this
Agreement.
Heritage Designation
14. The Owners hereby irrevocably agree to the designation of that portion of the Lands
containing the Existing Heritage Building as a municipal heritage site in accordance with
section 967 of the Local Government Act, and release the District from any obligation to
compensate the Owners in any form for any reduction in the market value of the Lands or
that portion of the Lands that may result from the designation.
Tax Exemption Conditions
15. The District hereby exempts from District property taxation, for five (5) years following the
Effective Date, that portion of the Lands on which the Existing Heritage Building is located, as
shown on the sketch map attached as Schedule “A”, on the following conditions:
(a) all items agreed to within this Agreement must be met;
(b) any other fees and charges related to the Lands and the Existing Heritage Building
due to the District of Maple Ridge are paid in full;
(c) the Owners are not in contravention of any other District of Maple Ridge bylaw.
16. If any condition set out in section 15 above is not met to the satisfaction of the District,
acting reasonably, then the Owners must pay to the District the full amount of tax exemptions
received, plus interest, immediately upon written demand.
Interpretation
17. In this Agreement, “Owners” shall mean the registered owners of the Lands or a subsequent
registered owner of the Lands, as the context requires or permits.
Conformity with District Bylaws
18. The Owners acknowledge and agree that, except as expressly varied by this Agreement, any
development or use of the Lands, including any construction, restoration and repair of the
Existing Heritage Building, must comply with all applicable bylaws of the District.
Heritage Alteration Permits
19. Following completion of the Work in accordance with this Agreement, the Owners shall not
alter the heritage character or the exterior appearance of the Existing Heritage Building,
except as permitted by a heritage alteration permit issued by the District.
Statutory Authority Retained
20. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit, impair, fetter or derogate from the statutory powers of
the District, all of which powers may be exercised by the District from time to time and at any
time to the fullest extent that the District is enabled.
Indemnity
21. The Owners hereby release, indemnify and save the District, its officers, employees, elected
officials, agents and assigns harmless from and against any and all actions, causes of action,
losses, damages, costs, claims, debts and demands whatsoever by any person, arising out of
or in any way due to the existence or effect of any of the restrictions or requirements in this
Agreement, or the breach or non-performance by the Owners of any term or provision of this
Agreement, or by reason of any work or action of the Owners in performance of their
obligations under this Agreement or by reason of any wrongful act or omission, default, or
negligence of the Owners.
22. In no case shall the District be liable or responsible in any way for:
(a) any personal injury, death or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever,
howsoever caused, that be suffered or sustained by the Owners or by any other
person who may be on the Lands; or
(b) any loss or damage of any nature whatsoever, howsoever caused to the Lands, or
any improvements or personal property thereon belonging to the Owners or to any
other person,
arising directly or indirectly from compliance with the restrictions and requirements in this
Agreement, wrongful or negligent failure or omission to comply with the restrictions and
requirements in this Agreement or refusal, omission or failure of the District to enforce or
require compliance by the Owners with the restrictions or requirements in this Agreement or
with any other term, condition or provision of this Agreement.
No Waiver
23. No restrictions, requirements or other provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to have
been waived by the District unless a written waiver signed by an officer of the District has
first been obtained, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no condoning,
excusing or overlooking by the District on previous occasions of any default, nor any previous
written waiver, shall be taken to operate as a waiver by the District of any subsequent default
or in any way defeat or affect the rights and remedies of the District.
Inspection
24. Upon request, the Owners shall advise or cause the Registered Professional to advise the
District’s Planning Department of the status of the Work, and, without limiting the District’s
power of inspection conferred by statute and in addition to such powers, the District shall be
entitled at all reasonable times and from time to time to enter onto the Lands for the
purpose of ensuring that the Owners are fully observing and performing all of the restrictions
and requirements in this Agreement to be observed and performed by the Owners.
Enforcement of Agreement
25. The Owners acknowledge that it is an offence under section 981(1)(c) of the Local
Government Act to alter the Lands or the Existing Heritage Building in contravention of this
Agreement, punishable by a fine of up to $50,000.00 or imprisonment for a term of up to 2
years, or both.
26. The Owners acknowledge that it is an offence under section 981(1)(b) of the Local
Government Act to fail to comply with the requirements and conditions of any heritage
alteration permit issued to the Owners pursuant to this Agreement and section 972 of the
Local Government Act, punishable in the manner prescribed in the preceding section.
27. The Owners acknowledge that, if the Owners alter the Lands or the Existing Heritage Building
in contravention of this Agreement, the District may apply to the B.C. Supreme Court for:
(a) an order that the Owners restore the Lands or the Existing Heritage Building to its
condition before the contravention;
(b) an order that the Owners undertake compensatory conservation work on the Lands or
the Existing Heritage Building;
(c) an order requiring the Owners to take other measures specified by the Court to
ameliorate the effects of the contravention; and
(d) an order authorizing the District to perform any and all such work at the expense of the
Owners.
28. The Owners acknowledge that, if the District undertakes work to satisfy the terms,
requirements or conditions of any heritage alteration permit issued to the Owners pursuant
to this Agreement upon the Owners’ failure to do so, the District may add the cost of the work
and any incidental expenses to the taxes payable with respect to the Lands, or may recover
the cost from any security that the Owners have provided to the District to guarantee the
performance of the terms, requirements or conditions of the permit, or both.
29. The Owners acknowledge that the District may file a notice on title to the Lands in the land
title office if the terms and conditions of the Agreement have been contravened.
30. The District may notify the Owners in writing of any alleged breach of this Agreement to the
Owners shall have the time specified in the notice to remedy the breach. In the event that the
Owners fail to remedy the breach within the time specified, the District may enforce this
Agreement by:
(a) seeking an order for specific performance of this Agreement;
(b) any other means specified in this Agreement; or
(c) any means specified in the Community Charter or the Local Government Act,
and the District’s resort to any remedy for a breach of this Agreement does not limit its right
to resort to any other remedy available at law or in equity.
Headings
31. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the
interpretation of this Agreement or any of its provisions.
Appendices
32. All schedules to this Agreement are incorporated into and form part of this Agreement.
Number and Gender
33. Whenever the singular or masculine or neuter is used in this Agreement, the same shall be
construed to mean the plural or feminine or body corporate where the context so requires.
Successors Bound
34. All restrictions, rights and liabilities herein imposed upon or given to the respective parties
shall extend to and be binding upon their respective heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns.
Severability
35. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalid
portion shall be severed and the decision that it is invalid shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Owners and the District have executed this Agreement on the dates set
out below.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered by HIU YANG
LEE in the presence of:
Name
Address
Occupation
______________________________
Date
)
) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) )
)
HIU YANG LEE
Signed, Sealed and Delivered by LIU-HSIANG
HSIEH in the presence of:
Name
Address
Occupation
______________________________
Date
) )
) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) )
)
LIU-HSIANG HSIEH
Signed, Sealed and Delivered by YU-LUN
CHIANG in the presence of:
Name
Address
Occupation
______________________________
Date
)
) ) ) ) ) ) )
) ) )
) )
YU-LIN CHIANG
The Corporate Seal of DISTRICT OF MAPLE
RIDGE was hereunto affixed in the presence
of:
Mayor:
Corporate Officer:
______________________________
Date
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/S
SCHEDULE “A”
EXISTING HERITAGE BUILDING
SCHEDULE “B”
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCHEDULE “C”
CONSERVATION PLAN
&donald luxton
associates inc.
turnock/morse residence
22309 saint anne avenue
conservation plan
january 2012
1030 - 470 Granville street
vancouver Bc | v6c 1v5
t 604 688 1216 | F 604 683 7494
www.donaldluxton.com
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
1
–
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION
2
2.
DESCRIPTION
OF
THE
SITE
3
2.1
Historic
Context
3
2.2
The
Turnock
and
Morse
Families
4
2.3
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
6
2.4
The
Cape
Cod
Style
11
3.
STATEMENT
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
15
4.
CONSERVATION
GUIDELINES
17
4.1
National
Standards
and
Guidelines
17
4.2
General
Conservation
Strategy
18
4.3
Sustainability
Strategy
20
4.4
Heritage
Equivalencies
and
Exemptions
21
4.4.1
B.C.
Building
Code
22
4.4.2
Energy
Efficiency
Act
22
4.4.3
Homeowner
Protection
Act
22
5.
CONSERVATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
23
5.1
Site
23
5.2
Foundation
25
5.3
Roof
25
5.4
Chimney
26
5.5
Exterior
Walls
26
5.6
Fenestration
27
5.6.1
Windows
27
5.6.2
Exterior
Doors
32
5.7
Front
Entry
32
5.8
Exterior
Trellises
33
5.9
Exterior
Colour
Schedule
34
5.10
Interior
Features
37
511
Landscape
38
6.0
MAINTENANCE
PLAN
40
6.1
Maintenance
Guidelines
40
6.1.1
Legal
Protection
and
Permitting
40
6.1.2
Cleaning
40
6.1.3
Repairs
and
Replacement
of
Deteriorated
Materials
40
6.1.4
Maintenance
of
Exteriors
-‐
Keeping
The
Water
Out
41
6.2
Inspection
Checklist
41
6.3
Maintenance
Plan
43
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
45
APPENDIX
A:
RESEARCH
SOURCES
46
APPENDIX
B:
MORSE
FAMILY
TREE
47
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
2
–
1.
INTRODUCTION
Name
of
Historic
Place:
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
Address:
22309
St.
Anne
Avenue,
Maple
Ridge
Original
Owners:
Joseph
Dakin
Turnock
&
Hilda
Turnock
Designer
and
Contractor:
Joseph
Dakin
Turnock
Date
of
Construction:
1938
Built
in
1938,
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
is
an
excellent
example
of
an
architectural
style
that
is
unique
in
the
local
area.
Typical
of
Cape
Cod
/
Colonial
Revival
residences
of
the
1930s,
it
features
a
side-‐gabled
roof
with
clipped
eaves.
The
windows
are
highly
unusual,
consisting
mainly
of
fixed
multi-‐
paned
sash
with
openable
louvred
panels
to
each
side
that
mimic
historic
shutters.
The
conservation
proposal
involves
the
relocation
of
the
house
to
the
front
corner
of
its
lot,
to
accommodate
a
new
multi-‐family
residential
building,
whilst
preserving
and
restoring
heritage
character-‐defining
elements.
Though
the
house
has
maintained
a
high
degree
of
its
original
integrity,
it
has
undergone
several
notable
additions
over
its
lifespan.
The
conservation
work
will
involve
the
preservation
and
restoration
of
the
original
form
of
the
exterior,
and
a
rehabilitation
of
the
interior.
The
conservation
work
for
this
project
will
be
based
on
Parks
Canada’s
Standards
and
Guidelines
for
the
Conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada
(2010),
which
will
guide
the
conservation
of
the
heritage
character-‐defining
elements
listed
in
the
Statement
of
Significance.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
3
–
2.
DESCRIPTION
OF
THE
SITE
2.1
HISTORIC
CONTEXT
The
municipal
history
of
Maple
Ridge
began
with
its
incorporation
on
September
12,
1874.
At
this
point
the
District
was
very
sparsely
settled;
the
assessment
records
of
the
next
year
list
only
62
different
property
owners.
Gradually,
empty
land
was
developed
for
farming
and
was
served
by
ship
traffic
along
the
Fraser
River.
Construction
of
the
Canadian
Pacific
Railway
line
began
in
1882,
opening
up
the
area
for
further
settlement.
Thomas
Haney,
originally
from
Cape
Breton,
and
later
from
Ontario,
came
to
Maple
Ridge
in
1876.
He
had
learned
the
brickmaking
trade
in
the
east,
and
had
been
part
owner
of
a
brickyard
in
Ontario.
He
searched
both
sides
of
the
Fraser
River
for
suitable
clay
to
establish
his
own
business,
and
bought
District
Lot
398,
one
hundred
and
sixty
acres
of
prime
waterfront
land,
which
soon
became
known
as
Haney’s
Landing.
Haney
set
up
many
of
the
early
services
in
the
area,
including
the
waterworks,
donated
land
for
churches,
and
held
public
office.
In
1882,
Port
Haney
was
officially
registered;
this
was
also
the
same
year
that
the
Town
of
Hammond
was
surveyed.
Development
of
Port
Haney
proceeded
rapidly
after
the
coming
of
the
railway,
and
the
1887
Mallandaine
&
Williams
B.C.
Directory
lists
brickmaking
as
its
chief
industry,
mentioning
also
the
salmon-‐freezing
establishment
that
had
been
opened.
It
also
states
that
Maple
Ridge
was
the
only
rural
municipality
in
British
Columbia
through
which
the
Canadian
Pacific
Railway
passed.
The
town
plan
for
Port
Haney
was
surveyed
in
1889.
Roads
were
still
scarce,
and
Maple
Ridge
was
not
connected
to
New
Westminster
until
1913
with
the
construction
of
River
Road
and
the
Pitt
River
Bridge.
By
this
time
the
commercial
district
of
Port
Haney
was
expanding
up
224
Street.
The
opening
of
the
Lougheed
Highway
In
1931
–
a
Depression-‐era
make-‐
work
project
that
connected
the
Fraser
Valley
communities
by
road
–
finally
provided
good
road
access,
and
gradually
businesses
migrated
away
from
the
old
part
of
Port
Haney
to
the
new
business
district.
Over
time,
significant
commercial
and
residential
activity
developed
and
Port
Haney
became
a
major
transportation
hub
in
the
region.
The
completion
of
the
Lougheed
Highway
signalled
a
northward
shift
in
the
location
of
Haney’s
commercial
activity.
A
devastating
fire
in
1932
destroyed
much
of
the
existing
business
centre,
hastening
the
shift
of
businesses
up
the
hill.
This
marked
the
end
of
the
dominance
of
the
railway
industry
and
the
emergence
of
road-‐based
transportation
that
allowed
greater
flexibility
in
land
development
and
heralded
new
development
throughout
the
Fraser
Valley.
The
old
townsite
was
therefore
less
desirable
for
commercial
purposes,
opening
up
residential
opportunities
in
the
Port
Haney
area,
leading
in
the
late
1930s
to
the
construction
of
a
number
of
houses
such
as
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
4
–
2.2
THE
TURNOCK
AND
MORSE
FAMILIES
The
original
owners
of
the
house,
Joseph
Dakin
Turnock
[1887-‐1974]
and
his
wife,
Hilda
[née
Tipper,
1887-‐1971],
were
married
in
Folkestone,
England
in
1915.
Their
daughter,
Iris,
was
born
in
England.
The
Turnock
family
emigrated
from
England
to
Canada
in
1923.
Joseph
and
Hilda
Turnock
at
their
later
house,
the
“Lookout.”
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
Iris
Turnock
in
England,
1922
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
5
–
The
family
settled
in
Port
Haney,
and
Joseph
Turnock
built
this
home
in
1938.
The
original
address
was
2681
St
Ann
[note:
this
was
the
original
spelling
of
the
street
name].
The
Weekly
Gazette
of
August
1,
1938
reported
“Mr.
and
Mrs.
J.D.
Turnock
are
erecting
a
lovely
new
home
on
St.
Ann,
just
across
the
corner
from
J.
Nightingale.
They
expect
to
take
up
residence
there
some
time
in
September.”
J.D.
Turnock
was
a
very
handy
builder,
and
acted
as
contractor
for
the
house.
In
1942,
Iris
was
married
to
Garnet
“Robert”
Morse
(1915-‐1987),
who
was
a
railway
worker.
Robert
Morse
was
the
son
of
David
Garnet
Morse
(1883-‐1958),
patriarch
of
the
Morse
family
and
the
first
fully
practicing
physician
in
Maple
Ridge,
and
Bernice
Louise
Morse
(née
Robertson,
1883-‐1954).
Another
of
the
Morse
children
was
Hugh
Morse,
who
married
Belle
Scott
–
later
elected
as
Mayor
of
Maple
Ridge.
Their
daughter,
Kathy
Morse,
also
later
served
as
mayor.
“MORSE
–
TURNOCK.
A
quiet
wedding
took
place
on
Saturday
evening,
March
14,
at
the
home
of
the
officiating
clergyman,
Rev.
E.V.
Apps,
Vancouver,
when
Iris
Daken
[sic]
Turnock,
only
daughter
of
Mr.
and
Mrs.
J.D.
Turnock
of
Haney,
became
the
bride
of
Garnet
Robert
Morse,
elder
son
of
Dr.
and
Mrs.
G.
Morse
of
Haney.”
Gazette
[Haney,
B.C.];
Friday,
March
20,
1942,
page
1.
At
the
time
of
the
marriage,
this
house
was
given
to
Iris
and
Robert
by
her
parents.
Joseph
Turnock
converted
the
upper
floor
of
the
house
to
living
accommodation
for
himself
and
Hilda
until
he
could
complete
another
house,
the
“Lookout”,
on
a
one-‐acre
lot.
This
later
house
still
exists,
just
off
Fern
Crescent
on
the
north
side
of
130
Avenue.
The
Morse
family
in
front
of
the
house
with
their
two
eldest
children
in
1944
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
6
–
Robert
and
Iris
Morse
raised
their
three
children,
Jo-‐Ann
(born
1942),
Richard
(born
1944)
and
Sandra
(now
Alannah,
born
1950)
in
this
house.
Over
time,
a
number
of
additions
at
the
rear
expanded
the
living
space.
Iris,
Jo-‐Ann,
Hilda
Turnock
and
Richard,
in
1961
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
2.3
THE
TURNOCK
/
MORSE
RESIDENCE
The
Morse
family
has
provided
specific
information
about
the
house,
its
original
layout
and
details
of
its
construction,
including
many
early
photographs.
Joseph
Turnock
designed
and
built
the
house
in
1938.
Originally,
only
the
ground
floor
was
completed,
with
the
upper
floor
converted
soon
after
for
additional
living
space.
The
original
roof
was
black
/
grey
asphalt
shingles.
A
coal-‐fired
furnace
originally
heated
the
house.
Robert
Morse
and
his
son
shovelled
the
coal
through
a
hopper
window
into
the
partial,
three-‐quarter
basement
where
the
boiler
was
housed.
Front
Porch:
The
front
porch
was
originally
open
with
paired
square
columns
on
each
side.
The
concrete
front
steps
were
painted
red.
The
original
front
door
was
a
solid
single-‐panelled,
unglazed
door
with
a
stained
and
varnished
finish,
with
a
small
openable
grill
at
eye
level.
There
was
also
a
screen
door.
There
was
a
small
multi-‐paned
window,
with
a
mail
slot
below,
to
the
east
side
of
the
front
door.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
7
–
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
Interior:
All
the
walls
had
a
"vein"-‐like
finish;
this
was
a
trowelled
hard
plaster
finish,
with
the
topcoat
dragged
across
the
lower,
rather
than
smooth-‐finished.
There
was
no
flat
drywall
on
any
of
the
walls
in
the
house.
The
heating
registers
stood
out
from
the
wall
and
had
thumb
tabs.
Living
Room:
The
living
room
originally
opened
off
the
front
hall;
the
door
has
been
added
and
is
not
original
to
the
house.
The
windows
would
originally
have
had
vents
on
both
sides.
There
were
two
heating
registers
in
the
room.
The
curtains
in
the
living
room
had
very
large
red
roses
with
small
green
leaves.
The
curtains
fell
to
just
below
the
windows.
There
was
a
built
in
book
case
on
the
right
of
the
fireplace
about
3
or
4
ft
wide
from
the
ceiling
to
the
floor;
Iris
Morse
had
a
small
library
there,
mainly
books
by
the
author,
Frank
Yerby.
There
was
originally
a
door
between
the
living
room
and
the
dining
room.
Dining
Room:
There
was
originally
no
door
to
the
outside
from
the
dining
room.
The
dining
room
and
kitchen
had
red
and
yellow
linoleum
tile
flooring.
Kitchen:
There
was
originally
a
door
to
the
outside
from
the
kitchen
(now
closed
in)
and
a
large,
4-‐part
window
above
the
sink
on
the
north
wall.
The
brick
chimney
in
the
kitchen
was
always
exposed.
The
kitchen
had
a
wood
stove.
There
was
originally
an
icebox,
and
a
man
would
deliver
a
huge
block
of
ice
whenever
the
other
one
melted;
the
water
tray
had
to
be
emptied
quite
regularly.
There
were
three
built-‐in
shelves
behind
the
fridge
that
were
about
12
inches
deep,
with
a
two-‐inch
wooden
finish
around
them.
Up
above
the
three
built-‐in
shelves
was
a
pale
green
square
plastic
clock
with
rounded
edges,
black
numbers
and
hands
and
a
red
second
hand.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
8
–
Rear
Porch:
The
enclosed
mudroom
was
originally
an
open
porch.
The
glazed
rear
doors
are
not
original
to
the
house.
The
door
from
the
kitchen
had
a
glazed
panel.
There
was
a
wringer
washer
in
the
enclosed
porch
at
the
rear.
Master
Bedroom:
This
room
retains
its
original
configuration,
although
the
closet
has
been
expanded.
Office:
This
room
was
originally
a
bedroom.
It
was
originally
larger,
as
the
bathroom
has
been
expanded
to
the
east.
There
was
a
heating
register
on
the
west
wall.
Bathroom:
The
original
tub
was
a
clawfoot
cast
iron
tub,
since
replaced.
The
bathroom
has
now
been
expanded
to
the
east
and
now
takes
up
part
of
the
original
bedroom.
There
was
a
heating
register
on
the
east
wall.
Undated
upper
floor
plan,
indicating
enclosure
of
the
west
bedroom
and
a
new
bathroom.
Upper
Floor:
The
wrought
iron
balustrade
along
the
staircase
is
original.
The
stairs
were
wood,
with
a
carpet
runner.
There
was
no
door
at
the
top
of
the
stairs;
the
door
was
added
later
and
is
not
original
to
the
house.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
9
–
Upper
Floor
Living
Room:
The
windows
in
the
front
dormer
were
double-‐hung
and
all
opened.
There
was
a
large
1940s
tube
radio
in
a
curtained
built-‐in
alcove
on
the
east
wall
of
the
dormer.
Upper
Floor
Kitchen:
The
large
picture
window
in
the
north
dormer
in
the
kitchen
was
divided
into
three
large
sections.
The
central
picture
window
had
two
horizontal
muntins,
and
was
flanked
by
two
smaller
4-‐over-‐4
multi-‐paned
double-‐hung
wooden
sash
windows
of
the
same
height.
The
window
in
the
upper
floor
north
dormer,
1961
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
Upper
Floor
West
Bedroom:
This
was
originally
more
open
to
the
living
room
and
had
a
partial
wall
running
south
of
the
chimney
to
screen
it
off.
Upper
Floor
East
Bedroom:
This
room
was
originally
larger;
the
bathroom
was
added
later.
The
window
sash
opened
outwards,
and
was
hinged
at
the
top.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
10
–
Structure
at
Rear:
Joseph
Turnock
was
a
chess
champion
and
he
wanted
to
form
a
local
chess
club.
He
built
the
separate
gable-‐roofed
structure
at
the
rear
and
did
have
a
chess
club
there
for
a
period
of
time.
The
family
later
knew
this
as
the
“rec
room.”
It
has
been
converted
to
use
as
a
residence,
and
a
loft
bedroom
added
(with
new
windows
in
the
gable
ends).
Other
windows
and
doors
have
also
been
added.
Left:
Joseph
Turnock.
Right:
Rear
of
house
with
separate
structure
at
rear.
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
Landscape
and
Yard:
All
the
conifers
and
shrubs
on
the
property
were
taken
from
crown
land,
including
the
hedges
and
trees.
There
was
a
large
willow
tree
in
the
front
yard,
beside
the
walkway,
and
a
chestnut
tree.
Cedar
trees
lined
the
lot,
with
laurel
bushes
at
the
front.
When
the
sidewalk
was
built
in
front,
it
was
angled
to
avoid
the
laurel
hedge.
A
bamboo
bush
was
located
to
the
west.
There
were
two
constructed
trellises,
one
on
either
side
the
house.
One
was
located
to
the
west
side,
with
upright
columns
and
cross-‐members
based
on
the
appearance
of
the
front
porch.
This
trellis
was
planted
with
purple
wisteria.
The
second
trellis
was
located
to
the
east.
A
rose
garden,
with
roses,
peonies
and
rhododendrons,
was
located
just
to
the
east
of
the
porch.
Yellow
wisteria,
honeysuckle
and
lilacs
were
planted
in
the
front
yard.
A
vegetable
garden
was
planted
in
the
rear.
There
were
also
black
currant
bushes.
There
was
a
chicken
coop
at
the
back,
where
the
family
kept
leghorns
and
bantams.
A
section
in
front
about
10’
by
5’
had
wooden
posts
and
chicken
wire,
so
the
chickens
could
step
out
and
walk
around.
A
carport
was
attached
at
the
rear
of
the
“rec
room.”
A
trellis
ran
north
on
which
grape
vines
were
planted.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
11
–
Iris
Morse
in
front
of
the
house
with
her
son,
Robert,
in
1944
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
2.4
THE
CAPE
COD
STYLE
Cape
Cod
houses
fall
under
the
broad
category
of
the
Colonial
Revival
style.
The
first
Cape
Cod
style
homes
were
built
by
English
colonists
who
came
to
America
in
the
late
17th
century.
They
modelled
their
homes
after
the
half-‐timbered
houses
of
England,
but
adapted
the
style
to
the
stormy
New
England
weather.
Over
the
course
of
a
few
generations,
a
modest,
1
to
1½
story
house
with
wooden
shutters
emerged.
In
the
20th
century,
the
Cape
Cod
was
the
most
common
form
of
one-‐storey
or
low
scale
Colonial
Revival
houses.
As
a
form,
it
originated
in
the
early
18th
century
and
continued
with
few
changes
through
the
1950s.
These
houses
were
built
throughout
the
era
when
the
Colonial
Revival
style
was
popular,
but
were
most
common
in
the
1920s
through
the
1940s.
The
"Cape
Cod
House"
was
named
in
1800
by
Timothy
Dwight,
president
of
Yale
University.
In
his
book,
Travels
in
New
England
and
New
York,
Dwight
describes
his
visit
to
Cape
Cod,
where
he
saw
houses
that
he
felt
were
a
"class."
Dwight
described
them
as
having
"one
storey...
covered
on
the
sides,
as
well
as
the
roofs,
with
pine
shingles...
the
chimney
is
in
the
middle...
and
on
each
side
of
the
door
are
two
windows...
the
roof
is
straight.
Under
it
are
two
chambers;
and
there
are
two
larger,
and
two
smaller
windows
in
the
gable
end."
Dwight
described
a
"full
Cape,"
made
by
doubling
the
small
house
unit
or
"half
Cape"
which
would
have
been
familiar
to
early
English
colonists
like
the
Pilgrims.
The
"half
Cape"
could
also
be
multiplied
to
make
a
"house-‐and-‐a-‐half"
or
"three-‐quarter
Cape."
Like
the
prototypical
English
houses,
early
Capes
had
two
basic
rooms,
the
hall
and
parlor.
The
hall,
or
Great
Room,
was
used
for
daily
living.
The
parlor
was
used
as
a
master
bedroom.
Over
time,
the
kitchen
moved
to
the
back
of
the
house,
often
with
pantries
and
small
bedrooms
at
the
rear
corners.
Over
time,
people
added
on
to
the
houses,
either
doubling
the
half
Cape
or
adding
a
wing
to
the
rear.
As
people’s
need
for
space
grew,
dormers
were
cut
into
roofs
to
add
more
space,
light
and
ventilation.
"Shed"
dormers
ran
almost
the
entire
length
of
the
houses,
while
"dog
house"
dormers
were
just
the
width
of
a
window.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
12
–
Many
older
houses
had
dormers
added
in
the
1920s,
when
new
ideas
about
privacy
and
health
led
people
to
create
more
bedrooms.
Early
Capes
were
heated
by
a
massive
central
chimney
with
several
fireplaces.
The
central
chimney
is
a
feature
typical
to
New
England,
as
it
helped
keep
the
heat
in
the
house
in
the
cold
northern
climate.
Houses
of
similar
shape
were
built
in
the
south,
but
they
almost
always
have
chimneys
on
the
outside
walls
to
dissipate
the
heat
in
a
hot
climate.
As
people
discovered
new
ways
of
heating
houses
with
stoves
and
furnaces,
the
massive
central
chimney
was
no
longer
needed.
New
houses
were
built
with
smaller
chimneys,
and
many
old
chimneys
were
replaced.
Later
houses
were
often
more
rectangular.
Occasionally
the
house
was
turned
sideways
and
the
door
placed
on
the
short
gable
end
to
resemble
popular
Greek
Revival
houses.
Ephraim
Hawley
House,
Trumbull
Connecticut,
built
1670-‐90
[photo
prior
to
1881;
Trumbull
Historical
Society].
In
the
late
1 800s
and
early
1900s,
spurred
by
the
1876
American
War
of
Independence
Centennial
celebrations,
a
renewed
interest
in
America's
past
inspired
a
variety
of
Colonial
Revival
styles.
Traditional,
Colonial-‐era
Cape
Cod
houses
had
many
of
these
features:
¥ Steep
roof
with
side
gables
¥ Small
roof
overhang
¥ 1
or
1½
stories
¥ Made
of
wood
and
covered
in
wide
clapboard
or
shingles
¥ Large
central
chimney
linked
to
fireplace
in
each
room
¥ Symmetrical
appearance
with
door
in
center
¥ Dormers
for
space,
light,
and
ventilation
¥ Multi-‐paned,
double-‐hung
windows
¥ Shutters
¥ minimal
exterior
ornamentation
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
13
–
Hartford
Residence,
Bridgton,
Maine.
Reproduced
from
an
original
postcard
published
by
the
H.
J.
Burroughs
Company,
Portland,
Maine,
circa
1920s.
Architects
rediscovered
the
Cape
Cod
house
in
the
1920s,
spurred
by
the
American
Sesquicentennial
celebrations.
During
the
1930s,
the
popularity
Colonial
Revival
and
the
Depression
combined
to
create
a
desire
for
small,
economical
yet
old-‐fashioned
houses.
This
was
also
the
time
when
Colonial
Williamsburg
in
Virginia
was
being
rescued,
restored
and
widely
publicized
through
the
sponsorship
of
John
D.
Rockefeller.
The
Cape
Cod
house
received
national
publicity
through
books
like
Houses
for
Homemakers
by
Boston
architect
Royal
Barry
Wills.
After
the
Great
Depression,
Wills
focused
on
designing
small,
1,000-‐square-‐
foot
Colonial
Revival
houses.
Rather
than
reproducing
traditional
Cape
Cod–style
homes,
Wills
refigured
the
design
to
include
modern
amenities
that
addressed
demands
for
increased
privacy
and
technology,
including
bathrooms,
kitchens,
and
garages.
Royal
Barry
Wills
became
one
of
the
most
popular
residential
architects
in
America
after
World
War
Two
because
of
his
role
in
modernizing
the
Cape
Cod
for
small
homes
in
suburban
developments
throughout
the
USA,
and
promoting
an
appealing
living
option
for
middle-‐class
families.
These
small,
economical
houses
were
mass-‐produced
in
suburban
developments
across
the
United
States.
Inexpensive
and
mass-‐
produced,
these
1,000-‐square-‐foot
houses
filled
a
need
for
the
rush
of
soldiers
returning
from
the
war.
In
the
famous
Levittown
housing
developments
started
in
the
1950s,
factories
churned
out
as
many
as
thirty
4-‐bedroom
Cape
Cod
houses
in
a
single
day.
The
Cape
Cod
style
house
remains
popular,
especially
throughout
the
United
States,
and
building
plans
are
often
available
through
plan
books
and
house
planning
services.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
14
–
The
Bernard
Levey
Family
Poses
in
front
of
their
1948
Cape
Cod
Home
[Bernard
Hoffmann,
for
Life
Magazine]
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
15
–
3.
STATEMENT
OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Name
of
Historic
Place:
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence,
22309
St.
Anne
Avenue,
Maple
Ridge
Date
of
Construction:
1938
Original
Owners:
Joseph
Dakin
Turnock
&
Hilda
Turnock
Description
of
Historic
Place
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
is
a
one
and
one-‐half
storey,
wood-‐frame
Period
Revival
“Cape
Cod”
cottage
located
at
the
northwest
corner
of
St.
Anne
Avenue
and
223rd
Street,
in
the
historic
Port
Haney
area
of
Maple
Ridge.
Built
in
1938,
the
house
reflects
the
picturesque
traditions
and
vernacular
revivals
popular
in
domestic
architecture
at
the
time,
and
features
side-‐gabled
roofs
with
clipped
eaves,
shingle
siding
and
multi-‐paned
windows.
Heritage
Value
of
Historic
Place
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
is
valued
as
a
picturesque
example
of
a
Cape
Cod
cottage,
a
style
that
became
increasingly
popular
in
the
two
decades
that
followed
the
end
of
World
War
One.
The
use
of
various
Colonial
Revival
styles
had
gained
new
popularity
at
the
time
of
the
American
Sesquicentennial
in
1926,
when
patriotism
was
at
a
fever
pitch
and
architectural
fashion
favoured
the
use
of
traditional,
Colonial
models
that
reflected
the
modern
ideals
of
economy
and
good
design
as
well
as
an
ongoing
pride
in
past
traditions.
It
was
presumed
at
the
time
that
a
well-‐built
house
would
display
a
traditional
and
readily-‐identifiable
style
as
a
hallmark
of
good
taste.
The
austere
economics
of
the
time
dictated
that
houses
were
generally
modest
in
scale,
and
reflected
the
reality
of
families
having
to
make
do
without
domestic
help.
The
Colonial
Revival
style
–
including
this
variation
known
as
the
Cape
Cod
cottage
–
experienced
a
surge
in
popularity
during
the
1930s,
when
both
the
Colonial
Revival
and
the
Depression
combined
to
create
a
desire
for
small,
economical,
yet
old-‐fashioned
houses.
Family
houses
often
assumed
a
cottage
appearance
that
provided
a
romantic
ideal
of
traditional
domesticity,
hearkening
back
to
the
values
and
ideals
of
an
earlier
age
and
evoking
feelings
of
pleasant
and
comfortable
nostalgia.
The
Cape
Cod
house
received
national
publicity
through
numerous
pattern
books,
which
were
widely
used
by
many
homeowners
as
the
basis
for
their
residential
construction.
This
residence
is
also
significant
for
its
association
with
the
late
1930s
development
of
the
Port
Haney
neighbourhood
of
Maple
Ridge.
The
early
settlement
of
Port
Haney
was
centred
on
the
Fraser
River,
which
provided
the
earliest
mode
of
transportation
prior
to
the
development
of
roads
through
the
area.
Over
time,
significant
commercial
and
residential
activity
developed
and
Port
Haney
became
a
major
historic
transportation
hub
in
the
region.
Decline
set
in
after
the
onset
of
the
Great
Depression.
In
1931,
the
completion
of
the
Lougheed
Highway
–
a
Depression-‐era
make-‐work
project
that
connected
the
Fraser
Valley
communities
by
road
–
signalled
a
shift
in
the
location
of
Haney’s
commercial
activity.
A
devastating
fire
in
1932
destroyed
much
of
the
existing
business
centre,
hastening
the
shift
of
businesses
up
the
hill.
This
marked
the
end
of
the
dominance
of
the
railway
industry
and
the
emergence
of
road-‐based
transportation
that
allowed
greater
flexibility
in
land
development
and
heralded
new
development
throughout
the
Fraser
Valley.
The
old
townsite
was
therefore
less
desirable
for
commercial
purposes,
opening
up
residential
opportunities
in
the
Port
Haney
area.
The
original
owners,
Joseph
Dakin
Turnock
[1887-‐1974]
and
his
wife,
Hilda
[née
Tipper,
1887-‐1971],
decided
to
settle
in
Port
Haney
at
the
time,
but
only
lived
briefly
in
this
house
before
turning
it
over
to
their
daughter,
Iris,
and
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
16
–
her
husband,
Garnet
Robert
Morse
(1915-‐1987)
–
the
son
of
Dr.
David
Garnet
Morse,
pioneering
physician
in
Maple
Ridge
–
who
lived
here
with
their
family
for
many
years.
Character-‐Defining
Elements
Key
elements
that
define
the
heritage
character
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
include
its:
¥ location
at
the
northwest
corner
of
St.
Anne
Avenue
and
223rd
Street
in
the
historic
Port
Haney
neighbourhood
of
Maple
Ridge;
¥ continuous
residential
use;
¥ residential
form,
scale
and
massing
as
expressed
by
its
one
and
one-‐half
storey
height,
side-‐
gabled
roofline,
rectangular
plan
with
projecting
setback
wing
to
the
east,
and
offset
front
entry;
¥ Period
Revival
“Cape
Cod”
details
such
as:
clipped
eaves;
wide,
random-‐width,
cedar
shingle
siding
with
wide
exposure
to
the
weather;
simple
wooden
trim;
front
and
rear
shed-‐roofed
dormers;
central
red
brick
chimney;
multi-‐paned
wooden-‐sash
windows
including
single
and
double
fixed
and
double-‐hung
assemblies;
and
inset
shutter
vents
beside
the
fixed
windows;
¥ Interior
features
such
as
the
living
room
fireplace
with
dark-‐red
brick
and
wooden
mantle,
interior
shutter
vent
doors,
interior
single
panel
doors
and
wrought
iron
balustrade.
Aerial
view
of
Port
Haney
in
1948
showing
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence,
centre
left,
within
the
context
of
Port
Haney
[Detail,
Maple
Ridge
Museum
&
Archives
P7068].
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
17
–
4.
CONSERVATION
GUIDELINES
4.1
NATIONAL
STANDARDS
AND
GUIDELINES
The
Parks
Canada
Standard
and
Guidelines
for
the
Conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada
(2010)
has
been
used
to
assess
the
conservation
interventions
at
the
subject
property.
Conservation
is
defined
as
safeguarding
heritage
elements
of
a
historic
place
so
as
to
retain
its
heritage
value
and
character
and
can
involve
Preservation,
Rehabilitation
or
Restoration.
Under
the
Standards
and
Guidelines,
it
is
proposed
that
interventions
to
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
will
consist
mainly
of
rehabilitation,
with
additional
aspects
of
preservation
and
restoration
as
defined
below:
Preservation:
the
action
or
process
of
protecting,
maintaining,
and/or
stabilizing
the
existing
materials,
form,
and
integrity
of
a
historic
place
or
of
an
individual
component,
while
protecting
its
heritage
value.
Restoration:
the
action
or
process
of
accurately
revealing,
recovering
or
representing
the
state
of
a
historic
place
or
of
an
individual
component,
as
it
appeared
at
a
particular
period
in
its
history,
while
protecting
its
heritage
value.
Rehabilitation:
the
action
or
process
of
making
possible
a
continuing
or
compatible
contemporary
use
of
a
historic
place
or
an
individual
component,
through
repair,
alterations,
and/or
additions,
while
protecting
its
heritage
value.
Interventions
should
be
based
upon
the
Standards
outlined
in
the
Standards
and
Guidelines,
which
are
conservation
principles
of
best
practice.
The
following
General
Standards
should
be
followed
when
carrying
out
any
work
to
an
historic
property.
Standards
for
All
Conservation
Projects
1. Conserve
the
heritage
value
of
a
historic
place.
Do
not
remove,
replace,
or
substantially
alter
its
intact
or
repairable
character-‐defining
elements.
Do
not
move
a
part
of
a
historic
place
if
its
current
location
is
a
character-‐defining
element.
2. Conserve
changes
to
a
historic
place,
which
over
time,
have
become
character-‐defining
elements
in
their
own
right.
3. Conserve
heritage
value
by
adopting
an
approach
calling
for
minimal
intervention.
4. Recognize
each
historic
place
as
a
physical
record
of
its
time,
place
and
use.
Do
not
create
a
false
sense
of
historical
development
by
adding
elements
from
other
historic
places
or
other
properties
or
by
combining
features
of
the
same
property
that
never
coexisted.
5. Find
a
use
for
a
historic
place
that
requires
minimal
or
no
change
to
its
character-‐defining
elements.
6. Protect
and,
if
necessary,
stabilize
a
historic
place
until
any
subsequent
intervention
is
undertaken.
Protect
and
preserve
archaeological
resources
in
place.
Where
there
is
potential
for
disturbance
of
archaeological
resources,
take
mitigation
measures
to
limit
damage
and
loss
of
information.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
18
–
7. Evaluate
the
existing
condition
of
character-‐defining
element
to
determine
the
appropriate
intervention
needed.
Use
the
gentlest
means
possible
for
any
intervention.
Respect
heritage
value
when
undertaking
an
intervention.
8. Maintain
character-‐defining
elements
on
an
ongoing
basis.
Repair
character-‐defining
element
by
reinforcing
the
materials
using
recognized
conservation
methods.
Replace
in
kind
any
extensively
deteriorated
or
missing
parts
of
character-‐defining
elements,
where
there
are
surviving
prototypes.
9. Make
any
intervention
needed
to
preserve
character-‐defining
elements
physically
and
visually
compatible
with
the
historic
place
and
identifiable
upon
close
inspection.
Document
any
intervention
for
future
reference.
Additional
Standards
relating
to
Rehabilitation
10. Repair
rather
than
replace
character-‐defining
elements.
Where
character-‐defining
elements
are
too
severely
deteriorated
to
repair,
and
where
sufficient
physical
evidence
exists,
replace
them
with
new
elements
that
match
the
forms,
materials
and
detailing
of
sound
versions
of
the
same
elements.
Where
there
is
insufficient
physical
evidence,
make
the
form,
material
and
detailing
of
the
new
elements
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
historic
place.
11. Conserve
the
heritage
value
and
character-‐defining
elements
when
creating
any
new
additions
to
a
historic
place
and
any
related
new
construction.
Make
the
new
work
physically
and
visually
compatible
with,
subordinate
to
and
distinguishable
from
the
historic
place.
12. Create
any
new
additions
or
related
new
construction
so
that
the
essential
form
and
integrity
of
a
historic
place
will
not
be
impaired
if
the
new
work
is
removed
in
the
future.
Additional
Standards
relating
to
Restoration
13. Repair
rather
than
replace
character-‐defining
elements
from
the
restoration
period.
Where
character-‐defining
elements
are
too
severely
deteriorated
to
repair
and
where
sufficient
physical
evidence
exists,
replace
them
with
new
elements
that
match
the
forms,
materials
and
detailing
of
sound
versions
of
the
same
elements.
14. Replace
missing
features
from
the
restoration
period
with
new
features
whose
forms,
materials
and
detailing
are
based
on
sufficient
physical,
documentary
and/or
oral
evidence.
4.2
GENERAL
CONSERVATION
STRATEGY
Bissky
Architecture
and
Urban
Design
Inc.
has
prepared
the
overall
redevelopment
scheme
for
the
project.
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
will
be
relocated
of
the
to
the
southwest
corner
of
the
existing
site;
there
will
be
a
temporary
relocation
offsite
while
excavation
occurs
for
parking.
The
conservation
strategy
is
for
an
overall
rehabilitation
of
the
building,
with
the
restoration
of
the
original
form
of
the
house,
preservation
and
restoration
of
character -‐defining
elements,
and
rehabilitation
of
the
rear
elevation
and
the
interior.
The
proposed
residential
use
is
consistent
with
the
historic
residential
use
of
the
building.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
19
–
Current
configuration,
with
later
additions,
2011
[Bissky
Architecture
and
Urban
Design
Inc.]
The
Standards
and
Guidelines
list
recommendations
for
new
additions
to
historic
places.
The
proposed
design
scheme
follows
these
principles:
¥ Designing
a
new
addition
in
a
manner
that
draws
a
clear
distinction
between
what
is
historic
and
what
is
new.
¥ Design
for
the
new
work
may
be
contemporary
or
may
reference
design
motifs
from
the
historic
place.
In
either
case,
it
should
be
compatible
in
terms
of
mass,
materials,
relationship
of
solids
to
voids,
and
colour,
yet
be
distinguishable
from
the
historic
place
Any
new
additions
at
the
rear
will
be
physically
and
visually
compatible
with,
subordinate
to
and
distinguishable
from
the
historic
house
and
thus,
the
proposed
development
follows
the
best
practice
recommendations
of
the
Standards
and
Guidelines.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
20
–
Proposed
massing
at
rezoning,
2011
[Bissky
Architecture
and
Urban
Design
Inc.]
4.3
SUSTAINABILITY
STRATEGY
Sustainability
is
most
commonly
defined
as
“meeting
the
needs
of
the
present
without
compromising
the
ability
of
future
generations
to
meet
their
own
needs”
(Common
Future.
The
Bruntland
Commission).
The
four-‐pillar
model
of
sustainability
identifies
four
interlinked
dimensions:
environmental,
economic,
social
and
cultural
sustainability,
the
latter
including
the
built
heritage
environment.
Heritage
conservation
and
sustainable
development
can
go
hand
in
hand
with
the
mutual
effort
of
all
stakeholders.
In
a
practical
context,
the
conservation
and
re-‐use
of
historic
and
existing
structures
contribute
to
environmental
sustainability
by:
¥ Reducing
solid
waste
disposal
(reduced
impact
on
landfills
and
their
expansions);
¥ Saving
embodied
energy
(defined
as
the
total
expenditure
of
energy
involved
in
the
creation
of
the
building
and
its
constituent
materials);
¥ Conserving
historic
materials
that
are
significantly
less
consumptive
of
energy
than
many
new
replacement
materials
(often
local
and
regional
materials,
e.g.
timber,
brick,
concrete,
plaster,
can
be
preserved
and
reduce
the
carbon
footprint
of
manufacturing
and
transporting
new
materials).
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
21
–
Parks
Canada
has
incorporated
sustainability
considerations
in
their
Standards
and
Guidelines,
balancing
conservation
principles
and
sustainability
objectives:
Both
heritage
conservation
and
sustainability
aim
to
conserve.
In
the
case
of
heritage
buildings,
this
includes
considering
the
inherent
performance
and
durability
of
their
character-‐defining
assemblies,
systems
and
materials,
and
the
minimal
interventions
required
to
achieve
the
most
effective
sustainability
improvements.
The
following
considerations
for
energy
efficiency
in
historic
structures
are
recommended
in
the
Standards
and
Guidelines
and
can
be
utilized
at
the
subject
property:
General
¥ Working
with
sustainability
and
conservation
specialists
to
determine
the
most
appropriate
solution
to
sustainability
requirements
with
the
least
impact
on
the
character-‐defining
elements
and
overall
heritage
value
of
the
historic
building.
Envelope
¥ Adding
new
features
to
meet
sustainability
requirements
in
a
manner
that
respects
the
exterior
form
and
minimizes
impact
on
character-‐defining
elements.
¥ Exercising
caution
and
foreseeing
the
potential
effects
of
insulating
the
building
envelope
to
avoid
damaging
changes,
such
as
displacing
the
dew
point
and
creating
thermal
bridges,
or
increasing
the
snow
load.
¥ Ensuring
that
structural,
drainage
and
access
requirements
to
improve
the
roof’s
energy
efficiency
can
be
met
without
damaging
character-‐defining
elements.
Windows,
Doors
¥ Complying
with
energy
efficiency
objectives
in
upgrades
to
character-‐defining
doors,
windows
and
storefronts
by
installing
weather-‐stripping,
storm
windows,
interior
shades
and,
if
historically
appropriate,
blinds
and
awnings.
The
energy
efficiency
of
the
building
envelope
and
systems
as
a
whole
should
be
considered.
¥ Maintaining
the
building’s
inherent
energy-‐conserving
features
in
good
operating
condition,
such
as
operable
windows
or
louvred
blinds
for
natural
ventilation.
¥ Installing
interior
storm
windows
where
original
windows
are
character-‐defining
and
exterior
storms
are
inappropriate.
4.4
HERITAGE
EQUIVALENCIES
AND
EXEMPTIONS
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
is
listed
on
the
Maple
Ridge
Heritage
Inventory
and
as
a
result
of
the
continuing
protection
being
negotiated
as
part
of
the
project
(through
a
Heritage
Revitalization
Agreement),
the
house
will
be
eligible
for
heritage
variances
that
will
enable
a
higher
degree
of
heritage
conservation
and
retention
of
original
material,
including
considerations
available
under
the
following
provincial
legislation.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
22
–
4.4.1
B.C.
Building
Code
Building
Code
upgrading
is
the
most
important
aspect
of
heritage
building
rehabilitation,
as
it
ensures
life
safety
and
long-‐term
protection
for
the
resource.
It
is
essential
to
consider
heritage
buildings
on
a
case -‐by-‐case
basis,
as
the
blanket
application
of
Code
requirements
does
not
recognize
the
individual
requirements
and
inherent
strengths
of
each
building.
Over
the
past
few
years,
a
number
of
equivalencies
have
been
developed
and
adopted
in
the
British
Columbia
Building
Code
that
enable
more
sensitive
and
appropriate
heritage
building
upgrades.
For
example,
the
use
of
sprinklers
in
a
heritage
structure
helps
to
satisfy
fire
separation
and
exiting
requirements.
Given
that
Code
compliance
is
such
a
significant
factor
in
the
conservation
of
heritage
buildings,
the
most
important
consideration
is
to
provide
viable
economic
methods
of
achieving
building
upgrades.
In
addition
to
the
equivalencies
offered
under
the
current
Code,
the
District
can
also
accept
the
report
of
a
Building
Code
Engineer
as
to
acceptable
levels
of
code
performance.
4.4.2
Energy
Efficiency
Act
The
Energy
Efficiency
Act
(Energy
Efficiency
Standards
Regulation)
was
amended
in
2009
to
include
the
following
definition:
"designated
heritage
building"
means
a
building
that
is
(b)
protected
through
heritage
designation
or
included
in
a
community
heritage
register
by
a
local
government
under
the
Local
Government
Act,
Under
this
new
definition,
Energy
Efficiency
standards
do
not
apply
to
windows,
glazing
products,
door
slabs
or
products
installed
in
heritage
buildings.
This
means
that
exemptions
can
be
allowed
to
energy
upgrading
measures
that
would
destroy
heritage
character-‐defining
elements
such
as
original
windows
and
doors.
These
provisions
do
not
preclude
that
heritage
buildings
must
be
made
more
energy
efficient,
but
they
do
allow
a
more
sensitive
approach
of
alternate
compliance
to
individual
situations
and
a
higher
degree
of
retained
integrity.
Increased
energy
performance
can
be
provided
through
non-‐
intrusive
methods
such
as
attic
insulation,
improved
mechanical
systems,
and
storm
windows.
Please
refer
to
Standards
and
Guidelines
for
the
Conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada
for
further
detail
about
“Energy
Efficiency
Considerations.”
4.4.3
Homeowner
Protection
Act
Amendments
to
the
Homeowner
Protection
Act
Regulation
made
in
2010
allow
for
exemptions
for
heritage
sites
from
the
need
to
fully
conform
to
the
BC
Building
Code
under
certain
conditions,
thus
removing
some
of
the
barriers
to
compliance
that
previously
conflicted
with
heritage
conservation
standards
and
guidelines.
The
changes
comprised
(1)
an
amendment
to
the
Homeowner
Protection
Act
Regulation,
BC
Reg.
29/99
that
allows
a
warranty
provider,
in
the
case
of
a
commercial
to
residential
conversion,
to
exclude
components
of
the
building
that
have
heritage
value
from
the
requirement
for
a
warranty,
and
(2)
clarification
of
the
definition
of
‘substantial
reconstruction.’
The
latter
clarification
explains
that
75%
or
a
home
must
be
reconstructed
for
it
to
be
considered
a
‘new
home’
under
the
Homeowner
Protection
Act,
thus
enabling
single-‐family
dwelling
to
multi-‐family
and
strata
conversions
without
the
Act
now
coming
into
play.
The
definition
of
a
heritage
building
is
consistent
with
that
under
the
Energy
Efficiency
Act.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
23
–
5.
CONSERVATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
The
following
Section
describes
the
materials,
physical
condition
and
recommended
conservation
strategy
for
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence.
5.1
SITE
AND
FORM
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
is
located
at
the
corner
of
St.
Anne
Avenue
and
223rd
Street.
Built
in
1938
on
a
large
rectangular
lot,
the
house
is
well
set
back
from
the
street
frontage.
A
number
of
alterations
have
occurred
at
the
rear
of
the
house,
connecting
it
to
what
was
originally
a
separate
structure
to
the
rear.
The
second
floor
dormer
to
the
north,
which
may
have
been
added
when
Joseph
Turnock
renovated
the
upper
floor,
has
been
extended
and
a
deck
added
to
the
rear,
and
the
ground
floor
rear
porch
has
been
enclosed.
The
development
of
the
site
proposes
the
relocation
of
the
historic
structure
to
the
southwest
corner
of
the
existing
property
and
the
construction
of
an
L-‐shaped
multi-‐family
building
to
the
rear
and
east
side.
The
rear
of
the
house
will
be
restored
to
its
original
configuration,
including
the
rear
dormer.
The
design
of
the
new
building
is
sympathetic
to
the
historic
structure
and
respects
the
original
design
intent,
the
shape,
massing
and
materials
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence.
Aerial
view
of
Port
Haney
in
1948
showing
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence,
centre
[Detail,
Maple
Ridge
Museum
&
Archives
P7068].
The
1948
image
above
shows
the
early
appearance
of
the
rear
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence.
The
rear
shed-‐roofed
dormer
is
clearly
visible,
where
it
connects
to
the
roof
ridge.
The
“Rec
Room”
structure
at
the
rear
is
connected
to
the
main
building
by
a
gable-‐roofed
structure.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
24
–
1971
survey
showing
the
original
building
footprint
and
“Rec
Room”
at
rear.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
25
–
Conservation
Recommendation:
Rehabilitation
The
relocation
of
a
historic
building
on
an
existing
lot
is
an
acceptable
approach
to
rehabilitation
within
the
context
of
new
development.
The
relocation
of
the
residence
to
the
southwest
will
retain
the
streetscape
appearance.
The
following
Relocation
Guidelines
should
be
implemented
for
the
relocation
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence:
Conservation
Recommendation:
Relocation
Guidelines
¥ A
relocation
plan
should
be
prepared
prior
to
relocation
that
ensures
that
the
least
destructive
method
of
relocation
will
be
used.
¥ Alterations
to
the
historic
structure
proposed
to
further
the
relocation
process
should
be
evaluated
in
accordance
with
the
Conservation
Plan
and
reviewed
by
the
Heritage
Consultant.
This
may
involve
the
salvage
and
reuse
of
historic
material.
¥ Only
an
experienced
and
qualified
contractor
shall
undertake
the
physical
relocation
of
the
historic
structure.
¥ Preserve
historic
fabric
of
the
exterior
elevations
including
the
wood-‐frame
structure,
wood
sash
windows
and
cedar
shingles
as
much
as
possible.
¥ While
the
structure
is
temporarily
stored
prior
to
final
relocation,
ensure
that
it
is
tightly
secured
from
ingress
and
vandalism,
including
a
secure
perimeter
fence.
Post
an
appropriate
sign
stating
heritage
status.
Consider
security
alarms
and
systems.
¥ The
final
relative
location
to
grade
should
match
the
original
as
closely
as
possible,
taking
into
account
applicable
codes.
¥ Provide
utility
installations
for
electricity,
communication
and
other
service
connections
underground
if
possible.
All
installations
located
above
ground
should
be
incorporated
harmoniously
into
the
design
concept
for
the
relocated
structure.
5.2
FOUNDATION
The
foundation
walls
and
slab
are
poured-‐in-‐place
concrete.
These
will
be
demolished
when
the
house
is
relocated.
Appropriate
concrete
foundation
materials
will
be
used
at
the
new
site.
Conservation
Recommendation:
Rehabilitation
¥ A
new
foundation,
on
top
of
an
underground
garage,
will
be
constructed.
¥ The
house
should
retain
its
general
appearance
relative
to
grade.
5.3
ROOF
The
original
roof
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
consisted
of
a
side-‐gabled
roof
with
an
east
wing
extension,
with
a
small
front
shed-‐roofed
dormer
and
a
rear
shed-‐roofed
dormer
hung
off
the
ridge.
Later
alterations
to
the
roof
structure
included
the
construction
of
additional
living
space
in
the
attic
on
the
north
side.
The
original
roof
was
black
/
grey
asphalt
shingles,
likely
in
a
three-‐tab
configuration.
The
roof
is
presently
covered
with
grey
asphalt
shingles
with
a
raised
profile.
Condition
¥ The
roof
appears
to
be
in
good
condition.
¥ The
existing
gutters
and
downspouts
appear
to
be
in
functional
condition.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
26
–
Conservation
Recommendation:
Preservation
&
Rehabilitation
The
roof
structure
and
roofing
material
is
in
good
condition
and
the
historic
features
of
the
roof
design
should
be
preserved.
Proposed
alterations
to
the
roof
structure
include
a
redesign
of
the
north
elevation
for
functional
reasons,
to
accommodate
a
new
unit
on
the
second
floor.
These
interventions
would
not
be
visible
from
the
front
façade,
but
would
be
highly
visible
from
the
new
building
and
should
be
carefully
considered.
¥ Later
additions
on
the
north
elevation
can
be
removed
and
the
original
roof
shape
reinstated
as
per
archival
photographs.
¥ The
roof
structure
will
require
reinforcement
to
meet
current
building
codes.
¥ If
the
roofing
material
is
replaced,
it
should
be
a
low-‐profile,
three
tab
black/grey
shingle.
¥ Replace
existing
rainwater
disposal
system
with
new.
5.4
CHIMNEY
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
retains
its
original
internal
brick
chimney
that
is
a
feature
of
the
Cape
Cod
style.
The
chimney
should
either
be
braced
and
relocated
with
the
house,
or
documented
and
reconstructed
at
the
new
location.
Condition
The
chimney
appears
to
be
in
reasonable
condition,
but
the
mortar
should
be
examined
and
tested.
Conservation
Recommendation:
Preservation
&
Rehabilitation
¥ Retain
the
existing
chimney
during
relocation.
¥ If
retention
is
not
possible,
document
the
existing
appearance
and
deconstruct.
Salvage
existing
bricks
and
reconstruct
the
chimney
once
the
house
is
relocated.
5.5
EXTERIOR
WALLS
The
one
and
one-‐half
storey
structure
has
an
east-‐west
orientation,
built
in
traditional
wood-‐frame
construction
with
shingle
cladding
on
the
ground
floor,
gable
end
walls
and
dormers.
The
front
porch
was
originally
open
but
has
now
been
enclosed.
Later
alterations
have
included
the
enclosure
of
the
rear
porch
and
additions
on
the
north
side.
Condition
The
condition
of
the
exterior
cladding
appears
to
be
generally
good,
with
limited
localized
areas
of
deterioration.
Conservation
Recommendation:
Preservation
&
Rehabilitation
¥ Preserve
the
original
wood-‐frame
structure
of
the
historic
building
with
minimal
disturbance
of
the
walls
to
be
retained.
¥ Design
structural
or
seismic
upgrades
so
as
to
minimize
the
impact
to
the
character-‐defining
elements.
¥ Additional
insulation
should
be
installed
on
the
inside
face
of
the
exterior
walls
if
required.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
27
–
5.6
FENESTRATION
5.6.1
Windows
The
windows
are
a
unique
feature
of
this
house.
They
are
highly
inventive
and
unusual,
with
most
window
sash
fixed
in
place
and
openable
vents
beside,
disguised
to
give
the
appearance
of
traditional
shutters.
Typical
of
the
Colonial
Revival
style,
the
windows
are
multi-‐paned.
TURNOCK
/
MORSE
RESIDENCE
WINDOW
SCHEDULE
Mark
Qty.
Width
Height
Operation
Trim
Accessories
Treatment
Comments
W-‐01
1
3’
9”
2’
7”
4/8
double-‐
hung
True
Remove
Entry
Porch
1
Unknown
Unknown
Fixed
(assumed)
True
Restore
multi-‐paned
sash
To
east
side
of
Entry
(confirm
if
any
other
existing
windows
were
originally
located
here)
W-‐02
1
3’
6”
3’
8”
Two
8-‐
paned
fixed
units
True
Flanking
louvred
vent
to
west;
original
interior
door.
Louvred
vent
to
east
now
covered
over.
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Living
Room,
Main
Floor
south
W-‐03
1
3’
6”
3’
8”
Two
8-‐
paned
fixed
units
True
Flanking
louvred
vent
to
east;
original
interior
door.
Louvred
vent
to
west
now
covered
over.
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Living
Room,
Main
Floor
south
W-‐04
1
3’
6”
3’
8”
Two
8-‐
paned
fixed
units
True
Flanking
louvred
vent
to
north;
original
interior
door.
Louvred
vent
to
south
now
covered
over.
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Living
Room,
Main
Floor
west
W-‐05
1
2’
6”
3’
8”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Flanking
louvred
vent
to
north;
original
interior
door.
Louvred
vent
to
south
now
covered
over.
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Dining
Room,
Main
Floor
west
W-‐06
1
3’
0”
1’
8”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Remove
Later
Mud
Room,
Main
Floor
west
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
28
–
W-‐07
1
3’
0”
1’
8”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Remove
Later
Mud
Room,
Main
Floor
west
W-‐08
1
2’
8”
2’
8”
Fixed
Glass
True
Remove
Addition,
Main
Floor
north
W-‐09
1
1’
4”
3’
0”
6/6
double-‐
hung
True
Remove
Addition,
Main
Floor
west
W-‐10
1
4’
0”
3’
0”
Triple-‐
assembly
8-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Remove
Addition,
Main
Floor
west
W-‐11
1
3’
0”
1’
8”
Fixed
Glass
True
Remove
Addition,
Main
Floor
east
W-‐12
1
1’
4”
3’
0”
Single
hung
True
Remove
Addition,
Main
Floor
east
W-‐13
1
2’
10”
3
10”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Flanking
louvred
vents;
original
interior
doors
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Bedroom,
Main
Floor
north
W-‐14
1
2’
10”
3
10”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Flanking
louvred
vents
blocked
in;
no
original
interior
doors
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Bedroom,
Main
Floor
east
W-‐15
1
1’
8”
3’
10”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Flanking
louvred
vents;
no
original
interior
doors.
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Office,
Main
Floor
east
W-‐16
1
3’
6”
3’
8”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Flanking
louvred
vent
to
east;
original
interior
door.
Louvred
vent
to
west
now
covered
over.
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Office,
Main
Floor
south
W-‐17
1
1’
8”
3’
10”
4/4
double-‐
hung
True
Obscure
glazing
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Bath,
Main
Floor
east
W-‐18
1
3’
9”
2’
7”
4/8
double-‐
hung
True
Remove
Entry
Porch
W-‐19
1
2’
5”
3’
9”
6/6
double-‐
hung
True
Double-‐
assembly
with
W-‐20
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Living
Room,
Second
Floor
south
W-‐20
1
2’
5”
3’
9”
6/6
double-‐
hung
True
Double-‐
assembly
with
W-‐19
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Living
Room,
Second
Floor
south
W-‐21
1
2’
5”
3’
9”
6/6
double-‐
hung
True
Double-‐
assembly
with
W-‐22
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Living
Room,
Second
Floor
south
W-‐22
1
2’
5”
3’
9”
6/6
double-‐
hung
True
Double-‐
assembly
with
W-‐21
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Living
Room,
Second
Floor
south
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
29
–
W-‐23
1
2’
10”
3’
10”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Flanking
louvred
vents;
interior
doors
replaced
Retain
in
situ
and
restore
Bedroom
#1,
Second
Floor
west
Three-‐part
window
assembly
in
north
dormer
True
Restore
Kitchen
area,
north
dormer
(confirm
if
any
other
existing
windows
were
originally
located
here)
W-‐24
1
2’
8”
2’
8”
One
4-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Remove
Dining
Room,
Second
Floor
west
W-‐25
1
2’
8”
2’
8”
Fixed
Glass
True
Remove
Dining
Room,
Second
Floor
west
W-‐26
1
2’
0”
1’
4”
Single-‐hung
True
Remove
Addition,
Second
Floor
west
W-‐27
1
2’
0”
1’
4”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit
True
Remove
Addition,
Second
Floor
east
W-‐28
1
3’
0”
4’
0”
Double-‐
assembly
4/4
double
hung
wooden
sash
True
Appears
to
have
been
relocated
from
rear
dormer.
Re-‐
use
if
possible
Dining
Room,
Second
Floor
east
W-‐29
1
2’
10”
3’
10”
One
12-‐
paned
fixed
unit;
was
hinged
at
the
top
and
opened
outwards.
True
Flanking
louvred
vents;
interior
doors
replaced;
south
louver
located
in
Bath
Retain
in
situ
Bedroom
#2,
Second
Floor
east
Condition
The
original
windows
appear
to
be
in
good
to
good
condition.
A
general
lack
of
maintenance
has
allowed
degradation
in
some
localized
areas.
¥ The
paint
is
deteriorating
and
peeling
in
some
areas,
exposing
bare
wood.
¥ Paint
preparation
has
been
poor
and
paint
has
been
applied
over
areas
where
paint
was
failing.
¥ Environmental
dirt
has
accumulated
on
horizontal
surfaces
such
as
the
wooden
sills.
¥ Moisture
retention
is
evident
on
the
sills,
resulting
in
biological
growth.
¥ Putty
is
missing
in
some
areas.
¥ The
metal
screens
are
deteriorated
or
missing.
¥ Some
of
the
window
vents
have
been
covered
over
on
the
inside.
¥ A
number
of
interior
vent
doors
are
missing.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
30
–
Above:
typical
exterior
appearance
of
fixed-‐pane
windows
with
louvered
vents
beside,
west
side,
2011.
Below:
deterioration
on
east
side
sills,
2011
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
31
–
Typical
appearance
of
window
interior,
in
Living
Room;
vent
to
left
side
covered
over,
2011.
Conservation
Recommendation:
Preservation
&
Rehabilitation
The
original
windows
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
have
significant
heritage
value
and
should
be
preserved
and
restored.
¥ A
contractor
trained
in
the
repair
of
historic
sash
windows
and
with
experience
in
working
on
heritage
buildings
should
be
retained
to
carry
out
the
work.
¥ Determine
matching
profiles
and
suitability
of
removed
windows
for
salvage
and
reuse.
¥ The
windows
should
be
protected
during
construction
work
or
the
sash
removed
from
the
site
to
a
safe
storage
place
or
workshop.
Existing
glazing
should
be
retained
and
cleaned,
and
re-‐puttied
with
glazier’s
putty
as
necessary.
Weather-‐strip
as
required
to
improve
thermal
performance.
Hung
windows
should
be
properly
re-‐hung,
including
upper
sash
as
required.
¥ A
close-‐up
condition
assessment
should
determine
if
rotten
wood
is
extant.
Remove
deteriorated
and
rotten
wood
elements
and
replace
to
match
existing
in
profile.
Prepare
wood
surfaces
for
repainting.
¥ The
metal
screening
in
the
louvred
vents
has
deteriorated
and
needs
to
be
replaced.
¥ Some
of
the
interior
vent
doors
have
been
replaced
and
replica
new
doors
should
be
installed.
¥ Any
new
windows
should
match
the
profile,
materials
and
configuration
of
the
existing
windows.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
32
–
5.6.2
Exterior
Doors
The
exterior
doors
have
been
replaced.
Some
evidence
remains
that
indicates
the
appearance
of
the
original
front
door,
a
solid
single-‐panelled,
unglazed
door
with
a
stained
and
varnished
finish,
with
a
small
openable
grill
at
eye
level.
There
was
also
a
screen
door.
There
was
a
small
multi-‐paned
window,
with
a
mail
slot
below,
to
the
east
side
of
the
front
door.
The
family
remembers
the
doors
as
unpainted
(stained
and
varnished
finish)
except
for
the
back
door
off
the
kitchen,
facing
west,
that
opened
onto
a
patio
–
that
door
had
a
glazed
top
section
and
was
painted
white.
Conservation
Recommendation:
Restoration
/
Rehabilitation
¥ Restore
the
main
entry
door
at
its
original
location.
¥ Install
new
sympathetic
doors
for
functional
purposes,
as
required.
5.7
FRONT
ENTRY
The
front
façade,
with
the
original
appearance
of
the
front
entry
trellis
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
The
original
front
entry
has
been
altered
with
the
construction
of
a
covered
porch
that
has
replaced
the
original
trellis
over
the
front
entry.
Conservation
Recommendation:
Restoration
¥ Restore
the
main
entry
trellis
at
its
original
location.
¥ Restore
the
original
front
door
and
side
window
as
per
the
original
appearance.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
33
–
Detail
of
the
front
entry
trellis
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
5.8
EXTERIOR
TRELLISES
Trellis
added
to
the
west
side
of
the
house
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
34
–
After
the
house
was
completed,
other
trellises
were
added
to
the
exterior,
the
most
prominent
being
the
one
to
the
west
side
of
the
house.
Conservation
Recommendation:
Restoration
/
Rehabilitation
¥ As
enabled
by
the
site
and
landscape
plan,
restore
or
reinterpret
the
trellis
structures
as
required
for
functional
purposes.
5.9
EXTERIOR
COLOUR
SCHEDULE
The
original
colour
scheme
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
was
determined
based
on
a
microscopic
colour
analysis
of
paint
samples
removed
from
the
architectural
elements
of
the
house.
This
examination
revealed
three
different
colour
schemes
for
the
house.
The
original
was
white
with
green
trim.
The
second
scheme
(during
the
1950s)
was
a
pale
green.
The
existing
blue
body
colour
with
white
trim
has
been
on
the
house
likely
since
the
alterations
in
the
1970s.
The
final
colour
treatment
should
relate
both
to
the
authenticity
of
visual
appearance
as
well
as
appropriate
historical
interpretation.
The
house
was
originally
painted
in
colours
that
closely
reflected
its
Colonial
Revival
antecedents.
White
paint
was
not
commonly
available
during
the
Colonial
era,
as
it
required
the
extensive
use
of
expensive
white
lead
as
a
main
ingredient.
White
was
generally
not
used
in
urban
environments;
white
was
generally
seen
in
agricultural
and
industrial
situations,
and
was
generally
a
“whitewash”
(water-‐based
paint).
Houses
were
generally
painted
in
a
range
of
pastel
colours
such
as
pale
blue
or
green,
or
in
ochre
or
oxblood
colours.
By
the
1820s,
there
was
growing
American
sympathy
for
the
Greek
War
for
Independence,
and
a
renewed
interest
in
Classicism
led
to
an
interest
in
antiquities
and
the
white
marble
appearance
of
the
ancient
Greek
temples.
It
became
fashionable
in
New
England
in
the
1840s
to
paint
or
repaint
houses
white,
generally
with
a
black-‐green
colour
used
for
trim
and
for
shutters.
This
indicated
good
taste
as
well
as
affluence
–
given
the
high
cost
of
lead,
an
all-‐white
house
was
a
sign
of
prosperity.
As
styles
changed
in
the
growing
Eastern
cities
in
the
1860s-‐70s
and
Victorian-‐era
styles
became
popular,
the
use
of
white
went
out
of
fashion,
as
it
was
not
suited
for
use
in
increasingly
dirty
urban
environments
where
coal
and
wood
fires,
and
unpaved
streets,
were
the
norm.
During
the
time
of
the
Period
Revival
styles
of
the
post-‐World
War
One
era,
the
newfound
appreciation
for
Colonial
Revival
buldings
led
to
a
reintroduction
of
white
as
a
common
house
colour.
At
the
time,
paints
were
still
formulated
with
lead.
This
lead
paint
was
generally
mixed
in
bulk
onsite
with
a
combination
of
lead,
linseed
oil,
binders
and
organic
pigments,
and
was
the
equivalent
of
a
gloss
alkyd
enamel.
Given
the
changes
over
time
in
paint
technology,
what
is
currently
considered
“white”
today
does
not
exactly
match
the
historic
appearance
of
“white”.
White
lead
paint
had
a
“warm
white”
appearance.
Modern
white
paint
is
generally
latex
acrylic
paint
with
chemical
pigments
and
“blockers”,
which
give
it
a
slight
bluish-‐white
tint.
It
therefore
has
a
“cool”
tone
as
opposed
to
the
“warm”
tone
of
historic
lead
paint.
This
is
a
very
subtle
difference,
but
the
use
of
modern
white
paint
alters
the
historic
appearance
and
results
in
a
glaring
look.
The
following
colors
were
determined
through
onsite
sampling
and
microscopic
analysis.
Samples
of
the
original
exterior
colors
were
obtained
from
various
protected
locations.
The
samples
were
roughly
matched
onsite,
than
examined
under
a
microscope
under
controlled
conditions.
Adjustments
were
made
for
1)
weathering
and
2)
drying-‐out
of
the
emulsion
over
time.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
35
–
It
is
recommended
that
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
be
painted
in
its
original
colour
scheme,
which
reflects
its
historic
roots
and
its
original
appearance.
Iris
Morse
in
front
of
the
house
with
her
son,
Richard,
in
1944
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
SIDING
SHUTTERS
FRONT
STEPS
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
“Vancouver
Green”
VC-‐18
“Pendrell
Red”
VC-‐29
These
screen
colours
are
approximate
only;
refer
to
paint
chips
for
more
accurate
representation.
All
colours
have
been
matched
to
Benjamin
Moore
Paints
of
the
Benjamin
Moore
Historical
Vancouver
True
Colours.
Please
note
that
samples
of
any
colors
matched
to
different
paint
company
products
should
be
verified
with
the
heritage
consultant
before
application.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
36
–
ORIGINAL
LOCATION
ORIGINAL
COLOUR
PROPOSED
COLOUR
Shingle
Siding
Warm
White:
match
to
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
Door
and
Window
Trim
Warm
White:
match
to
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
Window
Sash
Warm
White:
match
to
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
Shutter
Vents
Match
to
Benjamin
Moore
True
Colours
“Vancouver
Green”
VC-‐20
Match
to
Benjamin
Moore
True
Colours
“Vancouver
Green”
VC-‐20
Doors
Front
door
stained
and
varnished
finish
Front
door
stained
and
varnished
finish
Exterior
Trellises
Warm
White:
match
to
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21
Front
Stairs
Match
to
Benjamin
Moore
True
Colours
“Pendrell
Red”
VC-‐29
Benjamin
Moore
True
Colours
“Pendrell
Red”
VC-‐29
Asphalt
Roof
Shingles
Black/grey
low-‐profile
three-‐tab
Black/grey
low-‐profile
three-‐tab
PROPOSED
COLOUR
AND
FINISH
SCHEDULE
Shingle
Siding
¥ Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21,
acrylic
latex
soft
gloss
finish
Door
and
Window
Trim
¥ Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21,
acrylic
latex
semi-‐gloss
finish
Window
Sash
¥ Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21;
acrylic
latex
high-‐gloss
finish
Shutter
Vents
¥ Benjamin
Moore
True
Colours
“Vancouver
Green”
VC-‐20,
acrylic
latex
semi-‐gloss
finish
Doors
¥ Front
Door:
Mid-‐range
stain
with
clear
gloss
polyurethane
finish
¥ Rear
Doors:
Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21;
acrylic
latex
high-‐gloss
finish
Exterior
Trellises
¥ Benjamin
Moore
“Winter
White”
OC-‐21,
exterior
solid
stain
Front
Stairs
¥ Benjamin
Moore
True
Colours
“Pendrell
Red”
VC-‐29;
finish
to
be
determined
Asphalt
Roof
Shingles
¥ Black/grey
low-‐profile
three-‐tab
asphalt
shingles
Gutters
and
Downspouts
¥ White
or
off-‐white
factory
finish,
match
to
siding
Conservation
Recommendation:
Restoration
¥ Restore
the
original
finish,
hue
and
placement
of
applied
colour.
¥ Prepare
all
surfaces
for
repainting.
Any
damaged
surfaces
should
be
repaired
and
made
good
before
painting
occurs.
All
loose,
flaking
paint
should
be
hand
scraped,
and
bare
patches
sanded,
and
spot-‐primed
as
required.
Retain
any
paint
that
is
firmly
adhered
to
the
surface.
Ensure
that
all
surfaces
to
be
painted
are
dry.
¥ Power-‐washing
of
the
exterior
surfaces
is
not
recommended.
This
can
drive
water
into
the
surfaces,
which
can
be
trapped
by
paint
if
the
building
is
not
allowed
to
dry
thoroughly.
Washing,
if
required,
should
be
undertaken
with
hose-‐pressure
water
and
foaming
brushes.
Simple
soap
or
detergent
can
be
used
but
should
be
thoroughly
rinsed
off.
If
the
building
is
washed
there
should
be
three
days
of
non-‐rainy
weather
allowed
after
the
washing
to
allow
adequate
drying
before
painting
commences.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
37
–
¥ Scrape
and
sand
painted
surfaces
only
as
deep
as
necessary
to
reach
a
sound
base.
Do
not
strip
all
previous
paint
except
to
repair
base-‐material
decay.
¥ Paint
all
areas
of
exposed
wood
elements
with
primer.
Select
an
appropriate
primer
for
materials
being
painted
(e.g.
if
latex
paint
is
used
over
original
oil
paint,
select
an
oil-‐based
primer).
¥ Confirm
choice
of
exterior
colours
by
testing
small
samples
to
determine
final
appearance.
¥ Placement
of
the
paint
is
crucial
to
restoring
the
heritage
appearance
of
the
building.
The
paint
should
be
applied
as
"Architectural
Wrap"
or
"trim
wrap,"
so
that
the
paint
is
applied
around
the
edges
of
trim
to
give
each
trim
piece
its
true
visual
dimension.
5.10
INTERIOR
FEATURES
Many
of
the
original
interior
finishes
have
been
altered
or
covered
over.
Some,
such
as
the
original
wooden
living
room
floor,
may
still
be
extant
and
should
be
further
investigated.
The
following
features
are
known
to
exist
and
should
be
retained
if
possible:
¥ Staircase
Balustrade:
the
wrought
iron
balustrade
is
original.
¥ Living
room
fireplace:
the
original
fireplace
and
mantle
are
extant.
It
is
unknown
if
the
bookshelves
beside
have
survived.
¥ Kitchen
chimney:
the
bricked
chimney
in
the
kitchen
was
always
exposed.
¥ Interior
vent
shutter
doors:
the
original
cased
vent
doors
are
extant
is
several
locations.
Their
casework
should
be
replicated
for
the
missing
shutter
doors.
¥ Interior
doors:
several
interior
single-‐panel
wooden
doors
with
original
hardware
are
extant
and
can
be
retained
and
reused.
Any
new
doors
should
be
sympathetic
and
compatible.
Existing
hardware
should
be
retained
if
it
can
be
rehabilitated.
The
family
also
remembers
some
of
the
doors
in
the
Living
and
Dining
Rooms
had
glass
doorknobs.
Living
room
fireplace,
2011.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
38
–
Party
in
the
Dining
Room
in
1961;
Joseph
and
Hilda
Turnock
at
centre
right
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
Condition
The
condition
of
interior
features
varies
and
will
need
to
be
individually
assessed.
Conservation
Recommendation:
Preservation
&
Rehabilitation
¥ Once
available
for
inspection,
assess
interior
features
for
condition
and
suitability
of
retention
and/or
salvage
and
reuse.
¥ Retain
interior
features
as
possible
while
allowing
for
compatible
contemporary
layout.
5.11
LANDSCAPE
The
original
character
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
was
highly
dependent
of
its
landscaped
garden
setting.
This
was
augmented
through
the
use
of
trellises
that
were
appropriate
to
the
style
of
the
house.
Lush
plantings
of
vines,
shrubs
and
trees
at
the
front
and
a
rear
garden
provided
an
appropriate
setting
for
the
house.
The
nature
of
the
site
will
be
altered
through
the
construction
of
the
new
development.
Once
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
is
relocated,
there
are
a
number
of
landscape
elements
that
can
be
reinstated
that
will
harmonize
its
appearance
with
the
new
setting
and
also
recall
its
original
landscaping.
This
can
include
the
recreation
of
the
trellises
adjacent
to
the
house,
which
could
also
inspire
landscape
elements
throughout
the
new
development.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
39
–
The
plantings
could
be
based
on
those
originally
used
at
the
site,
and
could
include:
Vines
¥ Purple
wisteria
(west
side
trellis)
¥ Yellow
wisteria
¥ Honeysuckle
¥ Grape
vines
Trees
¥ Cedar
¥ Willow
¥ Horse
Chestnut
Shrubs
and
Hedges
¥ Laurel
¥ Bamboo
¥ Lilacs
¥ Black
Currant
Flower
Beds
¥ Roses
¥ Peonies
¥ Rhododendrons
Conservation
Recommendation:
Rehabilitation
¥ The
landscape
design
for
the
setting
of
the
house
can
recall
the
original
lush
planted
garden
setting
appropriate
to
the
architectural
style.
¥ The
landscape
elements
of
the
new
development
can
be
inspired
by
the
traditional
garden
elements
of
the
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence.
Front
yard
of
the
house
[courtesy
Alannah
Ashlie]
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
40
–
6.0
MAINTENANCE
PLAN
6.1
MAINTENANCE
GUIDELINES
A
maintenance
schedule
should
be
formulated
that
adheres
to
the
Standards
and
Guidelines
for
the
Conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada
(2010).
Routine
maintenance
keeps
water
out
of
the
building,
which
is
the
single
most
damaging
element
to
a
heritage
building.
Maintenance
also
prevents
damage
by
sun,
wind,
snow,
frost
and
all
weather;
prevents
damage
by
insects
and
vermin;
and
aids
in
protecting
all
parts
of
the
building
against
deterioration.
The
effort
and
expense
expended
on
an
aggressive
maintenance
will
not
only
lead
to
a
higher
degree
of
preservation,
but
also
potentially
save
large
amounts
of
money
otherwise
required
for
later
repairs.
6.1.1
Legal
Protection
and
Permitting
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
will
be
legally
protected
under
Maple
Ridge
Heritage
Designation
and
Revitalization
and
Tax
Exemption
Agreement
Bylaw
6856-‐2011,
which
states:
“Following
completion
of
the
Work,
the
Owners
shall,
in
perpetuity,
maintain
the
Existing
Heritage
Building
and
the
Lands
in
good
repair
in
accordance
with
the
maintenance
standards
set
out
in
Maple
Ridge
Heritage
Site
Maintenance
Standards
Bylaw
No.
6710-‐2009.”
The
authority
for
exterior
repairs
and
maintenance
will
reside
with
the
Strata
Corporation.
The
following
actions
may
be
undertaken
in
relation
to
the
Existing
Heritage
Building
without
first
obtaining
a
heritage
alteration
permit
from
the
District:
(a) non-‐structural
renovations
or
alterations
to
the
interior
of
the
building
or
structure
that
do
not
affect
any
protected
interior
feature
or
fixture
and
do
not
alter
the
exterior
appearance
of
the
building
or
structure;
and
(b) non-‐structural
normal
repairs
and
maintenance
that
do
not
alter
the
exterior
appearance
of
a
building
or
structure.
Other
more
intensive
activities
will
require
the
issuance
of
a
Heritage
Alteration
Permit.
6.1.2
Cleaning
Following
the
Standards
and
Guidelines
for
the
Conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada,
be
mindful
of
the
principle
that
recommends
'using
the
gentlest
means
possible'.
Any
cleaning
procedures
should
be
undertaken
on
a
routine
basis,
and
should
be
undertaken
with
non-‐destructive
methods.
Exterior
materials
should
be
regularly
cleaned,
using
a
soft,
natural
bristle
brush,
without
water,
to
remove
dirt
and
other
material.
If
a
more
intense
cleaning
is
required,
this
can
be
accomplished
with
warm
water,
mild
detergent
(such
as
Simple
Green)
and
a
soft
bristle
brush.
High-‐pressure
washing
or
sandblasting,
are
not
permitted.
6.1.3
Repairs
and
Replacement
of
Deteriorated
Materials
Interventions
such
as
repairs
and
replacements
must
conform
to
the
Standards
and
Guidelines
for
the
Conservation
of
Historic
Places
in
Canada.
The
building's
character-‐defining
elements
–
characteristics
of
the
building
that
contribute
to
its
heritage
value
such
as
materials,
form,
configuration,
etc
–
are
referenced
in
the
Statement
of
Significance,
and
must
be
conserved.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
41
–
The
following
principals
should
be
used
to
guide
any
interventions:
¥ An
approach
of
minimal
intervention
must
be
adopted
-‐
where
intervention
is
carried
out
it
is
by
the
least
intrusive
and
most
gentle
means
possible.
¥ Repair
rather
than
replace
character-‐defining
elements.
¥ Repair
character-‐defining
elements
using
recognized
conservation
methods.
¥ Replace
extensively
deteriorated
or
missing
parts
of
character0defining
elements
'in
kind'.
¥ Make
interventions
physically
and
visually
compatible
with
the
historic
place.
6.1.4
Maintenance
of
Exteriors
-‐
Keeping
the
Water
Out
Water,
in
all
its
forms
and
sources
(rain,
snow,
frost,
rising
ground
water,
leaking
pipes,
back-‐splash,
etc.)
is
the
single
most
damaging
element
to
historic
buildings.
Water
supports
all
forms
of
biological
decay
such
as
rot,
fungus,
moss,
lichen,
termites,
powder
post
beetle,
other
insects,
etc.
Keeping
a
building
dry
is
the
single
best
method
of
combatting
biological
decay.
The
most
common
place
for
water
to
enter
a
building
is
through
the
roof
and/or
the
guttering
and
downspout
systems.
An
apparent
minor
roof
or
clogged
gutter
leak
that
is
ignored
can
introduce
enough
moisture
to
support
biological
decay
in
a
building
on
a
scale
necessitating
removal
of
walls
and
floors,
and
replacement
of
structural
systems
and
services.
Keeping
roofs
repaired
or
renewed
and
gutters
frequently
cleaned
is
a
more
cost-‐effective
option.
Evidence
of
a
small
interior
leak
should
be
viewed
as
a
warning
for
a
much
larger
and
worrisome
water
damage
problem
elsewhere
and
should
be
fixed
immediately.
6.2
INSPECTION
CHECKLIST
The
following
checklist
considers
a
wide
range
of
potential
problems
specific
to
the
house
such
as
water/moisture
penetration;
material
deterioration;
structural
deterioration;
site
and
environmental
issues.
This
checklist
should
be
filled
out
by
maintenance
personnel
on
an
annual
basis
and
stored
in
the
Information
File
for
the
house.
EXTERIOR
INSPECTION
SITE
INSPECTION:
¥ Is
the
lot
well
drained?
¥ Do
trees
need
pruning
-‐
are
there
dangerous
dead
limbs?
¥ Do
plants
hold
water
against
the
structure?
¥ Can
shrub
and
tree
roots
damage
the
structure?
¥ Are
vines
growing
against
historic
material
and
causing
damage?
FOUNDATION:
¥ Is
there
back-‐splashing
from
ground
to
structure?
¥ Does
water
drain
away
from
foundation?
Puddles?
¥ Is
the
moisture
problem
general
or
local?
¥ Are
there
shrinkage
cracks
in
the
foundation?
¥ Are
there
movement
cracks
in
the
foundation?
¥ Is
crack
monitoring
required?
¥ Is
uneven
foundation
settlement
evident?
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
42
–
STRUCTURE:
Wood
Elements:
¥ Are
there
moisture
problems
present?
(Rising
damp,
rain
penetration,
condensation
moisture
from
plants,
water
run-‐off
from
roof,
sills,
or
ledges?)
¥ Is
wood
in
direct
contact
with
the
ground?
¥ Is
there
insect
or
fungal
attack
present?
Where
and
probable
source?
¥ Are
there
any
other
forms
of
biological
attack?
(Moss,
birds,
etc.)
Where
and
probable
source?
¥ Is
the
wood
surface
damaged
from
UV
radiation?
(bleached
surface,
loose
surface
fibres)
¥ Is
the
wood
warped,
cupped,
twisted
or
split?
Are
there
loose
knots?
¥ Are
nails
pulling
loose
or
rusted?
¥ Is
there
any
staining
of
wood
elements?
Source?
Condition
of
Exterior
Paint
Materials:
¥ Paint
shows:
blistering,
sagging
or
wrinkling,
alligatoring,
peeling.
Cause?
¥ Paint
has
the
following
stains:
rust,
bleeding
knots,
mildew,
etc.
Cause?
¥ Paint
cleanliness,
especially
at
air
vents?
Windows:
¥ Is
there
glass
cracked
or
missing?
¥ Has
putty
gone
brittle
and
cracked?
Fallen
out?
¥ Is
there
condensation
or
water
damage
to
the
paint
and
wood?
¥ Are
the
openable
sashes
easy
to
operate?
¥ Is
the
frame
free
from
distortion?
¥ Is
the
end
grain
properly
sealed?
¥ Do
wood
sills
show
weathering
or
deterioration?
¥ Are
window
frames
caulked
at
the
siding?
Is
the
caulking
in
good
condition?
Doors:
¥ Do
the
doors
create
a
good
seal
when
closed?
¥ Are
the
hinges
sprung?
In
need
of
lubrication?
¥ Do
locks
and
latches
work
freely?
¥ Are
door
frames
wicking
up
water?
Where?
Why?
¥ Are
door
frames
caulked
at
the
siding?
Is
the
caulking
in
good
condition?
¥ What
is
the
condition
of
the
sill?
Gutters
and
Downspouts:
¥ Are
downspouts
leaking?
Clogged?
Are
there
holes
or
corrosion?
(Water
against
structure)
¥ Are
downspouts
complete
without
any
missing
sections?
Are
they
properly
connected?
¥ Are
eaves
clean?
Do
they
show
any
sagging?
¥ Is
the
water
being
effectively
carried
away
from
the
downspout
by
a
drainage
system?
Do
downspouts
drain
completely
away?
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
43
–
Roof:
¥ Is
the
leading
edge
of
the
roof
wet?
¥ Is
there
evidence
of
biological
attack?
(Fungus,
moss,
birds,
insects)
¥ Are
the
nails
sound?
Are
there
loose
or
missing
shingles?
¥ Are
flashings
well
sealed?
Are
metal
joints
and
seams
sound?
¥ Do
the
soffits
show
any
signs
of
water
damage?
Insect
or
bird
infestation?
Entrances
/
Stairs:
¥ Are
steps
safe?
Handrails
secure?
¥ Attachment
–
are
steps,
etc.
securely
connected
to
the
building?
INTERIOR
Interior
Space:
¥ Are
the
materials
sound,
or
uneven,
cracked,
out
of
plumb
or
alignment;
are
there
signs
of
settlement,
old,
or
recent
(bulging
walls,
long
cracks,
etc)?
¥ Finishes:
paints,
stains,
etc.
–
are
they
dirty,
peeling,
stained,
cracked?
¥ Are
there
any
signs
of
water
leakage
or
moisture
damage?
(Mould?
Water-‐stains?)
Concealed
Spaces:
¥ Is
light
visible
through
walls,
to
the
outsider
or
to
another
space?
¥ Are
the
ventilators
for
windowless
spaces
clear
and
functional?
¥ Do
pipes
or
exhausts
pass
through
concealed
spaces
without
leaks?
¥ Infestations
-‐
are
there
signs
of
birds,
bats,
insects,
rodents,
past
or
present?
6.3
MAINTENANCE
PLAN
Daily
¥ Observations
noted
during
cleaning
(cracks;
damp,
dripping
pipes;
malfunctioning
hardware;
etc.)
to
be
noted
in
log
book
or
building
file
¥ Usual
cleaning,
as
required
Weekly
¥ Clean
gutters
during
periods
of
heavy
leaf
fall
¥ Clean
air
filters
as
necessary
Monthly
¥ Check
all
rainwater
gutters,
downspouts
and
perimeter
drains
¥ Lubricate
any
mechanical
heating,
pumps,
etc,
as
required
¥ Major
issues
entered
into
the
log
book
Quarterly
¥ Check
roofs
inside
and
outside
including
gutters,
valleys,
downspouts,
perimeter
drains,
etc.
and
clean
as
required
¥ Check
doors
for
closing
and
locking.
Clean
light
fixtures
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
44
–
Semi-‐annually
¥ Semi-‐annual
inspection
and
report
with
special
focus
on
seasonal
issues
¥ Thorough
cleaning
of
gutters
and
downspouts
to
cope
with
winter
rains
and
summer
storms
¥ Check
smoke
detectors
¥ Check
condition
of
weather
sealants
(Fall)
¥ Service
mechanical
units
such
as
heating
(Fall)
¥ Clean
the
exterior
using
a
soft
bristle
broom/brush
Annually
(Spring)
¥ Inspect
foundation
for
cracks,
deterioration
or
loss
of
material.
¥ Inspect
windows
for
paint
and
glazing
compound
failure,
wood
decay
and
proper
operation.
¥ Complete
annual
inspection
and
report
for
Information
File
¥ Clean
out
of
all
perimeter
drains
and
rainwater
systems
¥ Overhaul
electric
system;
change
light
bulbs
and
tubes
¥ Check
all
sprinkler
systems
¥ Check
all
fire
extinguishers
and
ensure
proper
access
¥ Touch
up
worn
paint
on
the
building's
exterior
¥ Oil
all
locks,
hinges,
etc.
¥ Service
mechanical
units
such
as
air
conditioning/pumps
etc.
¥ Check
for
plant,
insect
or
animal
infestation
¥ Routine
cleaning,
as
required
Five
Year
Cycle
¥ A
full
inspection
report
by
a
heritage
professional
should
be
undertaken
every
five
years
comparing
records
from
previous
inspections
and
the
original
work,
particularly
monitoring
structural
movement
and
durability
of
utilities.
¥ Repaint
wooden
sash
windows
every
five
to
fifteen
years.
With
proper
maintenance,
wood
windows
have
the
potential
to
last
indefinitely.
Ten
Year
Cycle
¥ Check
condition
of
roof
every
ten
years
after
last
replacement.
Twenty
Year
Cycle
¥ Confirm
condition
of
roof
and
estimate
effective
lifespan.
Replace
when
required.
Storm
Inspections
(as
required)
¥ After
any
storm,
inspection
must
occur
for
any
damage.
Gutters
and
roofs
need
to
be
checked
and
cleaned.
Major
Maintenance
Work
(as
Required)
¥ Thorough
repainting,
re-‐roofing,
gutter,
downspout
and
drain
replacement;
replacement
of
deteriorated
building
materials
etc.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
45
–
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The
Turnock
/
Morse
Residence
Conservation
Plan
was
undertaken
by
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates
in
2011-‐12.
The
project
team
consisted
of
Donald
Luxton,
Principal;
with
research
by
Megan
Faulkner
and
R.J.
McCulloch.
We
would
also
like
to
thank
the
following
for
their
assistance:
¥ Bissky
Architecture
and
Urban
Design
Inc.:
Wayne
Bissky
MRAIC
Architect,
and
John
Meunier,
Architectural
Technologist.
¥ Lisa
Zosiak,
Planner,
District
of
Maple
Ridge.
¥ Allanah
Ashlie,
granddaughter
of
the
Turnocks,
and
other
members
of
the
Morse
family
for
their
generous
assistance
with
memories
of
the
house
and
family
photographs.
¥ Val
Patenaude,
Director,
and
Sandra
Borger,
Staff
Researcher,
Maple
Ridge
Museum
&
Archives,
for
additional
research
and
genealogical
information.
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
46
–
APPENDIX
A:
RESEARCH
SOURCES
NEWSPAPER
REFERENCES
¥ Weekly
Gazette
[Haney,
B.C.];
August
1,
1938,
page
1:
“Mr.
and
Mrs.
J.D.
Turnock
are
erecting
a
lovely
new
home
on
St.
Ann
[note:
this
was
the
original
spelling
of
the
street
name],
just
across
the
corner
from
J.
Nightingale.
They
expect
to
take
up
residence
there
some
time
in
September.
¥ Gazette
[Haney,
B.C.];
Friday,
March
20,
1942,
page
1:
“MORSE
–
TURNOCK.
A
quiet
wedding
took
place
on
Saturday
evening,
March
14,
at
the
home
of
the
officiating
clergyman,
Rev.
E.V.
Apps,
Vancouver,
when
Iris
Daken
[sic]
Turnock,
only
daughter
of
Mr.
and
Mrs.
J.D.
Turnock
of
Haney,
became
the
bride
of
Garnet
Robert
Morse,
elder
son
of
Dr.
and
Mrs.
G.
Morse
of
Haney.”
¥ Maple
Ridge-‐Pitt
Meadows
Gazette;
Thursday
November
6,
1958,
page
1:
“Dr.
D.G.
Morse:
He
Saw
Maple
Ridge
Grow.
Largest
Masonic
funeral
to
be
held
in
this
district
was
for
Dr.
David
Garner
[sic]
Morse,
M.D.,
pioneer
practitioner,
who
passed
away
in
the
Royal
Columbian
Hospital,
New
Westminster,
on
October
29th.
[Details
of
service
follow].”
¥ Maple
Ridge-‐Pitt
Meadows
Gazette;
August
19,
1965,
page
5:
“Local
Couple
Mark
Anniversary:
Mr.
and
Mrs.
J.D.
Turnock
of
23753
–
30th
Road,
Haney,
marked
the
occasion
of
their
50th
wedding
anniversary
by
inviting
a
small
number
of
close
friends
to
a
dinner
party
at
their
home.
The
couple,
married
in
Folkestone,
England
in
1915
came
to
Canada
in
1923
and
have
lived
in
Maple
Ridge
area
for
over
thirty
years.
They
have
one
daughter,
Mrs.
Robert
Morse
of
Haney.”
VITAL
EVENTS
¥ Joseph
Dakin
Turnock;
Vital
Event
Death
Registration;
Event
Date:
August
14,
1974;
Age:
87;
Gender:
male;
Event
Place:
Murrayville;
Reg.
Number:
1974-‐09-‐013195.
¥ Hilda
[Tipper]
Turnock;
Vital
Event
Death
Registration;
Event
Date:
September
25,
1971;
Age:
84;
Gender:
female;
Event
Place:
Murrayville;
Reg.
Number:
1971-‐09-‐014057.
¥ David
Garnet
Morse;
Vital
Event
Death
Registration;
Event
Date:
October
29,
1958;
Age:
74;
Gender:
male;
Event
Place:
New
Westminster;
Reg.
Number:
1958-‐09-‐012222.
¥ Bernice
Louise
Morse;
Vital
Event
Death
Registration;
Event
Date:
April
28,
1954;
Age:
70;
Gender:
female;
Event
Place:
New
Westminster;
Reg.
Number:
1954-‐09-‐005007.
¥ David
Garnet
Morse
and
Bernice
Louise
Robertson;
Vital
Event
Marriage
Registration;
Event
Date:
March
1,
1913;
Event
Place:
Vancouver;
Reg.
Number:
1913-‐09-‐072682.
¥ Garnet
Robert
Morse;
Vital
Event
Death
Registration;
Event
Date:
March
28,
1987;
Age:
72;
Gender:
male;
Event
Place:
Maple
Ridge;
Reg.
Number:
1987-‐09-‐005045.
ARCHITECTURAL
STYLE
¥ A
Field
Guide
To
American
Houses,
by
Virginia
&
Lee
McAlester.
¥ Cape
Cod
House
Style
[architecture.about.com]:
History
of
the
Cape
Cod
Style.
¥ Pilgrim
Hall
Museum
[http://www.pilgrimhall.org/cchse2.htm].
T
U
R
N
O
C
K
/
M
O
R
S
E
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
C
E
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
Donald
Luxton
&
Associates:
January
2012
–
47
–
APPENDIX
B:
MORSE
FAMILY
TREE
SCHEDULE “D”
CONFIRMATION OF COMMITMENT BY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
This letter must be submitted before issuance of a Heritage Alteration Permit or a building permit.
To: THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE (the authority having jurisdiction)
Re: THE TURNOCK RESIDENCE
___________________________________________________
Address
___________________________________________________
Legal Description
The undersigned has retained _____________________________________________ as a
coordinating registered professional with experience in heritage conservation to coordinate the
design work and field reviews of the registered professionals required1 for this heritage project. The
coordinating registered professional shall coordinate the design work and field reviews of the
registered professional required for the project in order to ascertain that the design will substantially
comply with the Turnock Residence Conservation Plan, the Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, the B.C. Building Code, and other applicable enactments
respecting safety, not including the construction safety aspects.
For this project, field reviews are defined as those reviews of the work:
a) at a project site of a development to which a Heritage Alteration Permit relates, and
b) at fabrication location where building components are made that will replace
deteriorated materials identified as character-defining elements for this project.
That a registered professional in his or her professional discretion considers necessary to ascertain
whether the work substantially complies in all material respects with the plans and supporting
documents prepared by the registered professional and with the Heritage Designation and
Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012, for which the Heritage Alteration
Permit is issued.
The owners and the coordinating registered professional have read the Turnock Residence
Conservation Plan and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada. The owners and the coordinating registered professional each acknowledge their
responsibility to notify the addressee of this letter of the date the coordinating registered
professional ceases to be retained by the owners before the date that the coordinating registered
professional ceases to be retained or, if that is not possible, then as soon as possible. The
coordinating registered professional acknowledges the responsibility to notify the addressee of this
letter of the date a registered professional ceases to be retained before the date the registered
professional ceases to be retained or, if that is not possible, then as soon as possible.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 1 It is the responsibility of the coordinating registered professional to ascertain which registered professionals are
required.
The owners and the coordinating registered professional understand that where the coordinating
registered professional or a registered professional ceases to be retained at any time during
construction, work on the above project will cease until such time as:
a) a new coordinating registered professional or registered professional, as the case
may be, is retained, and
b) a new letter in the form set out in Schedule C in the Heritage Designation and
Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012, is completed by
the authority having jurisdiction.
The undersigned coordinating registered professional certifies that he or she is a registered
professional as defined in the British Columbia Building Code, who also has experience with heritage
conservation projects and agrees to coordinate the design work and field reviews of the registered
professionals required for the project as outlined in the attached plans and specifications.
Coordinating Registered Professional Owner
_____________________________________ _________________________________________
Name (Please Print) Name (Please Print)
_____________________________________ _________________________________________
Address Address
_____________________________________ _________________________________________
_____________________________________ _________________________________________
Phone Name of Agent or Signing Office (if applicable)
_________________________________________
Date
_________________________________________ Owner’s or Owners appointed agent’s signature (if owner is a
corporation the signature of a signing officer must be given
here. If the signature is that of the agent, a copy of the
document that appoints the agent must be attached.)
(Professional’s Seal and Signature)
_________________________________
Date
(if the coordinating registered professional is a member of a firm, please complete the following)
I am a member of the firm _________________________________________ and I sign this letter on
behalf of the firm.
SCHEDULE “E”
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
This letter must be submitted after substantial completion of the project but prior to
final inspection by the authority having jurisdiction.
TO: THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
(the authority having jurisdiction)
RE: _____________________________________________
Discipline (e.g. Architectural, Engineering etc.) (Print)
_____________________________________________
Name of Project (Print)
_____________________________________________
Address of Project (Print)
_____________________________________________
Legal Description of Project (Print)
(Each registered professional shall complete the following:
____________________________________________
Name (Print)
____________________________
____________________________________________ Date
Address (Print)
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
Phone
I hereby give assurance that:
a) I have fulfilled my obligations for field review as outlined in Section 6 of the Heritage
Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012 and the
attached Schedule D, Confirmation of Commitment by Owners.
b) I am a registered professional as defined in the British Columbia Building Code.
(if the registered professional is a member of a firm, complete the following:)
I am a member of the firm _______________________________________ and I sign this letter on
behalf of the firm.
Professional’s Seal and Signature
SCHEDULE “F”
ZONING BYLAW NO. 3510-1985 VARIANCES AND SUPPLEMENTS
PERMITTED THROUGH
HERITAGE DESIGNATION AND REVITALIZATION AGREEMENT
BYLAW NO. 6913-2012
The variances identified in this Schedule “F” to the Heritage Designation and Revitalization
Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012 apply to an only to those lands within the District of Maple
ridge described below and any and all buildings, structure, and other development thereon:
The RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential District) zone regulations shall apply to the Lands
identified in the Agreement to which this Schedule is attached, with the following permitted
exceptions:
Part 6 Residential Zones, 604:
5) DENSITY
1. The maximum floor space ratio shall be 1.817 except that the
following shall not be included as floor area for the purpose of
computing the floor space ratio:
a) Any portion of a basement or cellar or other common area
containing heating, laundry, recreational or storage facilities;
b) Amenity areas, swimming pools and open sundecks;
c) Any portion of a storey used for mechanical or electrical
service room;
d) Balconies;
e) Common stairwells and common corridors.
6) SITING, shall be amended as follows:
The minimum setbacks from property line, shall be:
3.3m front yard;
4.3m rear yard;
3.0m exterior side yard;
4.1m interior side yard.
8) OTHER REGULATIONS shall be amended to permit assigned parking stalls
for the use of residents residing within the heritage house units within the
surface parking lot.
SCHEDULE “G”
OFF-STREET PARKING BYLAW NO. 4350-1990 VARIANCES AND SUPPLEMENTS
PERMITTED THROUGH
HERITAGE DESIGNATION AND REVITALIZATION AGREEMENT
BYLAW NO. 6913-2012
The variances identified in this Schedule “G” to the Heritage Designation and Revitalization
Agreement Bylaw No. 6913-2012 apply to an only to those lands within the District of Maple
ridge described below and any and all buildings, structure, and other development thereon:
The driveway aisle that provides access from laneway into and out of the underground parking is
required to be a minimum of 6.0m in width.
The minimum number of parking stalls required for the Lands identified in the Agreement to which
this Schedule is attached will be 72. At least four of the 72 parking stalls will be retained for the use
of visitors. A maximum of 6 stalls are permitted to be designed for small cars (see Off-Street Parking
Bylaw Part IV, Off-Street Parking Design, 4.1(a)(i)(b)).
READ a first time the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20 .
APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , A.D. 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
LANE PICEA PUNG:EN3 'Fal Albert' SAINT ANNE AVENUE .) LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FOR FILE RZ/033/08
File Manager: Adrian Kopystynski
Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw Amendments: RECEIVED NOT REQUIRED
1. A completed Application Form
(Schedule “A” – Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999)
2. An application fee, payable to the District of Maple Ridge, in
accordance with Development Application Fee Bylaw no. 5949-2001.
3. A Certificate of Title and Consent Form if the applicant is different
from the owner shown on the Certificate of Title.
4. A legal survey of the property(ies)
5. Subdivision plan layout
6. Neighbourhood context plan
7. Lot grading plan
8. Landscape plan*+
9. Preliminary architectural plans including site plan,
building elevations, accessory off-street parking and
general bylaw compliance reconciliation*+.
See DP/033/08 (Intensive Residential DP)
* These items may not be required for single-family residential applications
+ These items may be required for two-family residential applications, as outlined in Council Policy No. 6.01
Additional reports provided:
Geotechnical Report
Tree Evaluation Report
3
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 15, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/033/08
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Amended Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6621-2008
10366 240 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This site is currently subject to two rezoning applications and bylaws. These are:
RZ/033/08: The front portion fronting on 240th Street of the site is subject to Bylaw
No. 6621-2008, which provides rezoning from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District). This bylaw was granted Third Reading on
April 26, 2011 following a Public Hearing on April 19, 2011; and
RZ-063-09: Three properties owned by a different party to the east together with the
remaining rear portion of the subject site is subject to Bylaw 6713 – 2010, which
proposes rezoning from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family
Rural Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential). This bylaw was granted Third
Reading on April 27, 2010 following a Public Hearing on April 20, 2010.
The owner of the subject site has now withdrawn from RZ-063-09, and this application has
collapsed. Each party will be proceeding separately. Therefore, the owner of this site requests to
revise this application to rezone the entire site to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District). This
report has been brought forward to Council for the following actions:
To rescind Second and Third Readings for Bylaw No. 6621-2008;
To grant Second Reading to rezone the entire subject parcel from RS-2 (One Family
Suburban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District); and
To advance Bylaw No. 6621-2008, as amended, to a new Public Hearing.
The proposed R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zoning complies with the Official Community
Plan. The amended proposal would increase the number of potential lots in a future subdivision
from 9 lots to 13 lots and allow for a logical street and lot pattern in the area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Second and Third Readings for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6621-2008 be rescinded;
- 2 -
2. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6621-2008 be amended as described in the report dated
October 15, 2012, be given Second Reading as amended and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
3. That the following term(s) and condition(s) be met prior to Final Reading:
i. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which
addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development;
ii. Road dedication, as required;
iii. Removal of the existing building or buildings;
iv. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising
whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is
evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be
provided in accordance with the regulations; and
v. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management
Act, the applicant will provide a Site Profile for the subject property.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: H.Y. Engineering Ltd.
Owner: Gurinderjeet S. Toor
Sukhjinder K. Toor
Legal Description: Lot A, Section 3, Township 12, Plan 13554
OCP:
Existing: Medium Density Residential
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation Medium Density Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
- 3 -
West: Use: Multi Family Residential
Zone: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 6,475 m2 (1.60 acres)
Access: Proposed 240A Street and proposed rear lane
Servicing: Full urban servicing will be provided
Accompanying Applications: SD/033/08 and DP/033/08
b) Project Description:
The subject property is in total 0.649 ha (1.6 acres) in size. The revised application proposes to
rezone the property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity
Residential District), to permit future subdivision into 13 single family residential lots.
The subject property is bound by residential development in all directions; the adjacent property to
the south was the subject of a rezoning to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), under
application RZ/093/04, and was subsequently granted subdivision approval under application
SD/075/07. The current application is a continuation of the established subdivision, closely
matching the lot areas and dimensions of those approved lots.
The applicant proposes to extend 240A Street northward, provide an east-west lane along the
northern edge of the property for future alternative access to the lands fronting 104 Avenue, and to
extend northward the existing north-south lane to avoid having driveways to the proposed street lots
fronting lots from 240 Street.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The subject property is located within the Albion urban area and is therefore subject to the policies
set out in the Albion Area Plan. The proposed rezoning to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
is in accordance with the subject property’s designation as “Medium Density Residential” in the
Albion Area Plan.
Zoning Bylaw:
The R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone requires a minimum lot area of 213 m2; a
minimum lot width, with lane access of 7.9 m and a minimum lot depth of 27 m. The 13 proposed
single family lots comply with the above requirements of the Zoning Bylaw as follows;
Areas range from 273 m² to 450 m²
Lots widths range from 9.1 m to 9.6 m for interior lots and 10.5 m for corner lots
Lot depths are all 30 m to 42.4 m.
- 4 -
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the Official Community Plan, an Intensive Residential Development
Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal provides emphasis on high standards
in aesthetics and quality of the built environment, while protecting important qualities of the natural
environment. This application will be processed concurrently with the rezoning, and will be
forwarded to Council in a separate report following Final Reading of the rezoning bylaw.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
The required services to permit this development already exist. District standards required that 3 m
of road dedication be provided along 240 Street, and a development variance permit be required to
allow for the existing above ground utilities on 240 Street to remain in place.
The applicant has been provided with the Engineering Comments to address the issues and
requirements directly with Engineering Department staff.
Building Department:
The Building Department has reviewed materials submitted in support of this rezoning and
subdivision proposal. The usual requirements for geotechnical, lot grading and rain and storm water
infiltration issues have been identified to be resolved through the subdivision approval process.
Registration of a Geotechnical Report and Storm Water Management Plan as restrictive covenants
will be required as part of the subdivision approval process.
The applicant has been provided with the Building Comments to address as necessary through the
rezoning and/or subdivision process.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the subdivision is completed
they will be responsible for maintaining new street trees. In the case of this project, it is estimated
that there will be 13 trees added to the street tree inventory, which is based on one tree per lot. The
final subdivision layout will determine exact numbers. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has
advised that the maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree will affect their operating budget
requirements by $325.00. This will be collected through the subdivision process.
Fire Department:
The initial concerns of the Fire Department about access to the lots not fronting 240 Street have
been resolved by the completion of 103 Avenue and 240A Street in the subdivision to the south.
- 5 -
e) School District Comments:
A referral has not been made because the designation is unchanged and the anticipated pupil
population from this project is already included in the population projections for the Albion Area.
However, the School Board has indicated to the District in the past that the closest school, Albion
Elementary School is beyond capacity and future area home owners can expect their children to
attend another school.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant has amended this application so that the front portion as well as the back portion is
proposed to be zoned R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District). Since Bylaw No. 6621-2008 applied
only to the front portion and has already been granted Third Reading, it is recommended that this
Third Reading be rescinded, Second Reading be given so that the zone amending bylaw applies to
the entire parcel and that the amended bylaw be forwarded to a new Public Hearing.
"Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski"
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
"Original signed by Charles R. Goddard"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Zone Amending Bylaw
Appendix C – Site Plan
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Apr 25, 2012 FILE: RZ/033/08 BY: PC
10366 240 STREET
CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
SCALE 1:2,000
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6621-2008
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
___________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6621-2008."
2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot “A”, Section 3, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 13554
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1443 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential
District)
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 23rd day of November, A.D. 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING held the 19th day of April, A.D. 2011.
READ a second time the 22nd day of March, A.D. 2011.
READ a third time the 26th day of April, A.D. 2011.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200 .
_____________________________ ____________________________
MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER
10410
10389 10340
10319
1033724028
2411724120241292415610320
10309
10270
10316
10332
10346
10420
2402210307
2411210428
10380
10406
10328
10358
10386
10313
10349 2406110267 2410324108241072411310370 2396010294
10456
2402710336
2410624108240932411424116241282414410322
241022410424118241222414710350
10416
2398624110241232412524140241372414110366
10325
10343 240862410924111241211042210436
10390
10337
10310
10352
10331
10355 24060241012410524124241322413624133102 B AVE.
103 AVE.240 ST.240 A ST.104 AVE.
Rem. Pcl. A
6
89
B
P 10921
Rem D
43
22
42 37 33 41
2
373
4
2
5
A
P 21769
1112
NWP7139
P 14750
24 27 37
BCP 10009371
A
28
13
17
P 11176
9
21
LMP 517573938
35 33
43BCP 3139
375
BCP 10009370P 60014
Rem 1
15
18
PARK
B 7
PARK
4
34
BCP 3139
32
P 22743
2
A
6
P 13554
PARK
8
BCP 36407
P 10921
35
4
P 10921
42
3
1
4
P 37992
P 13554
41 40
25
LMP 48057
19
30
PARKBCP 46162376
4
PARK
1
7
P 8149
16
Rem 7
36P 9393
29 31
45
P 20434
3
1
374
L
M
P
3
5
0
3
0
5
BCP 45800
BCP 8155
BCP 45801
A
3
BCP 3640710
14
P 14750
23 26 28
36
36 34
44
K
BCP 1010BCP 10010BCP 36408BCP 36409LMP 39369BCP 1001116.5240 ST.104 AVE.SLATFORD PL.´SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From:
To:
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
6621-20081443
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST
FOR FILE 2012-017-RZ
File Manager: Siobhan Murphy
Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw Amendments: RECEIVED NOT REQUIRED
1. A completed Application Form
(Schedule “A” – Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999)
2. An application fee, payable to the District of Maple Ridge, in
accordance with Development Application Fee Bylaw no. 5949-2001.
3. A Certificate of Title and Consent Form if the applicant is different
from the owner shown on the Certificate of Title.
4. A legal survey of the property(ies)
5. Subdivision plan layout
6. Neighbourhood context plan
7. Lot grading plan
8. Landscape plan*+
9. Preliminary architectural plans including site plan,
building elevations, accessory off-street parking and
general bylaw compliance reconciliation*+.
* These items may not be required for single-family residential applications
+ These items may be required for two-family residential applications, as outlined in Council Policy No. 6.01
Additional reports provided:
Arborist Report
4
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 15, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-017-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6909-2012
11750 Burnett Street and 11736 Burnett Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to R-1 (Residential District). This application is in compliance with the Official
Community Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6909-2012 be given Second Reading and be forwarded to
Public Hearing; and
2. That the following term(s) and condition(s) be met prior to Final Reading.
i. Road dedication as required;
ii. Registration on proposed lot 5 of a No-Build covenant at the Land Title Office;
iii. Removal of the existing building/s;
iv. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising
whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence,
a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance
with the regulations.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd
Owner: Affinity Projects Ltd
- 2 -
Legal Descriptions: North Half Lot 5 Except; Part Dedicated Road on Plan
LMP2414, Section 17, Township 12, NWD Plan 8881;
Parcel “A” (Explanatory Plan 51052), Lots 107 and 108,
Section 17, Township 12, NWD Plan 42061.
OCP:
Existing: Urban Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: R-1 (Residential District)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), but under rezoning and
subdivision applications for three R-1 (Residential District)
lots with 16.07 metre frontages.
Designation: Urban Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
West: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 0.151 ha (0.37 acres)
Access: Burnett Street
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
- 3 -
b) Project Description:
The subject lots are located just outside the eastern edge of the Town Centre. The two properties
are flat lying, with some trees located along existing property lines. Each property is currently
occupied by a single family home.
This application proposes to rezone the subject site to allow for subdivision into approximately five
(5) single family lots. The proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone is supportable as the land to the
south (11716 Burnett Street) is the subject of another application which has been given Third
Reading proposing three R-1 (Residential District) lots with widths of 16 metres. The subdivision
concept plan accompanying this application proposes five lots with reduced widths. This plan
assumes a variance will be allowed to reduce the lot widths by 0.3 metres on two lots and nearly
1.35 metres on the other three proposed lots. Thus, the intended lots will be 11.7 and 10.7 metres
respectively, rather than the minimum lot width of 12 metres. A reduction of over one metre in lot
width is significant and generally not supported. However, staff has reviewed a broad range of
options that would not require a variance permit such as duplexes, detached Garden Suites, and
other zones, and have concluded that the lot width variance to the R-1 zone is most appropriate.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The subject properties are designated Urban Residential in the Official Community Plan and are
subject to the conditions of the Major Corridor Residential Infill policies. This proposal complies with
Major Corridor Residential Infill policy 3-21, as follows:
3 - 21 All Neighbourhood and Major Corridor Residential infill developments will respect and
reinforce the physical patterns and characteristics of established neighbourhoods, with
particular attention to:
a) the ability of the existing infrastructure to support the new development;
b) the compatibility of the site design, setbacks, and lot configuration with the existing
pattern of development in the area;
c) the compatibility between building massing and the type of dwelling units in the
proposed development and the surrounding residential properties;
To the west, the adjacent lands are within the Town Centre Area Plan (these adjacent properties are
designated Low-Rise Apartment and Town Centre Commercial). The property designated for
apartment is vacant, while the other commercially designated parcel fronts Lougheed Highway with
a Highway Commercial use. To the east, an established single family neighbourhood exists that is
predominantly zoned RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), which has relatively large lots (a
minimum parcel size of 668 m2). It is anticipated that the vacant Town Centre property will
eventually develop into multi-family in accordance with the Area Plan. As this occurs, a sharp
contrast will become apparent with the residential properties to the east. The subject properties will
bridge these two areas, with a proposed single family form that is compatible with the properties to
the east, but at much higher densities, providing a transition with potential development of the
properties to the west.
- 4 -
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 11750 and 11736 Burnett Street
from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit future subdivision
into five (5) single family lots. A similar zoning proposal for R-1 (Residential District) lots is occurring
on the lot to the south; the difference being these lots are planned to be significantly larger.
Proposed Variances:
The subdivision concept plan accompanying this application proposes five lots with reduced widths.
This plan assumes a variance will be allowed to reduce the lot widths by 0.3 metres on two lots and
1.35 metres on the other three proposed lots. Thus, the intended lots will be 11.7 and 10.7 metres
respectively, rather than the minimum lot width of 12 metres.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed project and has noted that there are no
services required in support of this rezoning application. Therefore, no rezoning servicing agreement
is required. Additionally, a No-Build restrictive covenant will be required at the zoning stage for the
rear portion of proposed lot 5 to ensure the land will be set aside and available for consolidation
with the adjacent property to the east. This will allow for the eventual dedication of a road extension
of 229 Street south of Cliff Avenue. The Engineering Department has also identified that road
dedication will be required at the subdivision stage across the Burnett Street frontage of both lots.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the subdivision is completed
they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. In the case of this project it is estimated
that there will be an additional 5 trees which is based on one tree per lot. The final subdivision
design will provide exact numbers. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised that the
maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree will increase their budget requirements by
$125.00.
- 5 -
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that Second Reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6909-
2012, and that application 2012-017-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing.
“Original signed by Siobhan Murphy”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Siobhan Murphy, MA, MCIP, RPP
Planning Technician
"Original signed by Charles R. Goddard"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw 6909-2012
Appendix C – Draft Subdivision Plan
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Oct 11, 2012 FILE: 2012-017-RZ BY: PC
11736/50 BURNETT STREET
CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
´
Scale: 1:2,000
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6909-2012
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended
___________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6909-2012."
2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as:
Parcel “A” (Explanatory Plan 51052) Lots 107 and 108 Section 17 Township 12
New Westminster District Plan 42061
North Half Lot 5 Except: Part Dedicated Road on Plan LMP2414, Section 17
Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 8881
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1562 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to R-1 (Residential District).
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 10th day of April, A.D. 2012.
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
228052285611716
11765
11675 2293022940229702299311681
228582285511781
11797
1 1 6 6 7 229042290511798
11810
1168022910 11761
22961229622298422990
11690
11836
2290011779
11791
11845 11848
11771
2295011780
11830
229752279911695 2283811749
11678
11750
11780
11747
11837
2292911788
11838
229362294211811
2295011790
229832297511661
11761
11775
11790
11816
11809
11826
2292011791
22951229532296311810
2298411669
11736
11824
11671 2292711778
229372293911831
11841
11760
11800
229602297611820
11648-54
11821
11764
11844
11817
1 1 6 6 3 229282293511801
11821
2297111770
2299422780/901167022 82411808
11825
11739
11768
11818
11686 2294511781
2294522979228 ST.229 ST.LOUGHEED HWY.
GILLEY AVE.
117 AVE.229 ST.CLIFF AVE.GILLEY AVE.BURNETT ST.RW 805288
1 P 22876P 51052 Rem.
238 P 40889P 70383
89
4
128
120
135
202
196
*PP089
P 87494P 8312"A"
11
P 12588
P 41319
1
53
105
Rem. A
242
P 71517
2
174
131
197P 49581LMP 34065 (LEASE)LMP 25642 (LEASE)LMS 2390B
P 8871
P 6
152
0
Rem
106
P 59452
104
2
83
87
P 43788A
39
3
1
129 P 43788P 495811
LP 82566
S 1/2 5
2
60'
56
1 2 A
175
137
41
4
Rem. 5
LMP 7787LOT 2
1P 72307
2
AP 81957
S 1/2 1
55
228
67
172
84
88
90
P 59400123
246
2P 59097
199
LP 76566
214P 58813
Rem 1
P 12588
N 1/2 5
1 1
E
Rem
54
P 57530P 8881P 8881
85
173
245
125
122
121
P 45355
130
132
P 12197N 1/2 1
LMP 11048
P 42061
103 P 41319
239
227
68
108
2
82
81
80
79
86
B
133
6
198
195
P 13497
LOT 1RP 8464P 12197
A
Rem.
A
1
171
243 244P 65141
3P 4074991
127
126
124
P 25677LMP 340661
176
40
P 59097P 43788134
136
201
200
194
EP 45357
RW 48257
LMP 2619
B C P 3 5 6 6 9
LMP 49848
R W 73424LMP 2415E P 4 5 3 5 6LMP 7789EP 82567 RW N'ly 20 Feet LMP 49849RW 79939LM P 7788EP 42071R W 87495LMP 49850
LMP 2414BURNETT ST.´SCALE 1:2,000
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 6909-2012Map No. 1562From: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
To: R-1 (Residential District)