HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-14 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA January 14, 2019 1:30 p.m. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the Citv of Maole RidJ1e. January 14. 2019 Closed Council Meeting Council Meeting 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES REMINDERS 4:15 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 2.1 Minutes of the December 4 and 11, 2018 Council Workshop Meetings 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 3.1 December 2018 Windstorm Update • Jeanne Walsh, Emergency Program Coordinator • James Storey, Director of Engineering Operations • Howard Exner, Fire Chief • David Boag, Director of Parks & Facilities 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Tree Permit Appeal -12238 Creston St. -Liability Reduction Options Staff report dated January 14, 2019 providing information on Liability Reduction Options for Tree Permit Appeal.
Council Workshop Agenda January 14, 2019 Page 2 of 2 4.2 Detached Garden Suites (DGS) Pilot Project -Phase 2 Staff report dated January 14, 2019 recommending that five properties be included in the Phase 2 process. 5. CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include: a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be taken. b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter. c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion. d) Other. Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent. 5.1 Upcoming Events January 15 -17, 2019 January 15 5:30 p.m. January 16 All day · January 17 7:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. January 17, 2019 2:45 -4:45 p.m. LGLA 2019 Elected Official Seminar, Radisson Hotel Vancouver Airport, Richmond Climate Action Interactive Workshop, Bridgeport Room, Radisson Hotel Vancouver Airport BC Municipal Climate Leadership Council & Community Energy Association 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT
2.0 Minutes 2.0
City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 4, 2018 The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on December 4, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in the Blaney Room at City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Elected Officials Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck Councillor K. Duncan Councillor C. Meadus Councillor G. Robson Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef Appointed Staff P. Gill, Chief Administrative Officer K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Services L. Benson, Director of Corporate Administration T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Other Staff as Required C. Balatti, Recreation Manager Health & Wellness T. Cotroneo, Manager of Community Engagement B. Patel, Recreation Coordinator L. Siracusa, Director of Economic Development & Civic Properties B. Livingstone, Business Retention and Expansion Officer Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca ---------ll~-A~~RO\IAL-Of;_J"f--lE-AGEND,.._---------------------------+ R/2018-lt was moved and seconded That the agenda of the December 4, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting be amended to add Item 4.5 Support for Uber and that the agenda be approved as amended. CARRIED 2. MINUTES -Nil 2. PRESENTA T/ONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL -Nil
Council Workshop Minutes December 4, 2018 Page 2 of 5 4. UNFINISHEDAND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 2020 BC Summer Games Nomination Committee Staff report dated December 4, 2018 recommending that the attached report be scheduled for consideration at an upcoming Council Meeting, along with the recommendation that staff proceed with forming the 2020 BC Summer Games Nomination Committee, that various agencies and organizations be invited to participate and that the Mayor, the General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture and the Manager Health & Wellness of the City of Maple Ridge sit on the nomination committee. The Recreation Manager Health & Wellness presented a video and gave a PowerPoint presentation providing information on the following: -Timeline Review -City of Maple Ridge awarded the 2020 BC Summer Games -Cowichan 2018 BC Summer Games -Medal Ceremonies -BC Summer Games Organization -BC Summer Games Schedule In response to Council questions, she affirmed that both Kwantlen First Nation and Katzie First Nation would be approached in regard to the nomination committee. She noted that for any gaps in the City's recreation infrastructure, other venues outside the community would be used, but that Pitt Meadows did not have facilities that would meet the needs. An example she gave was Langley's water sports venue. R/2018-lt was moved and seconded That the attachment to the December 4, 2018 report titled "2020 BC Summer Games Nomination Committee" be forwarded to the next Council Meeting. CARRIED 4.2 Youth Wellness Centre Update Staff report dated December 4, 2018 providing information on the construction of the Youth Wellness Centre. Tony Cotroneo provided a verbal update and answered Council questions.
Council Workshop Minutes December 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5 For information only No motion required 4.3 Maple Ridge Youth Planning Table Terms of Reference Staff report dated December 4, 2018 recommending that the attached report be scheduled for consideration at an upcoming Council Meeting, along with the recommendation that the terms of reference for the Maple Ridge Youth Planning Table be endorsed and that a draft implementation schedule for the Maple Ridge Youth Strategy be provided. The Manager of Community Engagement and Recreation Coordinator provided a PowerPoint presentation on the following: Youth Strategy: -Introduction -Circle of Courage Framework -Theme Areas of Recommendations -Youth Strategy Engagement -Engagement Learnings -Recommendations -City Roles in Implementation -Current Accomplishments Youth Planning Table Terms of Reference -Functions -Accountability -Funding -Executive Membership -Proposed Interest Groups -Next Steps R/2018-lt was moved and seconded That the attachment to the December 4, 2018 report titled "Maple Ridge Youth Planning Table Terms of Reference" be forwarded to the next Council Meeting. CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes December 4, 2018 Page 4 of 5 4.4 2019 Innovation in Emerging Cities Staff report dated December 4, 2018 providing information on a series of events concerning Innovation in Emerging Cities that will be held in March and April 2019. The Director of Economic Development & Civic Properties introduced the topic and the Business Retention and Expansion Officer provided a PowerPoint presentation on the following: -Highlights from Innovation in Emerging Cities held at the ACT Arts Centre on April 4, 2018 2019 Innovation Events: -Leader's Forum -BC Tech Summit -Career & Education Fair -Innovation in Emerging Cities -Tech Event -Innovation Forum Schedule The Director of Economic Development answered questions from Council, providing information on the benefits that the City offers that will draw innovative tech companies, such as the natural lifestyle advantages along with significantly lower cost of living. For information only No motion required 4.5 Support for Uber: Notice of Motion Regarding Ride-Share That the following motion be considered at the next Council Meeting: "That a letter be sent to the Provincial Government expressing Maple Ridge Council's support for the immediate permitting of ride-share services such as UBER." R/2018-lt was moved and seconded That the following motion be considered at the next Council Meeting: "That a letter be sent to the Provincial Government expressing Maple Ridge Council's support for the immediate permitting of ride-share services such as UBER." CARRIED 5. CORRESPONDENCE -Nil
Council Workshop Minutes December 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5 5.2 Upcoming Events Monday, December 10 3:00 -6:00 pm Sunday, December 16 6:00 pm Monday, December 17 7:30 pm Friday, December 21 4:00 -10:00 pm Alouette Addictions Annual Christmas Open House #106 -22838 Lougheed Hwy 10th Anniversary Shred, Share Stoked Skateboard Competition Greg Moore Youth Centre, 11925 Haney Place CP Holiday Train Billy Miner Pub, 22355 River Road Ridge Canoe & Kayak Fundraiser Whonnock Hall, 27871113 Avenue 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL -Nil 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT-Nil 8. MAYOR'S AND COUNCILLORS' REPORTS-Nil 9. ADJOURNMENT M. Morden, Mayor Certified Correct L. Benson, Corporate Officer
l ----City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 11, 2018 The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on December 11, 2018 at 1:32 p.m. in the Blaney Room at City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Elected Officials Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck Councillor Duncan Councillor C. Meadus Councillor G. Robson 'Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef Appointed Staff P. Gill, Chief Administrative Officer K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Services D. Denton, Acting Director of Corporate Administration T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Other Staff as Required C. Carter, Director of Planning C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental Services D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer A. Grochowich, Planner 1 R. Stott, Environmental Planner M. Collette, Environmental Technician L. Siracusa, Director of Economic Development & Civic Properties B. Livingstone, Business Retention and Expansion Officer Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA R/2018-632 It was moved and seconded That the agenda of the December 11, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting be approved as circulated. CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes December 11, 2018 Page 2 of 7 2. MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the November 20, 2018 and November 27, 2018 Council Workshop meetings R/2018-633 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meetings of November 20, 2018 and November 27, 2018 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL -Nii 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUS/NESS 4.1 Overview of the City of Maple Ridge Tree Protection & Management Bylaw The Director of Planning introduced the item and provided an overview as it relates to Item 4.2. The Environmental Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following information: • The timeline and consultation process which lead to the adoption and update to the Tree Protection & Management Bylaw; • The Tree Bylaw framework of "Protect, Plant and Manage" • A comparison of the total number of tree cutting permits issued between 2014-2018 ------DiscussioA-eAsued-r:elative-to-tl'le-coAsultatioA-pmcess-and-stakel"Jolcier:s-involveci~. ------Council questioned the permit application process timeline and suggested that it may be beneficial for staff to circle back to past permit applicants for feedback on the process. R/2018-634 It was moved and seconded That staff report back to Council with further information, options and cost of surveying past permit applicants. CARRIED I ~
Council Workshop Minutes December 11, 2018 Page 3 of 7 4.2 Reconsideration of Decision to Deny a Tree Cutting Permit • Eduard and Anna Bokan The Environmental Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following information: • • • • Subject map and location of the tree on the property Description of the tree and neighbouring cluster of trees Reasons for denial -the tree is healthy and offers mature tree canopy cover, over 108.5 cm in diameter. The tree does not fulfill any conditions to justify cutting, such as posing a hazard being sited within 2 metres of a building foundation. In addition, it is the only significant tree on the property. The tree is connected to adjacent trees on neighbouring property making the tree part of a larger tree stand, and tree removal will not create a significant increase of sun in the yard with the adjacent taller trees. Options to consider: o Uphold denial of permit o Approval the permit appeal o Defer the appeal to a future date Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting between 2:07 p.m. and 2:09 p.m. Anna Bokan introduced herself and advised that she wants to remove the tree to make room for a garden. There are currently 6 people living in the home, on only one income, and a garden could be used to help feed the family. She advised that fruit trees have been planted in other areas of the yard and that she plans to add new fruit trees and wants to try to improve the soil conditions. It was moved and seconded That Council approve the tree cutting permit at 12238 Creston Street. Prior to the vote the mover and seconder withdrew the motion. R/2018-635 It was moved and seconded That the tree cutting permit appeal at 12238 Creston Street be deferred to the January 14, 2019 Council Workshop Meeting and that staff report back on the process and options available to waive liability against the City. CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes December 11, 2018 Page 4 of 7 4.3 Fibre Optics and the New Economy • Joseph Hans Lara, Chair, Economic Development Committee The Director of Economic Development & Civic Properties introduced the item from Joseph Hans Lara, Chair, Economic Development Committee to Council. The Economic Development Committee Chair gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following information: • • The Economic Development Committee has had several discussions around communications infrastructure over the years and advised that the Committee has been a long standing proponent for better communications infrastructure in the community to support both current and potential business retention and attraction. The Economic Development Committee recommendations and observations in relation to the current lack of resources for digital industry expansion, how with private and public investments Maple Ridge can compete with other municipalities, and the long term utility vision for communications infrastructure in Maple Ridge. 4.4 TELUS -Fibre Optics and Wireless Infrastructure • Zou heir Mansourati, VP of Customer Networks • Osman Naeem, Director of Wireless Networks BC • Ben Bajaj, Director of Local Government Relations The Director of Director of Economic Development & Civic Properties introduced the delegation from Telus advising that a staff report would follow the presentation should there be Council interest. The Vice President of Customer Networks gave a PowerPoint presentation on the following: • Telus has been investing in select communities by deploying a Fibre Optic n-etwor~to~h~om~ffs~rrasin~ffss~ffs~ffffd~b~ffostffd~m~CJl:YilitTc1:>ve,ffg~creati ng pervasive broadband coverage, delivered directly to premises or access points, noting that there are currently 13 municipalities in the lower mainland with this service • 13 letters of support received by community stakeholders and business owners Delegation request: o That Council support the signing of agreements with TELUS that allow TELUS and the City to pursue discussions regarding the upgrade of TELUS infrastructure within the City of Maple Ridge. Discussion ensued relative to the letters of support and the form in which they were written, the relationship between Huawei and Telus in light of recent media coverage, and the need to protect the data privacy and confidentiality of Maple Ridge businesses and residents.
Council Workshop Minutes December 11, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting at 3:13 p.m. and returned at 3:14 p.m. Council noted that any communications infrastructure agreement would be subject to an open market process and thanked the delegation for attending. Note: Councillor Duncan left meeting at 3:20 p.m. and returned at 3:24 p.m. 4.5 Backyard Hens: Consultation Summary Report Staff report dated December 11, 2018 recommending that an options report to explore regulatory measures to permit the keeping of backyard hens in Maple Ridge be prepared in consultation with the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The Director of Planning introduced the item and advised that staff and the Agricultural Committee have been working on developing a backyard chickens program. The Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following information: R/2018-636 • The background and consultation process, including the results of a municipal scan • Next steps in the process and reinforcement the need for a good public education program It was moved and seconded That staff, in consultation with the Agricultural Advisory Committee, be directed to prepare an Options Report to explore regulatory measures to permit the keeping of backyard hens in Maple Ridge. CARRIED Mayor Morden, Councillor Yousef -OPPOSED Note: Councillor Yousef left the meeting a 3:33 p.m. and returned at 3:40 p.m. 4.6 Electric Vehicle Update Staff report dated December 11, 2018 recommending that the attached report titled "Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Consultation Summary Report and First, Second and Third Reading of Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 7 498-2018" be scheduled for consideration at the next Council meeting.
Council Workshop Minutes December 11, 2018 Page 6 of 7 The Director of Planning introduced the item and advised that the previous council had directed staff to prepare a report on options to regulate installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in new developments and to consult with the development community and other stakeholders. The Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation providing the following information: • Lower Mainland statistics relative to regulating EV charging infrastructure requirements • The types of EV charging technology available and the infrastructure spectrum (Roughed-In, Energized and Complete EVSE) • The consultation outcomes and proposed EV requirements 4.6.1 R/2018-637 It was moved and seconded That the attachment to the December 11, 2018 Council Workshop report titled "Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Overview and Discussion" be forwarded to the next Council meeting. DEFEATED Mayor Morden, Councillor Mead us, Councillor Dueck, Councillor Svendsen, Councillor Yousef-OPPOSED 4.6.2 R/2018-638 It was moved and seconded That council direct staff to continue work on electric vehicle charging infrastructure and report back to a future Council workshop meeting. 5. CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Upcoming Events December 13, 2018 1:30 to 3:00 pm December 15, 2018 10:00 am to 4:00 pm December 16, 2018 CARRIED NAV Canada Pitt Meadows Air Traffic Control Tower Grand Opening, Pitt Meadows Airport, 18799 Airport Way, Pitt Meadows, BC Firefighter's Food Drive, Save-on-Foods, Thrifty Foods, No-Frills and Safeway stores, Maple Ridge, BC Organizer: Maple Ridge Fire Department 10th Anniversary Shred, Share Stoked Skateboard Competition, Greg More Youth Centre, 11925 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC
Council Workshop Minutes December 11, 2018 Page 7 of 7 December 17, 2018 Train arrives 7:30 pm Event: 7:45 to 8:15 pm December 24, 2018 6:00 to 9:00 pm CP Holiday Train, Port Haney, Maple Ridge, BC Organizer: Friends in Need Food Bank Christmas Haven, The Act Arts Centre, 11144 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC Organizer: Christmas Haven Committee 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT -4:18 pm M. Morden, Mayor Certified Correct D. Denton, Acting Corporate Officer
1~111■ mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: His Worship Mayor Mike Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: January 14, 2019 2018-413-TC Council Workshop SUBJECT: Tree Permit Appeal -12238 Creston Street -Liability Reduction Options EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On December 11, 2018 Council heard an appeal from the applicant at 12238 Creston Street for a tree permit that had previously been denied. In hearing the appeal Council wanted to ensure that the City had exercised due diligence should the appeal be approved and the tree permit authorized. Specifically Council raised concerns about the stability of the trees on the neighbouring property and the City's potential liability should those trees be destabilized following the removal of the tree at 12238 Creston Street. Given the recent windstorm this concern appears well founded. In response to Councils concerns, advice was sought from the City Solicitor. In short, the City Solicitor advised that a waiver in itself would not relieve the City of liability, however, noted that with due diligence, liability can be significantly reduced. The Solicitor also advised that requiring an independent qualified arborist and a forester to provide the necessary assurances would best minimize risks and liability for the City. The City Solicitor further advised that the neighbouring property owner be notified and be provided copies of reports and an opportunity to share any concerns with Council, prior to Council giving consideration to the appeal. This report provides options for Council consideration. Option Three (3) provided in this report is consistent with the advice provide by the City Solicitor. RECOMMENDATION: That this report be received for information purposes. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In the Fall of 2018, a tree permit was denied for the applicant located at 12238 Creston Street because the removal of the remaining significant tree did not meet the City's Tree Bylaw requirement criteria. Furthermore, the significant tree in question on site was part of a larger cluster of significant sized trees, most of which are located on the adjacent privately owned lot within potential striking distance of building structures. The permit tree in question on site was determined to be a healthy 'significant' size tree. It is the only permit sized tree remaining on site, and it was located on the perimeter of the site outside of I any building envelope area. Based on these criteria, the permit was denied. The Bylaw provides an opportunity for the applicant to go through an appeal process with Mayor and Council. Page 1 of 3 4.1
On December 11, 2018 Council gave consideration to the appeal and passed the following resolution: "That the tree cutting permit appeal at 12238 Creston St. be deferred to the January 141h, 2019 Council Workshop meeting and that staff report back on the process and options available to waive liability against the City" b) Due Diligence and Liability Reduction: Pursuant with Council direction, the issue of liability was discussed with the City Solicitor and implications for the City as part of the Tree Permit approval process. The issue of waivers was also discussed and it was determined that all parties concerned in the permit process would potentially have some level of liability and responsibility. Reduction of liability would likely be best achieved with the receipt of reports prepared by independent and qualified third party professionals, working on behalf of the applicant. It was noted that neighbour notification, combined with receipt of an arborist report would reduce some liability. However, the greatest reduction of liability would be achieved through neighbour notification and the receipt of both an arborist report prepared by an independent Certified Arborist and a wind firm report prepared by an independent certified Professional Forester. The following section of this report identifies options for Council's consideration. c) Options: In light of concerns regarding liability, there are three options available for consideration: 1. Deny Appeal -Mayor and Council deny the appeal process and retain the significant tree on site. 2. Defer the Tree Permit Appeal Pending Neighbour Notification and Arborist Report -Option 2 includes: a. An arborist report prepared by a qualified third party Arborist addressing potential impacts and mitigation, including remaining Tree Permit requirements; b. Supervision by the Arborist of record for the removal of the tree; c. Notification to adjacent property owners of the potential tree removal, provision of Arborist report, and date of the Appeal hearing. 3. Defer the Tree Permit Appeal Pending Neighbour Notification, Arborist Report and Wind Firm Assessment-Option 3 includes: a. An arborist report prepared by a qualified independent Arborist addressing potential impacts and mitigation, including remaining Tree Permit requirements; b. Supervision by the Arborist of record for the removal of the tree; c. A Tree Wind Firm Assessment prepared by a independent qualified professional on potential blowdown risks for the trees on the neighboring property along with mitigation re corn mendations; d. Notification to adjacent property owners of the potential tree removal, provision of reports, and date of the Appeal hearing. Page 2 of 3
d) Tree Protection Management Bylaw: On December 11, 2018 Council directed that a report be prepared providing further information on options and costs of surveying past permit applicants and stakeholders. This Report will be included in the 2019 work matrix. CONCLUSIONS: The property owner appealed the Tree Permit Denial in Fall of 2018. Council considered and deferred the appeal pending information on liability concerns. It has been concluded that with appropriate due diligence including conditions outlined in this report, municipal liability can be significantly reduced. This report includes three options for Council's consideration. It is the opinion of the Legal Counsel that Option Three appears to reflect the most sound, cautious and reasonable approach to address the concerns raised by Council to reduce liability for the City. ~ /~ Prepared b;i(~ Planner Reviewed by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning 1/J /,17) \ ,-;:'Jtl{ ~ Approve<jt'6y: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM Public Works & Development Services ~( Concurrence: Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer Page 3 of 3
--~-r-i~-s~-C-~-1~-m-~-ia_l D_G_E_ City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: His Worship Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: January 14, 2019 FILE NO: 2018-339--RZ MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Detached Garden Suites (DGS) Pilot Project -Phase 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the June 19, 2018 Workshop meeting, phase 2 of the Detached Garden Suite (DGS) Pilot Project was endorsed by Council with an aim to showcase the following construction projects: • A Small DGS unit, between 20.3m2 (219 ft2) and 36m2 (387ft2); • A Large DGS unit up to 15% of the lot area within the Urban Area Boundary on a lot between 557m2 (5,995 ft2) and 900m2 (9,688 ft2) in size; • A Secondary Suite and DGS on the same lot within the Urban Area Boundary. Secondary suites (SS) and detached garden suites (DGS) are currently permitted in Maple Ridge through regulations in the Zoning Bylaw. In August 2016, Council directed a review of the SS and DGS regulations with an aim to increase rental and affordable housing opportunities within the community. The review commenced in Fall 2017 with a public consultation process that included a DGS Stakeholder Workshop and a SS & DGS Public Open House. A number of potential options were presented to the community and the majority of those who participated in the process expressed support for expanding the existing regulations. The public consultation outcomes were presented at the February 6, 2018 Council Workshop. Through Council's discussion staff were directed to provide information on a pilot project. Council endorsed a DGS Pilot Project process at the May 1, 2018 Workshop meeting. It was noted early in the phase 1 process that the types of projects being represented were primarily within the suburban/rural neighbourhoods. Being that only one urban example was being represented in this process by June 2018, a phase 2 process with a more urban focus was proposed and endorsed by Council at the June 19, 2018 Council Workshop meeting. For the phase 2 Pilot Project process, five properties are proposed, all of which are located within the Urban Area Boundary. This report discusses the phase 2 process and the steps completed to-date. Council's confirmation of the five properties identified for inclusion in the phase 2 process, which is the recommendation of this report, will initiate the next steps in the process. While Council previously directed that phase 2 of the Pilot Project proceed, some concerns were raised through the rezoning process for the two Pilot Projects in phase 1. An alternative recommendation is also presented in this report for consideration if Council decides to not proceed with phase 2 of the DGS Pilot Project. Page 1 of 11 4.2
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the following properties be included in phase 2 of the DGS Pilot Project: 1. 20565 -114th Avenue; 2. 11983 -232nd Street; 3. 20768 Camwood Avenue; 4. 11954 Hood Street; 5. 23085 -126th Avenue. 1.0 BACKGROUND ON SS & DGS REGULATORY REVIEW SS regulations were originally adopted into the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw in 1999 and the regulations were reviewed in 2012/2013. DGS regulations were adopted into the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw in 2008. From the outset, both of these programs were created to increase the forms and numbers of rental stock in the community and also provide property owners with the opportunity to generate rental income and/or age in place. Table 1 below shows the current number of registered SS and DGS units in Maple Ridge. Table 1: Current Totals of SS & DGS as Infill Housing Secondary Suites Detached Garden Suites Within Urban Area Boundary 401 25 Suburban/Rural and ALR Lands 82 23 TOTAL 508 48 Even though SS regulations have been in place almost 10 years longer than DGS regulations, it is clear from the Table 1 totals that SS's are more prevalent (508 units) as an accessory dwelling unit than DGS units (48 units). Table 1 also shows that SS's are much more common on urban properties (401 units) within the Urban Area Boundary than on larger suburban/rural properties (82 units). However, the total number of DGS units constructed since 2008 is almost an even split between the urban (25 units) and suburban/rural areas (23 units). While the growth of registered SS's in Maple Ridge has been fairly significant over time, the growth of new DGS units has been much slower since the regulations were adopted 10 years ago. In implementing the approved Housing Action Plan, Council prioritized the following list of available measures to help increase rental stock within Maple Ridge at the August 29, 2016 Council Workshop: 1. Review and expand the Detached Garden Suites Program; 2. Review and expand the Secondary Suites Program; 3. Permit duplexes in Single Family zones without rezoning, on minimum lot sizes of 557m2 in the Town Centre and 750m2 within the Urban Area Boundary; and 4. Develop a policy to support rental units above commercial. The intent of the current SS and DGS review is to identify options that will offer property owners greater flexibility and opportunity when making decisions regarding construction of an accessory dwelling unit, whether it is for a SS, DGS, or both. Page 2 of 11
1.1 Review of DGS and SS Regulations A scoping report to review the SS regulations was presented to Council on September 19, 2017 and a second scoping report to review the DGS regulations was presented on October 3, 2017. Both of these reports included an outline for a public consultation process and received Council endorsement. Public consultation for both reviews were combined into one review project which commenced on November 16, 2017 with a DGS stakeholder workshop that included industry designers, builders, realtors, and DGS property owners. The input received from the workshop participants helped refine the information presented at the public open house for SS and DGS on November 25, 2017. Several opportunities were available for participants to provide input at this event, including talking with staff, indicating preferences on inter-active presentation boards, a 3-D DGS modelling exercise, and a questionnaire. The questionnaire was made available by paper or online at the open house and was also posted to the City's website for approximately three weeks after the event. A total of 65 people signed in at the open house and a total of 193 questionnaires were received. A summary of the questionnaire responses is attached as Appendix A. The majority of the potential options presented in the questionnaire (which were also presented on information boards at the open house and made available online after the event) were supported by respondents. The outcomes of the public consultation were presented at Council Workshop on February 6, 2018. At that meeting, Council directed staff as follows: 1. Provide information on pilot projects to: a. Allow a Secondary Suite and DGS on the same lot; b. Allow a DGS size to be a minimum of 20.3 m2 (219 ft2); and c. Allow a DGS size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less. 2. Undertake further research and report back to Council on: a. Allowing a Secondary Suite in all single-family residential zones; b. Allow a Secondary Suite within a Duplex unit (RT-1 zone); c. Allowing a DGS in all single-family residential zones; d. Allowing flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot; e. Allowing 2-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones; f. Allowing Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure; g. Allowing Tiny Homes as a temporary DGS structure; and h. Removing owner-occupancy requirement for Secondary Suites and DGS. 3. Undertake interdepartmental/stakeholder processes to: a. Review the building permit application process; and b. Develop an approach for creating pre-approved DGS building permit plans. Page 3 of 11 +
1.2 DGS Pilot Project: Phase 1 Phase 1 of the DGS Pilot Project commenced with four properties confirmed as participants. Six properties were initially identified for participation in the Pilot Project, but two dropped out of the process early on in the process. Four properties were confirmed as participants at the June 19th Council Workshop meeting: Three one acre suburban lots and one urban lot at approximately 588m2 in size. The property owners of the one acre lots each proposed a 140m2 (1500 ft2) DGS size and the property owner with the urban sized lot proposed construction of a SS and a 47.6m2 (512 ft2) DGS unit. A Zoning Bylaw text amendment is required to enable the Pilot Project participants to obtain building permits and as the process proceeded to First Reading, Council withdrew support for one property where a 140m2 DGS unit was proposed. Just prior to First Reading, complaints were received from neighbours that the proposed unit was perceived to be too large. This left three properties remaining in the Pilot Project process. Since that time, the participant who proposed a SS and DGS on the urban sized lot has withdrawn from the Pilot Project. Final reading was granted to the Zoning Bylaw text amendments and the Housing Agreement Bylaws for the two remaining participant properties on November 27, 2018. This report has been prepared following Council's direction in June 2018 to proceed with phase 2 of the DGS project. However, through the rezoning process for the two Pilot Projects in phase 1, Council identified a number of concerns, specifically with the size of the suites and the fact that they were outside the Urban Area Boundary. All of the proposed projects in phase 2 are within the Urban Area Boundary and all are smaller in size than the two pilot projects in phase 1. Given the concerns raised, an alternative recommendation is included in Section 5.0 of this report. 2.0 PHASE 2 OF DGS PILOT PROJECT 2.1 Phase 2 Overview The impetus for phase 2 of the DGS Pilot Project was to focus on the urban area and to use a longer public notification process in an effort to connect with more property owners. Additionally, it was hoped that with more notification time out in the community, property owners interested in constructing a small 20.3m2 DGS unit and/or a SS and DGS on the same lot may come forward for partici13ation in phase 2. Council endorsed a phase 2 process at the June 19, 2018 Council Workshop meeting. The process is essentially the same as phase 1, except that extra time has been added for public notification, Look-Book preparations, submission of building permits and construction of DGS units. This timeline has been expanded as a result of lessons learned from the phase 1 process. As a result, it is anticipated that the phase 2 process will take approximately 18 months to reach completion of the DGS unit tours in May 2020, as indicated in process diagram shown in Figure 1 below. Council consideration of any City-wide Zoning Bylaw changes stemming from both phases of the Pilot Project would be in mid-2020. Page 4 of 11
Figure 1: DGS Pilot Project -Phase 2 Process Jul -Dec 2018 Identify Interested Property Owners Meet with Properfy owners on potential pilot projects Select and confirm pilot project properties with council• Jan 2018 -Mar 2019 Prepare Look-Book Council endorsement" of Look-8ook document 1st &2nd Reading"' of Zoning Bylaw text amendments Forward amending bylawto Public Hearing •council consideration required Apr 2019 Public Hearing & 3rd Reading* of Bylaw amendments Deadline set for receipt of Building Permit applications Property owners prepare and submit BP applications Sept 2019 Final Reading,.., of Zoning Bylaw text amendments Building Permit approvals obtained by property owners Property owntrs construct Pilot ProJectDGS units Mar 2020 Completion of pilot project DGSs Interim Occupancy provided to DGS pilotprojectunits Apr -May 2020 Tours scheduled for approx. 2 months Final Occupancy/or DGS property owners The Pilot Project options advertised for participation in phase 2 are as follows: • Small DGS unit, between 20.3m2 (219 ft2) and 36m2 (387ft2); Jun 2020 Present Outcomes and Recommendations to Council~ In alignment with DGS pilot project options and Look-Book concepts • Large DGS unit up to 15% of the lot area within the Urban Area Boundary on a lot between 557m2 (5,995 ft2) and 900m2 (9,688 ft2) in size; • SS and DGS on the same lot. The Council directed option for a 20.3m2 DGS unit received the fewest inquiries to-date, with none of the phase 2 participants pursuing this opportunity (similar to phase 1). It is not entirely clear why a reduced unit size has not generated much interest, but it may be due to certain fixed costs, such as building foundation and servicing upgrades. It is possible that when considering a potential DGS unit project, fixed costs may make it more cost effective to construct a unit that is larger than 20.3m2, particularly when considering future rental income and return on investment. In preparing to undertake a second phase of the Pilot Project, staff further reflected on Phase 1 and its inherent lessons. While the sections below describe in more detail the proposed process for a phase 2 project, an alternative consideration provided later in this report. Page 5 of 11
2.2 Public Notification and Inquiry Advertisement of phase 2 commenced on June 29th and continued through to mid-September. Phase 2 announcements were sent out through a variety of methods including: • Newspaper advertisements posted in the Maple Ridge News on June 29, July 13 & 20, August 10 & 24. • Updating the DGS regulatory review webpage with a homepage banner to connect directly to the DGS webpage. • The City's FaceBook page (almost 20,000 hits since June 29th) and Twitter; • 76 emails sent to those on a growing list of interested residents who want to be kept updated on the DGS Pilot Projects. Over 50 inquiries of interest have been received to-date on potential participation in the project, and of the three options listed above, at least 75% have expressed interest in the large DGS unit. Many of these property owners have stated they are looking for affordable housing options for family members, whether it's adult children with young families or aging parents who need a helping hand. The following set of criteria was used to select participant properties: • Property owners who were first to confirm interest were given priority consideration; • Feasibility of property for one of the three Pilot Project options; • Project will contribute to a range of examples depicting a variety of DGS sizes, forms and designs; • Owners able to meet Pilot Project deadlines and commit to: o Payment up to $1,000 to contribute to the cost-recovery of preparing the Look-Book document; o Signing a Housing Agreement Bylaw that will be registered on the property title; o Allowing Council and the community to tour DGS units for a period of two months prior to receiving final occupancy; o Gifting approved building permit plans to the City to be used as pre-approved plans as an option for future DGS property owners. Page 6 of 11
2.3 Participating Property Owners Similar to phase 1, Pilot Project participants for phase 2 were identified after properties were reviewed for suitability by an interdepartmental working group of staff from Building, Engineering, Fire and Planning. After working through the selection criteria with the inquiries received, a total of five properties were chosen for the Pilot and the particulars for each are shown in Table 2 below: Table 2: Properties Selected for Participation in DGS Pilot Project Neighbourhood Lot Size Zoning Site Conditions DGS Proposal 1. Hammond Area -685.5m2 RS-1 Existing driveway to garage in 103m2 (1,107ft2) DGS Urban rear; no lane access unit over garage 2. East Haney Area -728m2 RS-1b Driveway easement access 109.2m2 (1,175 ft2) DGS Urban from 232nd unit proposed over garage 3. Hammond Area -705.3m2 RS-1 Corner lot; drainage 106m2 (1,139ft2) DGS Urban connected; SF designation unit adjacent to low-density MF designation 4. The Ridge Area 963m2 RS-1 Fraser River Escarpment, 75m2 (807 ft2) DGS unit -Urban drainage required; no lane proposed over garage access 5. The Ridge Area 796.7m2 RS-3 Utilizing footprint of existing 60m2 ( 640 ft2) DGS and -Urban accessory building; no SS (as TRU) proposed stormwater connection The first three property owners above are proposing a DGS unit size that is 15% of their respective lot areas and #1 and #2 above are also proposing the DGS unit to be located above a garage. Like properties #1 and #2, the #4 property owner is proposing a DGS above a garage, but a unit size that is permitted under the existing regulations. None of the DGS units proposed over a garage have lane access. Under the current regulations, two-storey DGS's or a DGS unit over a garage is only permitted on properties that have lane access or are one acre or more in size. Property #5 is proposing to convert an existing accessory building into a DGS unit and retain an existing SS that is registered as a temporary residential unit (TRU) for a family member. Allowing a 2-storey DGS on urban lots with no lane access is one of the options under review, but was not included in the DGS Pilot Project advertisement as an option being sought for participation. In an effort to ensure a sufficient number of participants, along with interest from property owners who are seeking one of the options under review, the proposed units over a garage option has been included with three of the above projects and are presented for Council's consideration as phase 2 participants. It is worth noting that over 65% of questionnaire respondents support the option to construct a 2-storey DGS (or DGS over a garage) on all eligible DGS properties (a total of 168 responses were received on this question). This form is also particularly relevant to the urban area, as it allows for greater parking efficiency on a property with a DGS unit. The inclusion of any or all of the above properties in phase 2 of the DGS Pilot Project is at Council's discretion and are included as a recommendation for consideration in this report. Page 7 of 11
2.4 Phase 2 Process and Requirements 2.4.1 Letter of Agreement The requirements and process for phase 2 are very similar to those from phase 1. Upon Council approval of the participants identified for phase 2, the next step for participants to proceed will be to execute a Letter of Agreement and pay a cost-recovery fee of $1,000 for preparation of the Look-Book document. The Letter of Agreement will confirm each participant's commitment to: • Fulfill requirements related to preparation of Zoning Bylaw text amendments and Housing Agreement Bylaws for Council consideration and approval; • Prepare building permit plans, at the owner's expense, and submit to the City for review and approval; • Agree to a Look-Book profile of property and family members; • Execute and register a Housing Agreement on the property title (more on this in section 2.4.3 below); • Adhere to strict deadlines in order to process all housing agreements and text amendments concurrently; • Agree to gift building permit plans, subject to copyright restrictions, to the City for potential future use as pre-approved DGS plans; • Commence construction of the DGS immediately upon receipt of building permit to ensure DGS projects are completed at roughly the same time. One additional requirement added to the phase 2 Letter of Agreement is for property owners to: • Provide confirmation to the City, prior to First and Second Readings of the Zoning Bylaw text amendments that neighbours on all four sides of the Pilot Project property have been contacted and informed on the proposed DGS pilot project. A sample of the Letter of Agreement is attached to this report (Appendix B). 2.4.2 Preparing the Look-Book A Look-Book document will be prepared in similar form and content to the one produced in phase 1. This will include overview of the Pilot Project and specific goals for phase 2. Each participating property will be identified as a "test case" with the following information: • A map showing the area where the site is located, in Maple Ridge; • A site map showing surrounding road and properties and conceptual site plan of the principal dwelling, the proposed DGS, driveway and surface parking areas; • Homeowner profile of information obtained through phone survey; • Site details, such as the address, lot size and dimensions, and lot features and challenges; • Current property assessment values; • A description of the intended DGS from property owners, including design details and estimated costs; Page 8 of 11
• The requirements identified to date from the Building, Engineering, Fire, and Planning Departments, along with additional requirements, recommendations, and notifications to property owners regarding next steps; • Conceptual elevation images to show the relative size and orientation of the DGS in relation to the other buildings, trees, etc. on the site. Once the Look-Book is complete with preliminary concepts, it will be presented to Council with direction to proceed with preparation of Zoning Bylaw amendments. 2.4.3 Text Amendments to Zoning Bylaw Upon receiving Council's direction to proceed, based on the material presented through the phase 2 Look-Book concepts, Zoning Bylaw text amendments that will enable each test case to proceed through the Pilot Project will be brought to Council for consideration of First and Second Readings. If Council grants these readings, the Zoning Bylaw text amendments will be forwarded to public hearing. 2.4.4 Housing Agreement Bylaws In alignment with the phase 1 Pilot Project process, a housing agreement bylaw (see draft in Appendix C) will be required for each phase 2 participant property and includes parking and owner-occupancy requirements, as well as: • Building permit plans submitted to the City for review and approval; • Meeting process deadlines; • Agree to not use DGS unit for tourist accommodation; • Gifting approved building permit plans to the City for future use as pre-approved plans; • Commencing construction of the DGS immediately upon issuance of building permit; • Allowing tours of the constructed DGS units; • Allowing use of images for future publications. 2.4.5 Preparation of Building Permit Plans and Final Reading Bylaws After Third Reading of the Zoning Bylaw text amendments and the respective Housing Agreement Bylaws, pilot project participants will be required to begin preparation of their building permit plans. All costs related to preparation of building permit plans will be the responsibility of the property owner. When the Building Department is ready to issue building permits for the DGS pilot project units, the Zoning Bylaw text amendments will be brought to Council for consideration of Final Reading. 2.4.6 Public Tours of Completed DGS Pilot Project Units Planning staff and Pilot Project participants will host Council and community tours of the newly constructed DGS units prior to receiving final occupancy. It is anticipated that approximately two Page 9 of 11
months will be sufficient to enable Council and all other interested parties to view and experience the structures. Once the tours are complete, a final report will be brought to Council on the outcomes of the DGS pilot project and include: • Update to Look-Book with final building plan designs and costing information; • Feedback on the experience and outcomes for participant property owners; • Feedback received from neighbours on the completed units; • Lessons learned through the pilot project process; • A set of next steps recommendations for the expansion of the DGS regulations. Note that by proceeding with a phase 2 process, it is anticipated that the report to Council on Pilot Project outcomes and recommendations for regulatory changes that was intended at the end of phase 1 will be delivered as one final report upon completion of phase 2. 3.0 FURTHER WORK IN SS & DGS REVIEW A review of the building permit process was discussed in the February 6, 2018 Council report and Council directed that this work be undertaken through an inter-departmental working group. The focus of this group may be redirected to proceed with this review that is intended to identify what changes could be made that would help make it easier for applicants to understand and navigate. Outcomes will be presented to Council with recommendations for addressing municipal resource gaps within the process. 4.0 INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS It is anticipated that Planning staff will continue working with the Building, Engineering, and Fire Departments through the SS & DGS Review process. Both Building and Engineering have been involved throughout phase 1 of the Pilot Project and will continue if the review proceeds with phase 2. If Council directs that the alternative approach discussed in Section 5.0 below be undertaken, input from Building, Engineering, and Fire will also be needed. Both Building and Engineering will also be involved in the review of the SS and DGS building permit process discussed in Section 3.0 above. 5.0 ALTERNATIVE The intent of the Pilot Project initiative was to provide Council and the community with built examples of the possible DGS forms discussed through the Fall 2017 public consultation process. Further, the Pilot Project was aimed at providing Council with context to gain insight into some of the regulatory expansion options brought forth through the wider DGS and SS Program review prior to consideration of any possible city-wide Zoning changes. At the outset of the phase 1 Pilot process, six properties that ranged in size, from urban to suburban, were chosen to participate with projects that would represent all three Pilot options in the final built examples. However, only two of these have continued through to the construction stage. With only two test case examples remaining, questions are now raised about the transferability of these across the wider community. However, there will be information and lessons learned that could be helpful to inform future regulation. It is also worth noting that a significant amount of staff time and resources have been allocated to the Pilot Project process. Page 10 of 11
In consideration of the outcomes of the phase 1 Pilot Project, Council may prefer choosing to let phase 1 complete, but not proceed with phase 2. If that is the case, Council may choose to revisit the recommendations of the initial February 2018 Council report and direct staff to come back with further information on the possible regulatory implications. Alternative Recommendation That staff be directed to not proceed with phase 2 of the DGS Pilot Project and report back to Council with information on the options discussed in the report titled Review of Regulations for Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites: Public consultation Outcomes, dated February 6, 2018. 6.0 CONCLUSION: Since the review of the current DGS regulations commenced in Fall 2017, a significant amount of public interest has been generated, particularly from property owners who are interested in constructing DGS units larger than what is currently permitted. Many of these property owners have been waiting for a conclusion to the phase 1 Pilot that will culminate with public tours followed by recommendations to Council. This report presents the next steps in proceeding with phase 2 of the DGS Pilot Project as well as an alternative recommendation to not proceed with phase 2 and proceed with a review of all eleven options discussed in the February 2018 Council report. Prepare<iby v1JsaZosial<, MRM, MCIP, RPP Planner Reviewed by: Christine Carter M.PL., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Frank Quinn, MBA. P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services 1k~ Concurrence: Paul Ghi, BBA, CPA, CGA Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A: Public Consultation Questionnaire Results (from February 6, 2018 Council Workshop report) Appendix B: Draft Letter of Agreement for Phase 2 DGS Pilot Project Appendix C: Draft Housing Agreement for Phase 2 DGS Pilot Project Page 11 of 11
Open House Questionnaire -Results Open House Date: November 25, 2017 Questionnaire Deadline: December 16, 2017 A. INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS: 1. Are you a Maple Ridge resident? Response Yes No Total Responses Percentage 96.37% 3.62% 100% APPENDIX A Count 186 7 193 2. With regard to Secondary Suites, are you or have you ever been a (check all that apply): a. Secondary Suite owner? b. Resident within a Secondary Suite? c. Neighbour to a property with a Secondary Suite (i.e. residing on same street)? d. None of the above? e. Other? Percentage Owner? 15.73% Resident within? 23.97% Neighbour? 43.44% None of the Above? 15.35% Other 1.49% Total Responses 100% Comments Received: • We live in a dupex. • TRU suite owner • It was a residential home turned into "the Rainbow House" for troubled youth. • friend has secondary suite in her house. 1 Count 42 64 116 41 4 267
3. With regard to Detached Garden Suites (DGSs), are you or have you ever been a (check all that apply): a. DGS owner? b. Resident within a DGS? c. Neighbour to a property with a DGS (i.e. residing on same street or backing onto neighbouring property)? d. None of the above? e. Other? Percentage Owner? 2.59% Resident within? 2.07% Neighbour? 16.06% None of the Above? 75.12% Other 4.14% Total Responses 100% Comments Received: • Friend has one • My parents own a legal DGS. • In the process of building a DGS • Designed DGS • Next door neighbour to a home that had a DGS • Assisted clients wanting to do secondary & garden suites. • Sons family lives in DGS • I would like to build a DGS B. SECONDARY SUITES & DETACHED GARDEN SUITES 1. Do you support allowing both a Secondary Suite and DGS on one lot? ~e-spons~ 0et""centage Yes 58.45% No 41.53% Total Responses 100% Comments Received: • Parking restraints • Not enough parking spaces • I think it should be one or the other. • One or the other • Too crowded for city lots, not enough parking. Count 5 4 31 145 8 193 Count 107 76 183 • This will create density that our current infrastructure isn't designed to support. Renters don't have a stake in our neighbourhoods and already cause issues. • for rental? would increase desnity too much for a single family residential neighborhood to handle • Parking issues • Too many issues over parking in many locations in Maple Ridge. Maybe allow this on 1 acre Jots with mandatory on-site parking only. 2 I
Yes No • One or the other but not both. Most lots can't offer enough parking space. • It's too crowded. There isn't even parking, room in schools, roadways are not equipped to deal with increased traffic. What happened to single family homes????? • bot would be ok if on acerage with sufficient parking off street • I'm not when it comes to the 90% of the current homeless will be continuing their drug habits in these units. • Area dependent. If in a congested area, allowing both will cause issues. • One a secondary suite is supported if primary owner resides in the residence. • congested neighbourhood streets if more tenants and visitors use them for parking, problems that might be created if they are permitted along side of absent landlords, possible changes to the appearance of neighbourhoods if trailers or other types of structures are permitted. • One or the other. • Parking i residential is sometimes like travelling down on lane streets • Way too much limited parking as it is. • Parking will be a problem even if the requirements for parking are included. they will park on the road because it is convenient. • You should be allowing secondary suites in R-3 Zoning before this. 2. With regard to the owner occupancy requirement, do you support (check all that apply): a. removing the requirement for a property owner to reside on the property in the principal unit, Secondary Suite, or DGS? Response Percentage Count 36.41% 67 63.58% 117 Total Responses 100% 184 Yes No b. requiring a property manager be hired to oversee all on-site dwelling units if the property owner is not living on the site? Response Percentage Count 42.93% 79 57.06% 105 Total Responses 100% 184 c. Other? _______________ _ "Other" Comments Received: • Owner Occupancy req'd • I do believe that opening this up to non-Owner Occupied Units may cause a spike in speculative purchases and this may impact the Community as a whole. The other issues is what happens if the Owner moves or sells the House, does the new Owner have to decommission the Unit if they are not living on the Property? • owner/property manager • I think that the owner needs to reside on the property. • Enforce existing Jaws and bylaws • I do not support the primary owner not living on site • owner must live on property • Unsure at this time. • No owner should have to live somewhere on the property if renting out multiple spaces on the site 3
• The property owner should live in one of the suites. We do not need anymore slumlords in Maple Ridge. • absent owners are more likely to ignore complaints from neighbours • dont support this at all • Should remain owner occupied by one of the suites as to eliminate potential problems • prop owner must reachable by city for complaints • Property owner must live on site. • Owner should reside on property • Owner must live onsite • Owner must reside on property • Require owner occupancy in either the main house, or in the suite or dgs • Owner should reside on property • Neither, I don't support secondary dwellings • Owner should reside there • Owner must live on site. • They should live on site • none owner must be on sight • Owner has to live on property • Property owner should reside on the property • Don't support any of these suites/abodes • property owner residing on the property of secondary suites and DGSs • require property owner to live onsite • No • The owner should live on the property. • Not sure, depends where owner lives, Vancouver or China? • Require owner to reside on the property • Neither • Property owner should live on property. They will be responsible for their tenents. • Leave current requirement Additional Comments Received: • I think it would be positive as it would increase supply and therefore help out with the affordability issue. • Owner occupancy ensures neighbours have someone to address concerns, and property issues. • I have a large number of comments. I will email them in instead. • There should be a time frame set to allow time for a property manager to be hired in case of unexpected moves by the owners (for example owner relocated to a care facility). My owners take month-long vacations to Hawaii every year,_some live in their summer properties for months at a time Extended stays abroad should be considered in the time frame. • with training/certification an owner who lives off site may be property manager • Parking must be sufficient off-street and enforced plus resolution of neighbourhood issues whether it be noise, unsightly premises or parking must be swift with teeth. • An owner should live there and if not then a Licensed property manager should oversee the suite and verify ownership/ owner living on property • I don't think the owner needs to live on site. I also don't think a manager is necessary. • There is a low income multi unit property that was taken over by a new owner 3 years ago. Since this time it has become delapadated and has been taken over by drug dealers. The owner does not care because he does not live there so no rules are set for these people. I no longer feel safe walking to the store with my daughter as there are people coming and going high on drugs. There are people coming and going all hours of the night. I have had to pay to install security cameras and new sensor lights as the drug addicts coming and going from this house were coming into my yard and breaking into vehicles. I feel if the owner was required to live on site these issues would not happen. • My concerns revolve around the already bad patking availability in some communities as well as the numerous illegal suites that seem to be allowed. As it is the streets are full of parked vehicles and passing those vehicles while an oncoming vehicle tries to find a place 4
to pull over is ridiculous and unsafe. So, unless these "LEGAL" suites have mandatory parking available 'off street' for secondary suites or garden suites ... and is enforced .... then a permit should be denied. Our streets are becoming more dangerous, and our communities overrun with parking issues. The time is near where the street parking on 240th will be removed, and all of those vehicles will have nowhere to go ... yet secondary suites remain without parking or enforcement. The same can be said for all of the 'illegal' suites which remain and the numbers are growing. I think that the city "allowing" more is a joke considering they can't keep all of the illegals under control ... yet those that are legal pay the costs associated with having a secondary suite. How is this fair? It is up to the city to enforce the bylaws. • Being a Secondary suite renter for many years, it is much better to have the owner living in the premises. This prevents the tenants from disputes of any kind, noise, parking, shared spaces and utility costs. The tenant meets the owners and knows who they will be sharing their home with (Yes as renters, where we live is OUR HOME). Often times landlords or Property Managers not living on the property are looking only for the money and no consideration given to the lifestyles of both tenants. For example, one of the tenants smokes on the property and the other doesn't like it, or one tenant smokes pot. Parties,loud noise, children etc. and shared facilities can all lead to disputes and problems when proper consideration is not given by both parties. Absentee landlords in my experience of over 40 years of renting are more concerned with the income and little else, sometimes having several small suites in one house, and none of them very nice. There needs to be enforcement of the rules and requirements for suites, as well as rent restrictions, the cost of rents in Maple Ridge have reached unlivable amounts. • Owners should absolutely have to live on the same property and manage their tenants. • Owner should have to reside on the property in order to rent out a secondary suite or DGS. • I think it is important for the property have someone overseeing the dwelling if there isn't the original owners living on the property. This will definitley ensure that the property is being looked after by the renters • As Jong as the owners are ensuring the home and property are being maintained there is ne need that they physically live there • As a home owner we want to provided a clean rental opportunity and affordable housing in our community to more than one family! But we are unable to do that at the moment and the bottom floor goes unoccupied. With the increase in homeless people on the street it makes no sense that a perfectly good home goes unused!! • Investors that do not live i M.R. are already buying houses in M.R. and renting them to two families in the same property. The bylaw will be difficult. To be enforced. And owners can easily "make up" a dummy property manager. • What will be the height and width restriction if passed and , especially in Hammond, the addition should fi into the character of the neighbourhood. • No, too formal/expensive/directive? but...some kind of over-seeing wlb needed, to protect both residents and owners, (AND neighbours. Rent control • There should be restrictions in place to ensure speculators are excluded from this. Possibly, rent controls or mandatory rent controls. • as Jong as owner manages • I believe is the owner is a absent from the area they need local representation to ensure all problems are handled in a timely fashion • The owner must also live on the same premises. • Allowing owners to be non-resident will just lead to a proliferation of commercial buy-to-rent properties, which will cause escalation in house prices and reduction in affordability. • With the smaller lots today, there is barely enough parking for the primary home let alone additional homes on the Jot. Most garages are turned into storage facilities leaving vehicles to park in the driveway if there is even one. In addition, the primary owners should need to Jive on the property to ensure good tenant behavior is enforced or you leave neighbours to deal with the issues caused by negligent owners. • Property manger is not enough some are totally useless • It depends on the type of tenants. If they are responsible, law abiding citizens who are not drug addicts in active addiction or participating in criminal activities perhaps a property manager may not be necessary. The safety and security of the neighbourhood should come first • / live around quite a few homes that do not have owner living in it and these houses have 5
two suites in them. I have had drug dealers living in them, people who party 24 hours a day and all of these houses have yards that are ncit maintained. The parking has been a huge problem too. I do not agree that an owner does not have to live in the home to have secondary suites or garden homes. • Owner on site will keep the appearance and behavior of the property in a fashion that is suitable to the good of the neighborhood. No drug manufacturing or distribution , no storage of unwanted and unsightly objects and materials. Pride of ownership. • Unless monitored has the potential to become run down and a hub of illegal activities. • I Think having suites or dgs are a great idea. My only advice is that landlords/property managers do monthly or every 2 month checks to make sure all is well • I feel the owner of any property that has any type of "other" dwelling must be a resident in said property. I have lived next door to a dwelling with basement suites and in most cases the renters have been evicted ... noise, nuisance etc. Property managers do not react quickly and efficiently enough to deal with problems occurring within these types of properties with no owner occupancy. It's an exercise in patient management and very stressful. • If you permit landlords to be absent, mechanisms should be available for the city to act and bill against the property when justified. • Would very much prefer if owner lives on site. • The owner must be living in the residence and stringent rules should apply ie. No government grants for homeless or temporary housing. These types of people need different housing than in single family residential neighborhoods. • The ower should be required to live on the property. • It's unfair to other neighbours if the landlord is absent, as an owner of the property is needed to be present to maintain a certain level of expectations to keep the property up and be in control of the tenants and their use of said property. They need to be available if problems arise on said property. • I believe that if there is to be a secondary suite, that the property owner must reside on site. This keeps the property owner appraised of the tenants activities (ex grow ops) and also helps with the appearance being kept up. (ex grass mowed, yard clean). • as long as the property is managed by a Property Manager • I dont think the owner should have to live on the property but, be responsible for it. This includes upkeep and maintenance. It should be the same as if you were to rent a house. • How are you going to police it? • Having the owner staying in unit make someone responsible for tenant • If properly regulated or certified management to deal with bylaw issues. • I don't support this • The property MUST be managed and overseen on a regular basis to keep the neighbourhood safe for all residents. This includes regular inside, to the door and onsite checks of the property. • reside? Permanent or part time. • Owner must live at residence. • (Re: property management) Only if the owner is not a resident of Canada & paying taxes. • Owner is legally responsible for the property regardless. • (Re: property management) No. Unless property is not be kept up. • (Re: removing property owner residing on site requirement) No. Instant getto no one to see the place is maintained. • (Re: property manager) Even this will only be enforcen occasionally • Flexibility in retirement planning. As owner with experience, I can manage it myself. • I'm undecided if a property manager should be mandatory. A property manager costs. Some landlords are good caretakers of their property. Why pay for a service that is unnecessary. The added cost would be added on to the rent. • Life is unpredictable. If the owner has to move due to work or other reasons. They should not be stuck with having to rent either only the main dwelling or the secondary. Neither should they be forced to hire a property manager as they may have family or friends willing to manage the property for them. The government's job is not to micro manage its resident's lives rather to facilitate clean, affordable housing to increase the living standard in general. 6
C. SECONDARY SUITES 1. Do you support allowing Secondary Suites in all single-family residential zones? Response Percentage Count Yes 65.74% 119 No 34.25% 62 Total Responses 100% 181 Comments Received: • Some zones are lacking parking space • Only makes housing prices soar even more and there is not enough parking plus I will lose my current rental so the owner can split it into two suites for more money • Should be restricions on how dense area is, parking restrictions land/building size ... eg) 143st house 2100sqft on 2500sqft lot is too dense to support a sec. suite, where as a 2400sqft house on 8800sqft house on 123 can support more parking/tenants. • Not in all residential zones, there just isn't enough room on the properties and tenants are often restricted from any outside areas, and are being forced to stay within their suites. There needs to be access to outside spaces for tenants which is not currently being provided. Too many eisting issues that need to be addressed before creating any more suites. • The home should be big enough to allow for the suite and for parking. For instance Albion is very tight • Parking/lot size variants • needs a minimum lots size as high density areas already are congested just with personal vehicle unable to park • New residential areas do not have enough parking for secondary suites, because you have allQowed the streets to be constructed too narrow and the lot sizes are too small. Maybe they should only be allowed in zones with lot sizes over 570m2 or over 60 feet wide to ensure that on-steeet parking is possible or that there is space for mandatory off-street parking. • Absolutely NOT, we purchased in a single-family residence neighbour hood, and did our due dikigence to be sure this area is not full of secondary suites!,,,, • Additional strain on infrastructure, street parking congestion • Only the ones that can provide off road parking • Depends on size of property and parking available • Infrastructure isn't set up to accommodate parking for cars in all single-family residential zones. • lock-off/secondary heating • We purchased our home because we liked the neighbourhood • I did buy a single-family house to live in a medium density neighbourhood. • When you purchace a home in a single family zone expecting that quiet lifestyle then it all changes to a compact style of life with an overflow of cars parked everyware and people just setting up rentals for profit • parking issues unavoidable in some areas 7
·~~~~------~-------~~-2. Do you support allowing one Secondary Suite within a Duplex? Response Percentage Count Yes 53.40% 94 No 46.59% 82 Total Responses 100% 176 Comments Received: • I think this is taking multiple steps in the process, moving too fast Lets get the single family managed first Yes No before we jump into the duplex world. • not clear on question if its a duplex with another suite? 3 residences then no • Only if the owner lives on site • These are generally rental units already • As there already multi family units already on the property • duplexes may be too small • Absolutely not. Parking issues and noise for other half of duplex • No. A duplex already has 2 units. Adding more creates parking issues • See above • Duplex are not in my experience big enough for this • Logistics of this seem daunting not to mention enough parking wouldn't be too likely. If you allow it, please ensure you hook in a mechanism that ensures sufficient parking in all cases no exceptions • Not fair to the adjacent unit and they will have no say if their neighbor puts in a secondary suite • A duplex should be 2 families, one for each side. • My concern is there may not be sufficient infrastructure to support the added usage of utilities sewage etc. • parking an issue • See above comment • i believe parking would be a huge issue 3. Do you support allowing a Secondary Suite as a lock-off suite within a: a. Townhouse/Rowhouse unit? Response Percentage 38.46% 61.53% Count 70 112 Total Responses 100% 182 b. Apartment unit? Response Percentage Count Yes 14.83% 27 No 85.16% 155 Total Responses 100% 182 Comments Received for Question 3: • as above • No I do not support this • Yes! of course! If someone is willing to rent it, then make as many secondary residences as possible! • No • no • NO -NOT DESIGNED TO ALLOW FOR THIS USE!!! 8
• No. As with a townhouse a condo is meant for single occupancy. I think the potential for major problems between tenants is huge if allowed to be used for multiple families • to the capacity of the parking available • No. No. No. • No • No • No. Apartments are small enough already! • Nether. Please rephrase answer choices • Do not support • no • no • NO • Don't support • (No) same as above • See 8 • Already med-density • Apartment owners should have the same flexibility as single family home owners to have a mortgage helper if they require one. D. DETACHED GARDEN SUITES 1. Do you support allowing DGSs in all single-family residential zones? Response Percentage Count Yes 59.88% 103 No 40.11% 69 Total Responses 100% 172 Comments Received: • Balance and parking constraints • Only on properties large enough to support parking • Restricted to lot size and available services & parking • Not for lots smaller than 60 by 120 as these smaller lots are unable to accomodate another dwelling • Not in all, only on properties of a certain size should be allowed, the city lots are too small to support a DGS. •-neighbourhood-infrastructure-must-be-considered-firsU!f, ________________________ --+-• Yes, except in small lot zones. • depends on size of property • must be larger lots • only on prperties 112 acre or more in size which have parking space for 4+ vehicles on the property. • 1 acre lots or larger may be acceptable. • Only where there is sufficient space for such a structure, and sufficient space for parking and no garbage or clutter • areas or rows of houses built new with garden suites only as this gives the surrrounding neighbors the opportunity to live in a garden suite complex if they wish and not have it forced upon them. • Most zones yes. The small lots like in Albion should not as there are issues already with parking and this would serve to eliminate existing parking as well as increase demand for parking. • Restrict the DGS To only allow on a lot size of 5 acres or larger • See above for reasoning. • It would create too dense a housing situation if it was allowed on lots less than 10,000 sqf Parking must also be provided on-site and the suite must not take the place of a garage • Only where vehicle access will not be hampered. • Only when there is adequate land and parking. • not all, only those that have parking space to accommodate 9
• Lots should be greater than 6,000 sq ft. • Parking -utilities (connection & use) • See comment in question #6 • Depends on size of property/available parking 2. Do you support allowing one DGS on a lot with a Duplex? Response Percentage Count Yes 46.78% 80 No 53.21% 91 Total Responses 100% 171 Comments Received: Yes No • already a condensed area • I think this is stepping too far too quickly. Let's get the single Jot item working properly first. • too many tenants/ cars/ noise/ issues • I would support as many as you could fit in somebodies yard! We need more housing!! • I think this might not be appealing to the eye • Too many people already living on the site, not enough parking. • neighbourhood infrastructure must be considered first!!! • That's too many residents and resources being taxed from one lot • Why is this even a question? • Duplexes have no yards -get real • Absolutely not. The duplex is akready a multi-residence. • too much density with no controls • See comment in question #6 • too many residents at one site and too many vehicles 3. Do you support allowing flexibility in siting a DGS on a lot with regard to rear and side yard setbacks to enable a greater ability to work with unique site topographies and irregular shaped lots? Response Percentage Count 70.41% 119 29.58% 50 Total Responses 100% 169 Comments Received: • neighbourhood infrastructure must be considered first!!! • Must be as far from Jot boundaries as is physically possible. Not as far away from the main house as the owner wants it to be. • No. Maintain or increase current set-backs yo protect neighbours. Adding a DGS already puts more people in 5he next yard, so please do not allow it to be even close to us by cutting the set-backs! • Parking • No DGS in RS-1 10
Yes No 4. Smaller units: Do you support allowing DGS unit size to be less than 37m2 (400 ft2) in gross floor area? Response Percentage Count 56.80% 96 43.19% 73 Total Responses 100% 169 Comments Received: Yes No • if it is nessasary to make it fit regulations • That is a very small unit and it seems too restrictive to work with realistically. • Absolutely NO, too small, and unless the rent reflects the etrenely small size, not a good value for any tenant. • I'm concerned that these tiny homes are not safe and post a hazard to us all. • why? what would this unit be? a room and a closet? • Not sure • like a dog house? absolutely not • Property taxes • No DGS in RS-1 • Not a livable space 5. Larger units: Do you support allowing DGS unit size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) in gross floor area? Response Percentage Count 60.11% 101 39.88% 67 Total Responses 100% 168 Comments Received: • Principal residence size should drive DGS size to maintain balance • thats the size of many houses, or bigger than many as well • units this large should require legal subdivision of the lot • Anythin* this big must only be allowed on a subdivided lot that is large enough for a complete house. • 1500 is too large. Some house are not that big • max 1000 sq ft • Utility fee break down • No DGS in RS-1 • DGS units should be no more than 90 m2 • 1000-1200 max 11
6. Do you support allowing two-storey units and units above a garage in all DGS zones? Response Percentage Count Yes 65.47% 110 No 34.52% 58 Total Responses 100% 168 Comments Received: • Only support units above garages • Should depend on lot size should be substantial, to the point of subdividable size. • In many cases the view/landscape can be degraded to a detrimental level. that would have a negative effect on the city. • no two story units • These should only be allowed in by subdivision of large existing single family lots or larger. • only units above a garage. not two storey units of living space • Infrastructure to support all this • No OGS in RS-1 E. ACCELERATE DGS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Yes No 1. Please indicate whether or not you support pre-approved DGS building permit plans and feel free to provide any comments you may have. Response Percentage Count 70.76% 121 29.23% 50 Total Responses 100% 171 Comments Received: • Sorry everyone should have to go through the same due process. • only support DGS for it's current definition (i.e.: for private use) • It should be made difficult, time consuming and costly, do deter people from applying. • Street parking congestion. Strain on infrastructure • To ensure the unit is going to be used for its intended purpose staff should be reviewing applications to ensure they meet their intended purpose. • This is just an excuse for the city to establish mobile homes for drug addicts anywhere they want without public hearing · • Too many different circumstances need to be addressed when a DGS would be approved. An off the shelf pre-approval would be irresponsible move by the city. • No. I don't support DGS at all. • Agree on accelerated process but concerned about cookie cutter appearance. To many maybe an eyesore. • Access to these units 12 I I
~~~~~~~~---...... ----------F. DGS ALTERNATIVE BUILDING FORMS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS Please indicate whether or not you support these alternative DGS building forms and construction methods and provide any comments you may have. 1. Do you support allowing Tiny Homes as a permanent DGS structure? Response Percentage Count Yes 56.54% 95 No 43.45% 73 Total Responses 100% 168 Comments Received: • these appear to be a fad, mostly they are unlivable • I think that the Tiny Home is a passing fad that will eventually disappear. As an aging person, I know that I wouldn't want to live in one. • unsightly, too low housing like • Let's start with Garden Suites first! • Do not support owners building tiny houses as rental properties. • by definition, a tiny home is a TEMPORARY STRUCTURE. Want a Tiny Home community? Re-zone and develop more areas as trailer parks. I would support that • Tiny homes must be defined better, (size?, services connections water, elect, gas, sewer, etc • If you want an RV, buy an RV • Not enough room. Also what do they do with human waste.? The city is already overcrowded! • Would be open to abusing the system by putting trailers on lot • No I don't support this on an already existing residential lot. 2. Do you support allowing Tiny Homes as a temporary structure? Response Percentage Count Yes 59.52% 100 No 40.47% 68 Total Responses 100% 168 Comments Received: • no need for temporary, this is housing and should be semi permanent • Not ready for tiny homes yet! • Except where the Tiny home is occupied by the owner of the property • depends where they are set up. not sure about temporary • a 5th wheel can be used for purpose • Don't want the neighborhood I paid for fumed into a trailer park. • Would allow trailers to be parked everywhere • Nothing temporary should be allowed. Proper planning and construction only for any type of building, even if it's for the homeless, mentally ill or drug addicts. 13
3. Do you support allowing Manufactured Homes as a DGS form? Response Percentage Count Yes 59.76% 101 No 40.23% 68 Total Responses 100% 169 Comments Received: • the building should complement existing stucture on property , modular homes seldom do this • unsighlty • We want to make sure our city stays looking good ... not messy ever! • all need permanent foundations • This makes it too easy and cheap to have a secondary suite. • one house of any sort per lot unless in a rural area. 4. Do you support allowing retro-fitted Container Units to be used as a DGS? Response Percentage Count Yes 41.56% 69 No 58.43% 97 Total Responses 100% 166 Comments Received: • Black box syndrome • how terrible this idea is • No not ready for container units yet! We could use them for pools tho! • these are for shipping. • Aesthetically, it is difficult to convert a container into a aesthetically pleasing building structure. • They would not look nice in any neighbourhood • Ugly • Except in rural 5 acre lots or industtial zones areas. • do not agree as your wanting drug addicts to occupy these and only persons attempting to get clean should be offered these. Your telling our young people that it's ok to use! • Possibly but they would have to be designed to fit in residential context. A high standardneeds to be _______ _,_,mpleyed-if-this-were-aA-eptie'I-I------------------------------------+ • Worst, rackiest idea ever! Absolutely does not belong in our singke-family residential areas. Bui/ a new suburb inside an industrial park for these ugly things! • unless the city approves placing container units on residential lots for secure storage by residents • No. • Absolutely not, • Never! Talk about devaluing a neighborhood quickly! • They are unsightly, I feel that they will bring property values down.. • Absolutely not • This should never be allowed on anyone's property. To build a building in an industrial or downtown Maple ridge (which it would be an eyesore) are the only places for a container as a residence. • way to small to allow 1 person to comfortably live. • Access to placement 14
G. PARKING: Yes No 1. Currently, the requirement for dedicated off-street parking for a Secondary Suite in Maple Ridge is 1 spot, which is standard when compared with other regional municipalities. Do you support the 1 spot parking requirement for a Secondary Suite? Response Percentage Count 74.70% 127 25.29% 43 Total Responses 100% 170 Comments Received: • I support concerns around parking, but I believe tenants should be allowed to park off-site if it is more convenient and space permits. • should be two spots • depends on whether there is access to transit • We need suites. If there isn't off street parking available, then owner should be forced to give up a space on their driveway or in their garage or their lawn gets converted to parking space. I also think that garages should be counted as 1-2 parking spaces as necessary (If they are not already) • 2 spots should be the minimum. I have been beside a rental with 3 cars for the renters. 4 cars for the main owners. They do not use the garage for parking . Everyone is on the street and blocking parking for guest and service people. • Most homes have two vehicles. This is a problem everywhere. There are cars all over the place • Should be none • 2 spots on site -not dependant on street parking. • 2 for one bedroom and up • Should be 2 since families are living in secondary suites now. • Should be 2 • 2 spots should be required per suite • Impossible to enforce! • It should be more. Currently all the suites are taking every available spot of street parking. It's extremely frustrating not to be able to park in front of your own home!!! • 2 spots should be the requirement as well as requiring the spots to be free egress rather than back to back. Another solution would be to require the residents of secondary suites to park on-site rather than on street. • Must be 2 • at least 1. 2 on bigger properties • I support off road parking only • One parking spot for each adult residing in suite • See page 6 • Where does the second car park likely the s. suite will be a couple with two cars. Even if the requirement for one spot is made they will likely park on the street as it is convenient. Many streets in M.R. now have this requiremen but when the residents park now many streets are reduced to one lane when they park on both sides. • residences need to have ample parking in driveways for all residences and increase in suites and garden suites will cause major problems with so many vehicles on the streets • This will vary from each location. If the house has a large front which can accommodate two cars without disrupting the traffic flow or blocking neighbouring properly then 2 spots should be given consideration. 15
Yes No 2. Currently, the requirement for dedicated off-street parking for a DGS in Maple Ridge is 1 spot, which is standard when compared with other regional municipalities. Do you support the 1 spot parking requirement for a DGS? Response Percentage Count 73.05% 122 26.94% 45 Total Responses 100% 167 Comments Received: • I support concerns around parking, but I believe tenants should be allowed to park off-site if it is more convenient and space permits. • A DGS has more options for parking as it more likely requires a larger lot size. Flexibility should be made for DGS as a larger property will in some cases allow for alternative parking to street parking. • should be two spots • proximity to transit should be considered • We need suites. If there isn't off street parking available, then owner should be forced to give up a space on their driveway or in their garage or their lawn gets converted to parking space. I also think that garages should be counted as 1-2 parking spaces as necessary (If they are not already) • minimum 2 • Most homes have two or more vehicles which poses a problem • Should be none • 2 spots of street • 2 should be required • Should be 2 • should be 2 parking spots per unit • I don't support a DG so no need to park. • See above • Need more! • 2 spots should be the requirement as well as requiring the spots to be free egress rather than back to back. Another solution would be to require the residents of secondary suites to park on-site rather than on street • Must be 2 • at least one. 2 on larger properties • don't support DGS • One parking spot for each adult residing in DGS --------~•~See-page-6•-----------------------------------------+ • The requirement should be no overnight parking on the street & parking only in front of their residence so the neighbours do not have to deal with others parking problems • as above • This will vary from each location. If the DGS is at the back and there is a back Lane and the DGS has a large front which can accommodate two cars without disrupting the traffic flow or blocking neighbouring property then 2 spots should be given consideration. 16
Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Please provide any additional comments you may have. • I support changing the rules to accomodate more secondary housing residences in new developments and loosening the rules on older developments. I beleive that the lot size restrictions should be lowered for secondary suites, as the supply is shifting more towards larger houses on smaller lots, and often these houses have more than enough space to accomodate a secondary suite in the basement. As mentioned throughout, I live near a neighbourhood that is zoned R-2 and believe that all R-2 lots should be allowed secondary suites. • Current demographic changes have 1 in 3 young adults 20-30 living at home with parents. Aging in place of seniors could be supported by tenants, as 1 Of 3 senior home owners live on their own. Fraser Health has identified significant cost savings by having seniors age in place. Secondary suite requirments are far too restrictive. Many houmes built over the last 10 years have garden walkouts, to rear yard. Maple Ridge does not allow rear garden entrances, which is counter to the accesibility advantages of a rear garden entrance. Mountainous lot presentations present an excellent seperate entrance feature. • main focus on lot size and building size , larger lots should be able to construct larger dgs • My Families interest in a DGS is due to the lack of affordable housing to first time home owners in Maple Ridge. The current regulations prevent us from building a larger structure despite our proposal being on an acre lot. If the City of Maple Ridge truly intends on making positive change for it's citizen flexibility needs to be put into place to allow for more square footage when its available and creating a larger maximum in this regard. • With the trend to live smaller, many larger but occasionally used amenities (tools and workshops, guest room, garden space) have to be sacrificed for livable space, but allowing and creating such amenities like a shared tool library or craft or workshop would be of benefit to the future population. • I appreciate your efforts to make corrections to accommodate the changing housing market. Densification needs to occur. Your challenge is to accommodate and make changes that the majority can live with. This is also a cultural change in that everyone wants to have their home on a property with room to play and live. This has and continues to change. I would like to see a role introduced that provides advice for home owners as we attempt to navigate and decide what is best for us without having to contract the services of a professional to determine what we can and cannot do. I think it is also wise to attempt to define the need with the reasoning for these changes. For example, "Aging in Place". The aging homeowner wants one or more of their children to be in place and live on the property and manage the parents needs as they age. Another example would be the "Mortgage Helper". Some structure should be developed for this approach. Otherwise you end up with multiple, very small living spaces on one property. One of my children viewed a basement suite that was a 6 foot high crawl space. This should not be allowed. That brings up another issue, most of these processes, buildings and suites are complaint driven. All too often the changes have already been done. Now you, the municipality, has the challenge of reversing and __ correcting_these__'.'.problems",.Jor lack of a better word. I didn't see any items related to the development and build process. Perhaps this comes later? I am referring to some of the requirements such as separate electrical, water, sewer and gas connections. Is there going to be information on this at some point? If this is a family situation, single connections and metering might be fine, but if this becomes purely a rental situation with managers in the mix, separate connections and metering would and should be the norm. But this again adds cost to the final outcome. This issue would also affect the property tax amounts. The family with an aging in place strategy would same money on many levels, where the strictly rental situation would not and could be taxed differently. Thank you again for the opportunity to contribute. I am also open to further conversation. fraser@bccranesafety.ca • Let's do this! • Parking is a nightmare for suites. Rules for RS3 land are unfair. • Get ahead of the coming changes and have your Planners have answers (not unsubstantiated no's constantly) for tax paying owners who want to do what is in YOUR OCP 17 r
• I think I've made it fairly clear, but we're experiencing a housing crisis. Estimates are that the GVRD increases in size by 50% in the next 15-20 years. We need as much available housing as possible. I would hope that Maple Ridge makes this as easy as possibly for people to do, because otherwise people will just do it illegally, we lose a huge amount of our Young population and homelessness increases significantly!! · • I think many of the limitations for legal suites are too tough for most home owners to abide by; but because they can hardly pay their mortgage for a variety of reasons, they put in illegal suites anyway. My parents had no problem abiding by all the rules because they bought a one acre parcel of land, you can make anything work if you have a nice, almost square acre. The majority of people though that can afford a single family residence are buying a "BC box" or maybe one of the newer 3 story homes that are being built where zoning doesn't allow suites or your home doesn't have enough parking. I think loosening the restrictions and allowing more legal secondary suites/DGS's would make these secondary homes safer because they would need to be built to code instead of being put together by the home owner and some friends. I don't know anyone personally who actually wants to break the law and do things the "illegal" way, but can't otherwise afford life in the Lower Mainland without a rental income so they put a suite in anyways. • I think a lot of the lot size limits and parking restrictions/ requirements we have are good. The big rule that needs to change is owner needs to occupy residence with rental unit. Without this rule it gives investors a safer and more financially viable option to buy rental units • Maple ridge needs to work on building better infrastructure and increasing businesses. We do not have the infrastructure to support a higher density population. • Please keep me updated! • I do not want my neighbors with garden homes or mini homes in the back or side yards. People already own so many toys that they cannot park in garages , and they fill their driveway with RV's. So all parking ends up on the street. Put in a bylaw that RV's need to go in a special parking lot. Stop people from paving their front yards for parking. When that happens no one can park on that part of the street because they now block them in. Have only legal suits, owners must live on site, and 2 spots provided for parking. Up the city fees for anyone with a rental. Have inspections to make sure owners are complying with the laws. • I would like to see the DGS allowed in addition to the residential suites on acreages and on ALR land as well. • There needs to be some type of enforcement, maybe a requirement to be listed as a rental property, and meeting basic guidelines like parking. Some of these suites are like mere cages, little light, and no outside access at all. A limit on what they can charge for rent, $1500.00 for a 700 square foot suite is ridiculous and so far out of reach of many. Would also like to see some consideration to Seniors on limited incomes, and for youth just starting out. The current rents are forcing people into homelessness. I am on a disability pension, and if I had to leave my current rental, there is Nothing within my price range anymore and I would be another Senior forced into homelessness. These needs surely need to be addressed before bringing in even more people to our already over populated communities. Another consideration needs to be infrastructure, where are these peoples kids going to go to school, find a Doctor, these needs are not being met now, so to allow bringing in more people doesn't make much sense until we get these basic needs met for our existing population. Yes, housing is expensive, and people need to supplement their incomes to afford the overpriced homes, but some want the tenant to pay most, or in some cases all the expenses involvea in liome ownersliip, with liffle consideration for tlie tenant, I have been told many times that because I choose to rent, I have to live a less than ideal home life, which should not be the case. Just because people rent doesn't mean they are not entitled to the same considerations as home owners, When renting, we are renting our HOME, and that shouldn't mean we are second class citizens. we are entitled to have a bright home not a dungeon, a yard or outdoor space to sit in and enjoy, parking near our home, perhaps have a pet if we choose. Right now in BC we are being told how we must live our lives if we are tenants, we are being restricted on so many levels, and often forced to live in environments many people, including landlords would never consider living in as their home. • I do not support extra fees for services on properties with secondary suites or ADU. If fees for services are to be variable, they should be related to the total number of residents on a property. In theory, you could have one owner resident and one renter on a property while next door the single family dwelling has a family of 1 0! Who does use more services? • I worked on a small project in East Vancouver. Large lot with lane access. The build was 2 duplex and a detached garage for 4 cars with suite above. Interesting. Similar ptoject on Bewicke in North Vancouver. Block zoning to duplex and one single family on each lot. Design scheme pre set difgerent builders. Interesting use of the land and the block and neighbor hood look great. 18
• stop off loading the perceived "housing crisis" in Vancouver on to private single family land owners. • Please, the rules must change regarding the landlord be living in the house and cannot contain a secondary suite. Certain personal situations come up and make that rule unjust and it's shameful if a perfectly good suite need to be decommissioned because the home owner does not live onsite. I realize that the City is trying to change certain bylaws, but at the moment if this bylaw does not pass, it will not align with City's Housing Action Plan! As a home owner we want to provided a clean rental opportunity and affordable housing in our community to more than one family! But we are unable to do that at the moment and the bottom floor goes unoccupied. With the increase in homeless people on the street it makes no sense that a perfectly good home goes unused!! • The proposals outlined by the City here are only palliative and they only help in those cases in which the City central area will increase the population density. However, there is a lack f community building efforts. Building connections among citizens living the central areas (core and surroundings) is extremely important so citizens can share resources (public and private) freely and smoothly. The City should not extend in size, (or should be contained as much as possible) so not to make transportation, traffic, pollution worse than they are now. • 1 water line requirement for DGS -same as townhouse, currently require 2 lines which is not required for a 90 sq m structure. Ability to install a second driveway on acreage lots for a DGS. Waive tree cutting permit for acreages if tree removal is 20% or less of propertie's trees. (Cost me $425 in permit to remove 9 trees of the dozens on the property .... rediculous money grab) • I have many comments. But I've spoken with Brent Elliot -and expressed our experience in trying to add a DGS to our property. We will look to speak to him further asap. • We are thinking of a DGS but want to act fast as prices keep increasing. We would like a decision on this asap! Thank you! • -I would support basements in DGS -more than 1 tiny house per lot (with parking -each separate suite, regardless of type, should have a parking stall. • In older homes it is much more financially doable to have a legal in-law suite rather than ripping out drywall to put in fire rated drywall. Restrictions are less onerus. By having inlaws, kids, parents living with us it would free up more spots in condos etc. No #'s or legal in-law suites on your board in Fraser Room. Best option would be legal in-law suite and garden suite. • -as long as a tiny house, DGS, container, does not have a major negative effect on the nieghborhood -allowing larger driveways is a possitive • I would like to know if a detached garden suite will be allowed on ALC acreage on the main farm parcel and will not affect the amount of farm worker structures allowed on the property. • I do not support ANY extension to secondary suites until Maple Ridge deals with ALL of the illegal suites. This mustn't be done by simply allowing them to continue. They must be closed down until the correct permits and surcharges are in place and must not be allowed in streets where parking is a problem, such as those streets like Bryant Drive where the frontages are too narrow for anyone to park in front of a house. • In the current economic client, I'm in favor of garden suite type homes. There were no question in regards to "family" units and I would hope more preference would be given to additional dwellings on a lot for family purposes. For instance, I'm on land governed by the ALC and we are allowed one non-permanent structure under 900 sq/ft (or there about) for immediate family only. Which also brings me to my next suggestion which is to better utilize the larger acreage properties that are not being actively farmed to provide additional housing in the form of garden suites. On my 4 acres I could easily fit a small 800 sq/ft garden suite with ample parking and little impact to the viability of farming on the land but the ALC will not allow it. In fact, very little of the acreages around me are actively farmed and the ALC should be brought into the conversation in some capacity as it's a lost opportunity with very little impact on neighbours and the community at large. • This city is becoming a dump. Drug addicts everywhere and if you think supplying them container homes is going to clean up the city you are so wrong. No one shoukd be given a free home unless they are getting clean. I live near a half way house that obviously no one checks on. Drug deals and stolen property coming and going. Once you offer this option to the drug addicts -hundreds more will be coming. Wake up! • container housing is a good idea if utilized in a specific, "container housing" community, not in among "regular" housing communities 19
• Great initiative. Look forward to seeing this progress. • We specifically bought in an an area if single-family detached homes, and feel it is unfair of the city to cram in higher density now. If we had wanted to live in a higher density area, or surrounded by suites, duplexes, or trailers, we would not have bought here. Please do not shove this change through and force it upon us. • Maple ridge cannot handle more people by pushing them in close together. This is know to cause social issues. The city should look towards improving road transportation , schools for the children and more shopping and social faculty's for people living away from the core. The city needs to have the police enforce the law to deal with the rampant crime the city needs to take care of its tax paying citizens and small busineses. • This city has become a bedroom community and people commute to their jobs elsewhere most couples by necessity need 2 cars so there needs to be more off street parking for suites and dgs etc. Although I don't think the city should be developing more housing, we need more jobs for the people who already live here and pay taxes as well as all the public services such a schools, transit (it's a joke) are going to be maxed out. As usual we are doing things willy nelly. • Make sure the owners of these properties pay fair share of water and sewer taxes. Do not burden taxpayers any more than needed. • Stricter by-laws to the ensure sustainable growth in Maple Ridge. • I truly believe in having secondary suites and garden units. We need more housing. Just not 2 story dwellings or placed on a small lot. Also parking should be a minimum of 1 off street with 2 if there is room on property to make more parking • Instead of a questionaire, what about a public hearing where those concerned can voice directly to Council instead of having issues already agreed upon and inviting citizens to comment • Please don't put put container homes full of drug addicts in my neighbourhood. They need treatment and support. • Build the above on a contained property that would solve everything and keep neighborhoods the way they are • I hope that this survey will be put to good use and allow for Maple Ridge residence to build an in law suite or something for family members along with mortgage or rental but will at no time be used to "loop hole" a temporary or permanent structure (without proper consultation with the area residence) for the protesters at Anita Place or other mentally ill/drug addicted people. Proper solutions and proper facilities need to be built and in Maple Ridge, we have more beds per capita than surrounding areas. I think more treatment facilities need to be built and area need to rezoned for this with a large plan for the future so residential does not continue to sprawl across our city and leaving no areas for commercial building that will need to go in to support the homeless, drug addicts and mentally ill. Council needs to look at acquiring land in large areas that can support this and not have to take it out of residential areas as this doesn't fit. Thanks • I envision congested neighbourhood streets if more tenants and visitors use them for parking, problems that might be created if they are permitted along side of absent landlords, possible changes to the appearance of neighbourhoods if trailers or other types of structures are permitted. It will entirely change the landscape of the city, and not in a good way. • The cost and process of creating a secondary suite or a DGS are both high and long. Hundreds of home owners hesitate to approach the city to apply. This contributes to the housing problem -not enough rental units. Those existing non conforming or DIY suites are hazardous. Most of them are not even close to the code requirements. Therefore I propose the following: 1. Registration of the home owners who want to build/have a secondary suite or a DGS by the city. 2. Once the number of secondary suites/DGS to built is known then the city can put a tender for the construction of these units. 3. The companies who are interested can participate and give their proposals. 4. The best proposals are selected, then homeowners will be informed. 5. The construction companies can start. This way the city will have control on the quality and conformity of construction. The homeowners will pay les·s for the construction and will be able to build faster as the city is involved from the start. Furthermore, This will help have a positive impact on the housing crisis. • Why can't we have another module home park set up. Quick simple and easy. 20
• There are secondary suites never inspected in our neighbourhood. Houses not owner occupied or not living in Canada. (Tenants are noisy police have been called). People do not want to pay more taxes so suites are not declared. Pitting haves those that do not have suites against those that have. The space the tenant is using is not principle residence should be taxed by city + inspected like business lissence needed plus capital gains (Federal gov't) charged when sold. City fire+ police need to know if a tenant is living downstairs. You should not have a suite that is not safe+ pass it off as a mortgage helper. If you can't afford a house rethink needs + wants. Culdusacs not good choice for tenants no ???? Maple Ridge does not have lanes like other cities (Vancouver, PoCo, Coq. Burn.). Build more apartments, Duplex's + Townhouses. Need more shopping if Road pricing comes into effect. Housing is still cheaper here. • -All units should be accessable. We need more ground orientated single level homes for seniors or persons with mobility issues. -Loading on schools and roads is a concern -Number of unrelated persons -could turn into boarding homes -possible issues with Bylaws/RCMP -Are we circumventing the zoning process to a degree and putting some folks who have complied by rezoning going to be disenfranchised/disadvantaged • I feel a property can only support ONE additional structure. There should not be an option to have multiple structures on the same property unless it is acreage. • Parking is the biggest and most contentious issue with secondary suites of any kind. Recent publicity saw a demand from renters in a secondary suite to be able to park on the street outside of their unit. I believe that neighbours who are homeowners have that right, over and above rental suites. I live in a high-rental area, along with other single family dwellings, and parking outside of my own home becomes a problem. I wonder if the system similar to Whistler's would work here? We have a lot of bare land -could some of those spots become a sort of "overflow parking" area for residents of secondary suites and garden homes? • More info needs to be provided for an acre or more especially in regards to the DGS or secondary suites. Would like to be able to build DGS in front yard as current home front yard faces river, we consider our driveway, garage in our back yard. Property size an +/-acre • You wish to increase population without the infastructure to support it i.e. shopping malls, emergency responders etc. That increases vehicle traffic on our over used roadways • There should be some zoning neighbourhoods that do not allow for ADUs or secondary suites -would even pay higher property taxes for this benefit! Thanks. • Proposed DGS not allowed due to it being in front of main residence. The front of the house actually faces the river in this instance. • We are very pleased that this review is taking place. We are hoping to begin building a DGS in the near future and are anxious for this process to complete. We have acreage property and would love to see the restrictions lifted on square footage and height. • DP & BP processes should be simplified. Permits can be issued based on declaration or verification by a registered professional that plans meet the development bylaw and the building code provisions (same day service). Any disputes can be resolved by a third party arbitration -registered professional. • Woold like to DGS/modular/tiny home in front of house (acreage). More room at front than back. Thank you MR looking after us! • Parking needs to be reviewed per site. If there is adequate parking in the area on street the required stall shouldn't be required. • RS-2 zones need flexibility to add structures to accomodate family. • You purchase your home to live in the lifestyle you chose. Then all of sudden the area is a condenced life style with all the problems of crowded life style and neighbour disputes. If they want this type of dwelling why not us a portion of City owned land such as the acreage on 232 north of Dewdney & place 50 or 60 of these dwellings there & the City rent them out. Leave the rest the way it is. • We defintely need to make it easier for people to be able to afford housing and also help out family members by providing more reasonable housing. 21
• Parking and noise are majore problem when a single family dwelling is rezoned to multi housing. Should council permit the proposed, please ensure enough staff are available to enforce the proposed regulations, parking and noise contra. We live in an area where a number of secondary suites exist. • No modular or container homes. • I think it is time for maple ridge to catch up with the metro vancouver standard. The core of the problem and community opposition to suites is parking. If we solve that problem by requiring and enforcing parking on lots, its not an issue. I don't think hard working families that are willing to rent out a part of their home should be disallowed to do so because of a basic parking issue. Density is not the issue as we are seeing more and more town homes and condos going up in maple ridge and there is never problems with parking there. That is because parking is accounted for and worked into the plans. Thanks for providing this survey. I hope that the bylaws on suites are modernized. • Parking is the core issue. Dant ban suites or DGU because of it. Solve the parking issue by making sure people have a spot on their lot and are actually using it. People fill their double car garages with stuff and don't use them for parking, forcing vehicles onto the street. • Secondary suites and DGS's are a great idea. • This is a great initiative and should be implemented as early in 2018--1st quarter! • I would like to see exploration of having more garden suites on larger properties -not just one. With the cost of properties/housing -it is truly impossible for younger people to buy homes. A family could share the property a-all different ages and the property could remain -INTACT -in the family for the generations. It maintains the green space and keeps the integrity of the neighbourhood. 22 I
APPENDIX 8 DETACHED GARDEN SUITE PILOT PROJECT-PHASE 2 LETTER OF AGREEMENT DRAFT The City of Maple Ridge has launched a pilot project as part of a review of its existing Detached Garden Suite (DGS) regulations. Phase 1 is well underway and the Council has endorsed a process to start a Phase 2 process. On June 19, 2018 Council endorsed Phase 2 with the intent to showcase the following projects: • A Small DGS unit, between 2O.3m (219 ft2) and 36m2 (387ft2); • A Large DGS unit up to 15% of the lot area within the Urban Area Boundary on a lot between 557m2 (5,995 ft2) and 9OOm2 (9,688 ft2) in size; • ASS and DGS on the same lot within the Urban Area Boundary. This Letter of Agreement outlines the timing and the required commitments of the City and all residents participating in the DGS Pilot Project. 1.0 DGS Pilot Project Commitments 2.1 City of Maple Ridge Commitments As a participant in the DGS Pilot Project, the City of Maple Ridge commits to the following: • The City of Maple Ridge will prepare a Look-Book document of background information and conceptual plans for each participating property. • The City intends to produce a Look-book that may include production costs of up to $1,000 per participant property. The City expects that each participating owner will equally share the production cost of the Look-Book and the cost to each owner will depend on how many properties are participating in the Pilot Project. The City will confirm the shared cost by Date TBD. • Information to be included in the Look-Book is as follows: a. Property Owner profiles and DGS story for each Pilot Project property; b. Neighbourhood context; c. Site conditions; d. Site servicing requirements and estimated related costs; e. Site Plan; f. Conceptual elevations. Page 1
• Maple Ridge Planning Department will complete the Look-Book document and present to Council for consideration of endorsement by Date TBD. • Maple Ridge Planning Department will complete Zoning Bylaw text amendments and Housing Agreement bylaws for each participant property and bring to Council for four readings and a public hearing. Third Reading is anticipated to be completed in the second quarter of 2019 and Final Reading is anticipated when participant building permit applications are ready for issuance after a full review by the Building Department. • Arrange for public tours of completed DGS units that will be scheduled for specific days and hours over a period of two months. • Upon completion of the public tours, final occupancy permits will be issued to units that are in full compliance with Building Department requirements. 2.2 Property Owner Commitments To participate in the DGS Pilot Project the property owners must agree to the commitments outlined below and confirm with signature(s) at the end of this document. • Payment to the City of Maple Ridge to cover costs of Look-Book preparation up to $1,000 (amount to be confirmed by City) must be paid by Date TBD; • Provide confirmation to the City, prior to First and Second Readings of the Zoning Bylaw text amendment proceeding to Council, that neighbours on all four sides of the test case property have been contacted and informed on the proposed DGS pilot project. • The property owner must prepare and erect a sign on the subject property by Date TBD, in accordance with the City's Development Sign Policy 6.21, in preparation for the Zoning Bylaw text amendment process; • The property owner will immediately commence preparation of building permit plans desired DGS Pilot Project option(s) immediately after the Zoning Bylaw text amendment(s) receive Third (3rd) Reading; • The property owner will submit a complete building permit application, including application fees, to the Maple Ridge Building Department by Date TBD in order that building permits for DGS construction may be ready for issuance by Date TBD. • The property owner must agree to fully execute a Housing Agreement Bylaw immediately upon adoption by Council and the City will register the executed Housing Agreement Bylaw on the property title, at the property owner's expense, which Housing Agreement will include commitments to: a. Ongoing owner occupancy on the subject property; b. Providing and maintaining one parking stall for the DGS (and one additional stall for a secondary suite if applicable); c. Agree that DGS will not be used as a tourist accommodation; DRAFT --DGS Pilot Project (Phase 2) Letter of Agreement Page 2 ~~..w·c..· ·-··
d. Allowing tours of the constructed DGS unit for Council and the community for approximately two months after receiving preliminary occupancy, but prior to receiving Final Occupancy; e. Permitting the use of personal profile information of property owners and DGS images in ongoing web and print media to further showcase the pilot project outcomes. • The property owner must commence construction immediately upon adoption of the bylaws referred to in this document and ensure that construction of the DGS unit (and Secondary Suite unit where applicable) are complete and ready for receipt of a preliminary occupancy permit by Date TBD. • Upon receiving a provisional occupancy permit for the DGS unit, the property owner must permit public tours of the unit for a two month period; • The property owner and design representative must agree to transfer ownership and copyright of the approved Building Permit plans for the DGS unit to the City of Maple Ridge (in an electronic format), and the City may use such plans as pre-approved DGS building permit plans for the potential use of other Maple Ridge property owners who wish to construct a similar DGS in the future. • Upon completion of the two month public tour period, final occupancy permits will be issued to units that are in full compliance with Building Department requirements. 2.3 Pilot Project Risks • If Council does not endorse Look-Book properties or give appropriate reading to the bylaws referred to in this document, the City of Maple Ridge is under no obligation to permit construction of the options contemplated by the DGS Pilot Project. • All property owners who agree to participate in the DGS Pilot Project do so at their own risk and will not be refunded in any way by the City of Maple Ridge if Council chooses to not proceed with this Pilot Project at any time or you are unable to meet the deadlines or proceed with the Pilot Project. Indemnity • The undersigned Property Owner hereby releases the City and indemnifies the City and saves the City harmless from and against all actions, cause of actions, suits, claims (including for injurious affection), costs, legal fees and expenditures, expenses, debts, demands, losses (including economic loss) and all liabilities of whatsoever kind howsoever arising out of or in any way due to or relating to the City's participation in this Agreement. • Despite any provision in this Letter of Agreement or any subsequent agreement between the City and the Property Owner related to, arising from or pertaining to the development and use of the Property Owner's lands for a Detached Garden Suite, the City is and does not and will not be obliged to indemnify the Property Owner in respect of any expenses, debt, damages, claims or contracted liabilities of whatsoever nature including negligence acts of the Property Owner or Page 3
those contracting with the Property Owner to participate in developing a Detached Garden Suite on the Owner's Property as contemplated in this Letter of Agreement. • The Property Owner must prioritize receiving a building permit to construct a Detached Garden Suite as contemplated by this Letter of Agreement and the Property Owner must provide evidence of insurance (with a minimum value of $1 million) indemnifying the Property Owner against all third party claims of negligence or damage arising/occurring out from the construction and development of the Detached Garden Suite and which insurance indemnifies both the City and the Property Owner for any damage or injury incurred by any member of the public during the tours of the Property Owner's lands and of the Detached Garden Suite. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Letter of Agreement this day of 20 . DGS Pilot Project address: ____________________ _ Property Owner(s) NAME (Please Print) NAME (Please Print) Signature Signature City of Maple Ridge Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory DRAFT --DGS Pilot Project (Phase 2) Letter of Agreement Page 4 ~-.w ___ •••••
BETWEEN: AND: WHEREAS: APPENDIXC Schedule A Part of Bylaw No. DRAFT TERMS OF INSTRUMENT-PART 2 SECTION 219 COVENANT AND HOUSING AGREEMENT (2018-339-RZ) (hereinafter called the "Covenantor") OF THE FIRST PART CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, V2X 6A9 (hereinafter called the "City") OF THE SECOND PART A. The Covenantor is the registered owner of certain lands situated in the City of Maple Ridge in the Province of British Columbia, and more particularly known and described as: PID: LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS (hereinafter called the "Lands"). B. The City has adopted an amendment to the City of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 that authorizes construction of a detached garden suite on the Lands (the "Zoning Amendment Bylaw"), in furtherance of the City's Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project. C. The Covenantor has expressed interest in participating in the Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project. D. The Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project was initiated by the City with the intent of facilitating increased affordable housing choices in Maple Ridge. - 1 -
Schedule A Part of Bylaw No. DRAFT E. The Covenantor and the City wish to enter into this Agreement to set out the requirements for the development and use of the Detached Garden Suite to be constructed on the Lands, to have effect as both a covenant under section 219 of the Land Title Act and a housing agreement under section 483 of the Local Government Act. F. The City has adopted a bylaw under section 483 of the Local Government Act to authorize this Agreement as a housing agreement. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the premises and the covenants herein contained, the payment of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) paid by the City to the Covenantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties covenant and agree, pursuant to section 483 of the Local Government Act and section 219 of the Land Title Act (British Columbia) as follows: Definitions 1. In this Agreement: (a) "Lands" means the land described in Item 2 of the General Instrument to which these, including any buildings now or hereafter located on the aforementioned land, and any part or a portion of such land or building into which said land or building is or may at any time be subdivided; (b) "Design Professional" means the registered architect or other qualified professional retained by the Covenantor to design and prepare building permit drawings for the Detached Garden Suite; ( c) "Detached Garden Suite" has the same meaning as under the Zoning Bylaw; ( d) "Occupancy Permit" means an occupancy permit that is issued in accordance with the requirements of the City of Maple Ridge Building Bylaw No. 6925 -2012; ( e) "One Family Residential" has the same meaning as under the Zoning Bylaw; (f) "One Family Residential Structure" means a building ontaining a one family residential use, whether with or without a secondary suite; (g) "Provisional Occupancy Permit" means a provisional occupancy permit that is issued in accordance with the requirements of the City of Maple Ridge Building Bylaw No. 6925 -2012; (h) "Secondary Suite Residential Use" has the same meaning as under the Zoning Bylaw; and (i) "Tourist Accommodation" has the same meaning as under the Zoning Bylaw. - 2 -
Use and Occupancy Schedule A Part of Bylaw No. DRAFT 2. At all times that there exists on the Lands an authorized one family residential structure, and authorized Detached Garden Suite and an authorized Secondary Suite, one or the other of them must be occupied by the registered owner in fee simple of the Lands as his or her principal residence. 3. The Covenantor must not use or permit the use of the Detached Garden Suite as tourist accommodation. Off Street Parking 4. The Covenantor must provide and maintain a separate off-street parking space on the Lands, in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Bylaw, for each authorized Detached Garden Suite and authorized Secondary Suite Residential Use on the Lands. Development of and Commencement of Occupancy of Detached Garden Suite 5. The Covenantor must: (a) make all reasonable efforts to commence construction of the Detached Garden Suite, in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement, within thirty days following adoption of the Zoning Amendment Bylaw and Housing Agreement Bylaw; and (b) ensure that by TBD, construction of the Detached Garden Suite is completed to the point where the City's Chief Building Official may issue a provisional occupancy permit. Any amendments to this completion date must be mutually agreed upon by both parties. 6. The Covenantor must submit to the City, with the application for a building permit for the Detached Garden Suite, an agreement signed by the Covenantors and the Design Professional, in a form and on terms that are satisfactory to the City, transferring the ownership and copyright in the Design Professional's plans and designs for the Detached Garden Suite to the City, on terms that will allow other residents of the City use of those plans and designs as building permit plans for similar Detached Garden Suites. 7. The Covenantor must not commence the construction of the Detached Garden Suite until the agreement required under section 6 of this Agreement has been delivered to the City. 8. For a period of two months following the issuance of the provisional occupancy permit for the Detached Garden Suite, the Covenantors must not use or permit any use or occupancy of the Detached Garden Suite other than for public tours conducted by the City as part of the City's Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project. 9. The Covenantor must ensure that following completion of the public tour period referred to in section 5, the Detached Garden Suite meets all conditions under the City of Maple Ridge Building Bylaw No. 6925 -2012 for the issuance of an occupancy permit. - 3 -
Specific Performance Schedule A Part of Bylaw No. DRAFT 10. The Covenantor agrees that because of the public interest in ensuring that all of the matters described in this Agreement are complied with, the public interest strongly favours the award of a prohibitory or mandatory injunction, or an order for specific performance or other specific relief, by the Supreme Court of British Columbia at the instance of the City, in the event of an actual or threatened breach of this Agreement. Notice of Housing Agreement 11. For clarity, the Covenantor acknowledges and agrees that: (a) this Agreement constitutes both a covenant under section 219 of the Land Title Act and a Housing Agreement entered into under section 483 of the Local Government Act; (b) the City is required to file a notice of Housing Agreement in the Land Title Office against title to the Lands; and ( c) once such a notice is filed, this Agreement binds all persons who acquire an interest in the Lands as a Housing Agreement under section 483 of the Local Government Act. No Obligation to Enforce 12. The rights given to the City by this Agreement are permissive only and nothing in this Agreement imposes any legal duty of any kind on the City to anyone, or obliges the City to enforce this Agreement, to perform any act or to incur any expense in respect of this Agreement. No Effect on Laws or Powers 13. This Agreement does not: (a) affect or limit the discretion, rights, duties, or powers of the City or the Approving Officer for the City under the common law or any statute, bylaw, or other enactment, nor does this Agreement date or give rise to, nor do the parties intend this Agreement to create any implied obligations concerning such discretionary rights, duties or powers; (b) affect or limit the common law or any statute, bylaw or other enactment applying to the Lands; or ( c) relieve the owner from complying with any common law or any statute, regulation, bylaw or other enactment. - 4 -
Indemnity Schedule A Part of Bylaw No. DRAFT 14. The Covenantor hereby releases the City, and indemnifies and saves the City harmless, from and against any and all actions, causes of actions, suits, claims (including claims for injurious affection), cost (including legal fees and disbursements), expenses, debts, demands, losses (including economic loss) and liabilities of whatsoever kind arising out of or in any way due or relating to the granting or existence of this Agreement, the restrictions or obligations contained in this Agreement or the performance or non-performance by the Covenantor of this Agreement that the City is or may become liable for, incur or suffer. Priority 15. The Covenantor will do everything necessary, at the Covenantor's expense, to ensure that this Agreement is registered against title to the Lands in priority to all liens, charges and encumbrances registered or pending registration against title to the Lands, save and except those specifically approved in writing by the City and those in favour of the City. Waiver 16. An alleged waiver of any breach of this Agreement is effective only if it is an express waiver in writing of the breach. A waiver of a breach of this Agreement does not operate as a waiver of any other breach of this Agreement. Interpretation 17. In this Agreement: (a) reference to the singular includes a reference to the plural, and vice versa, unless the context requires otherwise; (b) reference to a particular numbered section or article, or to a particular lettered Schedule, is a reference to the correspondingly numbered or lettered article, section or Schedule of this Agreement; ( c) article and section headings have been inserted for ease of reference only and are not to be used in interpreting this Agreement; ( d) the word "enactment" has the meaning given to it in the fnterpretation Act (British Columbia) on the reference date of this Agreement; ( e) reference to any enactment is a reference to that enactment as consolidated, revised, amended, re-enacted or replace, unless otherwise expressly provided; -5 -
Schedule A Part of Bylaw No. DRAFT (f) reference to "party" or the "parties" is a reference to a party, or the parties, to this Agreement and their respective successors, assigns, trustees, administrators and receivers; (g) time is of the essence; and (h) reference to a "day", "month" or "year" is a reference to a calendar day, calendar month, or calendar year unless otherwise expressly provided. Further Acts 18. The Covenantor will do everything reasonably necessary to give effect to the intent of this Agreement, including execution of further instruments. Severance 19. If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court having the jurisdiction to do so, that part is to be considered to have been severed from the rest of this Agreement and the rest of this Agreement remains in force unaffected by that holding or by the severance of that part. No Other Agreements 20. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties regarding its subject and it terminates and supersedes all other agreements and arrangements regarding its subject. Enurement 21. This Agreement binds the parties to it and their respective successors, heirs, executors and administrators. - 6 -
Deed and Contract Schedule A Part of Bylaw No. DRAFT 22. By executing and delivering this Agreement each of the parties intends to create both a contract and a deed executed and delivered under seal. As evidence of their agreement to be bound by this Agreement, the Covenantor and the City have executed the Land Title Act Form C or D, as the case may be, attached to and forming part of this Agreement. Dated at Maple Ridge, BC, this ____ day of ______ , 20 . CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE By its authorized signatories: -7 -
CONSENT & PRIORITY Schedule A Part of Bylaw No. DRAFT The Lender in consideration of the payment of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged) hereby consents to the registration of the Covenant herein granted under Section 219 of the Land Title Act, running with the said lands and against the said lands and the Lender hereby postpones all of its rights under the Mortgage and Assignment of Rents registered respectively under No. __ _ and __ (the "Lender Documents") to those rights of the District under the Covenant herein in the same manner and to the same extent and effect as if the Covenant herein had been dated, granted and registered prior to the Lender Documents. - 8 -L '