HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-19 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdf
City of Maple Ridge
1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the June 5, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Community Opinion Poll - Solid Waste Pickup
Staff report dated June 19, 2018 recommending that a non-binding community
opinion poll be administered during General Election Day on October 20, 2018.
4.2 Detached Garden Suites Pilot Project Look-Book Concepts
Staff report dated June 19, 2018 recommending that staff be directed to prepare
zone amending bylaws for test cases in the Detached Garden Suites Pilot Project
Look-Book and that staff be directed to proceed with Phase II of the Detached
Garden Suites Pilot Project.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
June 19, 2018
5:30 p.m.
PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE IN TIME
Council Chambers, 1st Floor, City Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by
the City of Maple Ridge.
REMINDERS
June 19, 2018
Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop Agenda
June 19, 2018
Page 2 of 3
Note: Item 4.3 was deferred from the February 6, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting and
from the June 5, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
4.3 Rental Housing Program: Rental Options for New Development
Staff report dated February 6, 2018 recommending that staff bring forward
reports outlining a Density Bonus approach and a Community Amenity
Contribution approach as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program.
4.3.1 Additional staff report dated March 6, 2018 titled Community Amenity
Contribution Allocations to Affordable Housing (deferred from the March 6,
2018 Council Workshop Meeting)
Note: Item 4.4 was deferred from the June 5, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
4.4 Regional Context Statement Update
Staff report dated June 5, 2018 recommending that the Regional Context
Statement as reviewed be submitted for re-acceptance by the Metro Vancouver
Regional District Board.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
5.1 Upcoming Events
June 20, 2018
8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Indigenous People’s Day, Meadowridge School, 12224 240
Street, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Meadowridge School Students
June 20, 2018
4:00 p.m.
Samuel Robertson Technical School Graduation, Gateway
Church, 2884 Gladys Avenue, Abbotsford, BC
Organizer: Samuel Robertson Technical School
June 21, 2018
6:00 p.m.
Garibaldi Secondary School Graduation, Gateway Church, 2884
Gladys Avenue, Abbotsford BC
Organizer: Garibaldi Secondary School
June 23, 2018
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Aboriginal Day Celebration, Memorial Peace Park, Maple Ridge,
BC
Organizer: FRANAS (Fraser River All Nations Aboriginal Society)
June 23 and 24, 2018
10:00 a.m.
Amateur Radio Field Day, Albion Fairgrounds, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Martin Hill, Club President
June 27, 2018
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Multicultural Day, Memorial Peace Park, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Family Education
Council Workshop Agenda
June 19, 2018
Page 3 of 3
July 1, 2018
12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Canada Day, Memorial Peace Park, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: City of Maple Ridge
July 7, 2018
11:00 a.m.
EID Celebrations, Maple Ridge Public Library, Maple Ridge, BC
Organizer: Maple Ridge Public Library
6. MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: ________________
2.0 Minutes
2.0
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
June 5, 2018
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on June 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the
purpose of transacting regular City business.
0BPRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read P. Gill, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Parks, Recreation & Culture
Councillor T. Shymkiw F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor C. Speirs Services
D. Denton, Acting Corporate Officer
ABSENT
Councillor K. Duncan
Councillor B. Masse
Councillor G Robson
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Note: Councillor Speirs attended the meeting via teleconferencing.
1.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
R/2018-309
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda of the June 5, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting be amended
to add Item 4.7 Pitt Meadows Airport Society – Temporary Board of Directors,
that Items 4.1 to 4.5 and Item 5.1 be deferred to the June 19, 2018 Council
Workshop Meeting and that the agenda be approved as amended.
CARRIED
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
June 5, 2018
Page 2 of 5
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the May 1, 2018 and May 15, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
R/2018-310
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of May 1, 2018 and May
15, 2018 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
Note: Items 4.1 to 4.5 were deferred to the June 19, 2018 Council Workshop
Meeting.
4.1 Maple Ridge Sport Network
Staff report dated May 22, 2018 recommending that the Sport Network
Terms of Reference be endorsed and that a proposed Sport and Physical
Activity Strategy Implementation Plan be provided.
4.2 Rental Housing Program: Rental Options for New Development
Staff report dated February 6, 2018 recommending that staff bring forward
reports outlining a Density Bonus approach and a Community Amenity
Contribution approach as a component of developing a Rental Housing
Program.
4.3 Regional Context Statement Update
Staff report dated June 5, 2018 recommending that the Regional Context
Statement as reviewed be submitted for re-acceptance by the Metro
Vancouver Regional District Board.
4.4 Agri-Food Hub: Maple Ridge Food Hub Implementation Plan Update
Staff report dated June 5, 2018 recommending that the proposed
consultation program for the Maple Ridge Agri-Food Hub Implementation Plan
be endorsed.
Council Workshop Minutes
June 5, 2018
Page 3 of 5
4.5 Tempest Software Program
Presentation by the Chief Information Officer and the Manager of Bylaw and
Licensing Services
4.6 BC Hydro Alouette Water Licence
Staff report dated June 5, 2018 recommending that a Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU”) among Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen First Nation,
Alouette River Management Society (ARMS) and the City of Maple Ridge be
prepared for coordination of an aligned request to BC Hydro regarding fish
passage, compensation and restoration related to the Alouette Watershed;
that a process to engage an independent Project Coordinator be pursued; and
that the MOU and the costs of the project coordinator be brought back to
Council for consideration.
R/2018-311
It was moved and seconded
That a Memorandum of Understanding among Katzie First Nation, Kwantlen
First Nation, Alouette River Management Society (ARMS) and the City of Maple
Ridge be prepared for the coordination of an aligned request to BC Hydro
regarding fish passage, compensation and restoration related to the Alouette
Watershed; and
That a process to engage an independent Project Coordinator be pursued;
and
That the Memorandum of Understanding and the costs of the project
coordinator be brought back to Council for consideration.
CARRIED
4.7 Pitt Meadows Airport Society – Temporary Board of Directors
The Chief Administrative Officer spoke on the requirement of an appointment
to the temporary Board of Directors of the Pitt Meadows Airport Society.
R/2018-312
It was moved and seconded
That for the month of June 2018, Councillor Bob Masse be replaced on the
Temporary Board of Directors of the Pitt Meadows Airport Society by Mayor
Nicole Read.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
June 5, 2018
Page 4 of 5
5. CORRESPONDENCE
Note: Item 5.1 was deferred to the June 19, 2018 Council Workshop Meeting
5.1 City of Langley – Provincial Employer Health Tax
Letter dated May 17, 2018 from Kelly Kenney, Corporate Officer, City of
Langley, urging municipalities to write to the provincial government requesting
the elimination or reduction of the newly implemented Employer Health Tax.
5.2 Upcoming Events
June 6, 2018
6:00 p.m.
Thomas Haney Secondary School Graduation Ceremony,
Queen Elizabeth Theatre, 650 Hampton Street, Vancouver
Organizer: Thomas Haney Secondary School
June 6, 2018
9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
KPU Advanced Manufacturing Meeting & Forum, Kwantlen
Polytechnic University,
Organizer: Kwantlen Polytechnic University
June 7, 2018
1:00 p.m.
Mayor’s Business Walk, E-one Moli Energy, 20000 Stewart
Crescent, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Maple Ridge Economic Development & Civic
Property Department
June 9, 2018
9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
3rd Annual Car Boot Sale, Burnett Fellowship, 20639 123
Avenue, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Burnett Fellowship
June 9, 2018
12:50 p.m.
354 Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps 10th Annual Review,
Maple Ridge Baptist Church, 22155 Lougheed Highway,
Maple Ridge
Organizer: 354 Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps
June 12, 2018
7:00 p.m.
Ridge Meadows College Graduation Ceremony, Riverside
Centre, 20575 Thorne Avenue, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Ridge Meadows College
June 12, 2018
2:30 and 6:30 p.m.
June 13, 2018
10:30 a.m., 2:30 and
6:30 p.m.
June 14, 2018
10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.
Douglas College Summer 2018 Graduation Ceremonies,
Laura C. Muir Performing Arts Theatre, New Westminster
Campus
Organizer: Douglas College
Council Workshop Minutes
June 5, 2018
Page 5 of 5
June 14, 2018 Continuing Ed Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows, School District
No. 42, Riverside Centre, 20585 Thorne Avenue, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Adult Recognition Planning Committee, Riverside
Centre
June 17, 2018
11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Father’s Day Fish Release, Maple Ridge Park, 23200 Fern
Crescent, Maple Ridge
Organizer: Alouette River Management Society & Maple
Ridge Adopt-a-Stream Program
June 20, 2018
4:00 p.m.
Samuel Robertson Technical Secondary School Graduation
Ceremony, Hard Rock Casino Vancouver, 2080 United
Boulevard, Coquitlam
Organizer: Samuel Robertson Technical Secondary School
6. MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS - Nil
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
9. ADJOURNMENT - 6:08 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
D. Denton, Acting Corporate Officer
LF 1970420 Page 1 of 5
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 19, 2018
and Members of Council FILE NO: LF 1970420
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Community Opinion Poll - Solid Waste Curbside Collection
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council has participated in a comprehensive dialogue regarding the potential introduction of a
municipal solid waste curbside collection system. In 2016 Council established the Level of Service
for a municipal solid waste curbside collection system based upon a comprehensive suite, the
summary of which is attached in Appendix A. Council also instructed that staff prepare a Request for
Proposal (RFP) document that is now complete.
In October 2017 Council directed staff to “conduct a plebiscite for the provision of road-side waste
pick-up (garbage and organics) as a municipal service under the following conditions:
a)The plebiscite is open to the complete list of electors for Maple Ridge; and
b)The plebiscite will take place at the same time as the next local government election; and further
c)That the RFP be issued to coincide with the timelines required for information to be relevant for
plebiscite (sic).”
The RFP document will be issued in early July, closing at the end of August. It will require that all
bidders honour their contract prices for a minimum of six months after the RFP closing to allow the
incoming Council adequate time to determine if the City shall proceed with a municipally-
administered solid waste curbside collection program.
In addition to the actual contract costs for collection, there are additional factors to consider in
establishing a solid waste utility charge including the disposal costs, contract administration,
education and pilot projects that when incorporated would equate to the annual per household
charge for consideration in the October plebiscite.
The proposed document that will be presented to voters for consideration on October 20, 2018 is a
non-binding community poll for the collection and disposal of curbside solid waste, as included in
Appendix B of this report. The costs to be included in the proposed poll question will be established
through a report to Council following the close of the RFP process.
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff administer a non-binding community opinion poll as outlined in Appendix B of the June 19,
2018 Council report titled “Community Opinion Poll – Solid Waste Curbside Collection” during
General Election Day on October 20, 2018.
4.1
LF 1970420 Page 2 of 5
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The City is singular in Metro Vancouver in not having a municipal solid waste collection
program, having instead a user-pay system where residents enter into individual agreements
with independent solid waste contractors at a service level that meets their needs.
Alternatively, residents may choose to take their garbage to the Metro Vancouver Transfer
Station in Albion.
Council has deliberated the subject of residential solid waste collection on a number of
occasions in this term as well as previous terms and has received a number of reports
outlining current practices throughout the Metro Vancouver Region (Region) as well as within
the City along with the description of various methodologies and a range of charges to
consider moving forward.
In July 2016 Council provided direction to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) document.
The RFP is based upon the Level of Service determined by Council that includes elements
such as service area; eligible land uses; collection frequency and methodology, supply of
totes and so on.
Establishing a solid waste utility charge includes not only the actual collection contract costs
but also additional factors including disposal costs, the funding of a reserve, contract
administration, education and pilot projects that when incorporated would equate to the
annual per household charge.
Council also provided direction at the October 3, 2017 Council Workshop on the process to
ascertain public support for a municipal solid waste curbside collection program.
b) Desired Outcome:
The issuance of a RFP will determine actual costs for a municipal solid waste curbside
collection program from which an appropriate annual utility charge will be established to
enable residents to indicate their support for a municipal solid waste collection program in a
non-binding community opinion poll on the Election Day, October 20, 2018.
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Should the City implement a municipal solid waste curbside collection program, it is not
expected that those residents receiving the service would experience noticeable changes in
their level of service under the current user-pay system. One difference would be the
standardization of service across the entire area served. It is possible that residents in areas
not served by a municipal collection system may not be able to secure service from a private
hauler given the reduced market share for the private contractors.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Should the City proceed with a municipal collection system that there will be a need to
provide additional staff resources to administer the contract.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
Should a municipal curbside collection system be implemented it will be necessary to create
a Solid Waste Utility, a bylaw to administer the collection and disposal program, and an
amendment to the Financial Plan.
LF 1970420 Page 3 of 5
Given the current private user-pay system the City currently has no labour resources
committed to contract administration and so additional staff resources will be required. In
discussions with staff from other municipalities in the Region, regardless of whether it be in-
house or contracted out service it was noted that garbage related issues from residents are
one of the highest call volumes received.
f) Policy Implications:
The creation and implementation of a municipal solid waste curbside collection program will
require the establishment of a Solid Waste Utility and associated bylaw.
g) Alternatives:
The City may elect to retain the current user-pay private solid waste collection system.
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed document that will be presented to voters for consideration on October 20, 2018 is a
non-binding community poll for the collection and disposal of curbside solid waste, as included in
Appendix B of this report. The costs to be included in the proposed poll question will be established
through a report to Council following the close of the RFP process.
Prepared by: Laura Benson, CPA, CMA
Director of Corporate Administration
Prepared by: David Pollock, P.Eng.
Municipal Engineer
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng.
General Manager Public Works & Development Services
“Or
iginal signed by Paul Gill”
Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
Appendix A - July 25, 2016 Level of Service Decision Matrix
Appendix B – Solid Waste Pickup Community Opinion Poll
LF 1970420 Page 4 of 5
Appendix A
July 25, 2016 Level of Service Decision Matrix
(Council decisions shaded)
Level of Service Option A Option B Option C
1 Frequency of Service Weekly Garbage;
weekly organics
Every-other-week
garbage; weekly
organics
Every -other-week
garbage; every-
other-week
organics
2 Service Area Entire City Areas served by
Ridge Meadows
Recycling Society
Urban
Development Body
3 Collection System Automated Manual No preference
4 Land Uses Included All – Single-family,
townhouses, and
multi-family
Single-family and
townhouses Single-family only
5 Carts – default size 120 L 240 L 360 L
6
Carts – supply &
maintenance (including
option for bear proof
containers)
Contractor City Resident
7 Collection Vehicles Regular fuel Alternative fuel –
LNG or CNG No preference
8 Resident Education Provided by City Provided by
Contractor -
9 Pilot Programs Run by City Run by Contractor None
10 Large Item Pickup Four times per year Two times per year None
11 Hazardous Waste Drop-
Off One time per year Two times per year None
12 Administration City Staff Contractor -
LF 1970420 Page 5 of 5
Appendix B
Solid Waste Curbside Collection - Community Opinion Poll
Do you support paying $xxx per year per household for a municipally-administered waste
pickup service with the following characteristics:
BASE SERVICE:
•Weekly kitchen scraps and green waste pickup;
•Biweekly (every two weeks) garbage pickup;
•One set of totes/cans per household included.
YES NO
Additional information:
•This information is being collected by the City of Maple Ridge as a non-binding, community
opinion poll;
•The results of this community opinion poll are not binding on the current or future Council(s);
•All citizens are being asked to respond, although not all citizens would be immediately
eligible for waste pickup, if the service is implemented;
•The charge will be on the annual property tax bill, and all eligible residences in the service
area will be charged, regardless of whether or not the service is used (no opting out).
•The annual charge approximated in the question is reflective of 2019 costs, and may be
adjusted annually as required to fund the program.
•The results will be received by Council during the November 2018 through November 2022
term; any decisions based upon the information will be up to the future Council(s) to
determine.
Data will be collected in such a manner that results can be calculated separately for the following:
1.Those who currently receive curbside pickup from Ridge Meadows Recycling Society;
2.Those within the service area but who do NOT receive curbside pickup (primarily
apartments);
3.Those outside the service area (primarily houses and townhouses who may become eligible
for service sometime in the future, as areas are further developed.
-1 -
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 19, 2018
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2018-200-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Detached Garden Suites (DGS) Pilot Project – Look-Book Concepts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the May 1, 2018 workshop, Council endorsed a process and timeline for the DGS Pilot Project.
The project is intended to create tangible examples of DGS units to showcase the following:
Allow a Secondary Suite and a DGS on the same lot;
Allow a DGS to be a minimum of 20.3m2 (219 ft2) in size; and
Allow a DGS to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) in size or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less.
Initial steps in the endorsed DGS Pilot Project process involved identifying property owners who were
able to commit to the design and construction of a DGS within a short timeframe, followed by
preparation of a Look-Book conceptual design document.
Notifications through newspaper advertisement and social media were used to solicit interest in
participating in the Pilot Project. About 60 inquiries were received, culminating in a shortlist of six
potential test cases that met the criteria. Of those, four test cases are proposed to be advanced
through the next phases of the project. These four test cases are identified in the attached Look-
Book (Appendix A).
This report discusses the outcomes of the steps taken so far in the DGS Pilot Project and also
presents the Look-Book document for Council to review and consider for endorsement. Upon
receiving Council endorsement of the Look-Book, the next steps will involve bringing Zoning Bylaw
text amendments to Council for First and Second Reading on June 26 th, with an aim to proceed to
Public Hearing and Third Reading by the end of July. As indicated in the May 1st Pilot Project process
Council workshop report, proceeding with bylaw readings as next steps is intended to provide
property owners with a reasonable assurance of Council support before proceeding with preparation
of building permit plans.
Additionally, this report presents a proposed Phase II for the DGS Pilot Project to seek potential
participants interested in constructing smaller DGS units between 20.3m2 (219 ft2) and 36m2 (387
ft2) as well as two or three urban examples of larger DGS units sized at 15% of the lot area.
4.2
- 2 -
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT pursuant with the previously endorsed DGS Pilot Project process, that staff be directed to
prepare zone amending bylaws for the test cases identified in the DGS Pilot Project Look-Book
dated June 2018;
2. AND THAT staff be directed to proceed with Phase II of the DGS Pilot Project , as outlined in the
report titled Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project – Look-Book Concepts, dated June 19, 2018.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
A review of the Zoning Bylaw regulations for DGS and Secondary Suites (SS) was initiated through
Council direction from the August 29, 2016 workshop. Public consultation on potential expanded
options for SS and DGS was undertaken in November 2017 with a DGS workshop and a SS and DGS
public open house. The outcomes of the public consultation were presented to Council at the
February 6, 2018 workshop, wherein exploration of a pilot project was initiated through a Council
resolution.
Council endorsed a process and timeline for the DGS Pilot Project at the May 1, 2018 workshop. The
project is intended to create tangible examples to showcase the following:
Secondary Suite and a DGS on the same lot;
DGS size to be a minimum of 20.3m2 (219 ft2); and
DGS size to be up to 140m2 (1500 ft2) or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less.
The process and timeline for the DGS Pilot Project is shown in the diagram below.
- 3 -
2.0 DISCUSSION
Notification of the DGS Pilot Project was sent out, with information on project details and a response
deadline of May 3, 2018, through a variety of methods including:
Updating the DGS regulatory review webpage with a homepage banner to connect directly to
the DGS webpage;
The City’s FaceBook page and Twitter;
Email to attendees of the November 2017 open house event who requested they be kept
updated on this process;
A newspaper advertisement in the Maple Ridge news on May 4, 2018.
The notifications asked interested property owners to respond with their ad dress, intended Pilot
Project option, and contact information. Approximately 60 inquiries of interest have been received to
date on potential participation in the project, the majority of which expressed interest in the 140m2
(1500 ft2) DGS option.
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 wide range of examples, both urban and rural, depicting a variety
of sizes, DGS forms and designs;
Owners able to meet Pilot Project deadlines and commit to:
o Payment up to $1,000 to contribute to costs for preparation of 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.
Properties within the Agricultural Land Reserve were excluded due to the restrictions and
complexities for accessory dwelling units in the Agricultural Land Commission Act that include:
The accessory unit to be located above an existing building;
A maximum size limit of less than 90m2 (968 ft2);
A requirement that the property must have farm status.
It was also determined that the extra time it would take for property owners to obtain ALC approval
for a DGS on farm property would make participation within the tight project timelines unfeasible.
- 4 -
2.1 Participating Property Owners
The vast majority of inquiries were from property owners with large acreage lots with an interest in
constructing a 140m2 (1500 ft2) DGS as a residence for family members. Three of the project
participant examples are representative of the family situations that have been common amongst
most of the pilot project inquiries, wherein the parents are intending to live in the pri ncipal dwelling
unit and the adult children and grandchildren will reside in the newly constructed DGS. Very few
inquiries were received with regard to constructing an urban example of a DGS up to 15% of the lot
area, a SS and DGS on the same property, or on the option to construct a small 20.3m2 (219 ft2)
DGS.
An interdepartmental working group met and discussed a shortlist of potential participants. After
working through the selection criteria with the inquiries received, a total of six properties were
chosen for the pilot project and the particulars for each are shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Properties Selected for Participation in DGS Pilot Project
Neighbourhood Lot Size Zoning Site Conditions DGS Proposal
1. Rural – Whispering
Falls
1.05
acres
RS-2 water, septic, no-build
area for septic
140 m2 (1500 ft2) unit
2. Rural - Yennadon 1 acre RS-2 water, septic, floodplain,
Wildfire DP Area
140 m2 (1500 ft2) unit
3. Rural – Academy Park 1 acre RS-2 water, septic, outside
Urban Containment
Boundary
140 m2 (1500 ft2) unit
4. Urban – Albion Area 588.30m2 RS-1b fully serviced, new
subdivision, vacant lot
DGS size 47.6m2 (512
ft2) and SS on same lot
5. Urban – Hammond
Area
629.5m2 RS-1 fully serviced lot DGS size 94m2 (1016
ft2) over garage and SS
on same lot
6. Rural – Ruskin Area 1.72 ha RS-3 well water, septic 20.3 m2 (219 ft2) unit
Note: Six properties were initially selected for participation in the DGS Pilot Project process and early on two properties (#5
and #6) either declined or withdrew from participation.
The property owner for the #6 property above determined very early on that the estimated cost for
constructing a second well on the lot to service the DGS would make the construction cost for such a
small unit too high and declined the offer to participate. Additionally, the property owner for #5
withdrew from participation early in the process. A total of four properties (#1 through #4) continue
to remain in the project.
Of the four properties that are remaining in the Pilot Project, the first three in the table above are on
one acre rural properties and each property owner intends to construct the maximum permitted size
unit of 140m2 (1500 ft2). Two of the units will be above a garage, whereas one will be a single storey
at grade. Also, the location of the DGS units will differ on each property, with one in the front yard,
one in the exterior side yard, and one at the rear, due to the location of existing buildings and
configurations of each site.
The #4 property in Table 1 above is an RS1-b urban lot located in a recently completed subdivision in
the Albion Area. The lot is currently vacant and the SS and DGS will be constructed along with the
principal dwelling unit.
- 5 -
2.2 Look-Book Information Gathering Process
Gathering and compiling information for the Look-Book (Appendix A) involved the following steps:
Meeting with each property owner to go through the project commitments outlined in the
Letter of Agreement (Appendix B) and provide additional information that will be helpful
through the process such as:
o DGS building permit guide;
o SS building permit guide (if applicable);
o Erecting sign on property for Zoning Bylaw text amendment;
o A list of key dates and deadlines;
o Handouts (if applicable) for Tree Bylaw and Wildfire DP construction materials.
Confirming with property owners the size, location, and general configuration of the DGS and
required parking on the property for preparation of site plan and conceptual images;
Preparing referrals for each property and sending to the Engineering and Building
Departments to identify and comment on specific requirements early in the process.
Each participant was contacted by a representative from Small Housing BC for a phone
survey to ask questions about their intended DGS, who will be living there, and their
projected construction costs.
Each property owner has signed a Letter of Agreement and paid the $1,000 required fee.
The referral information from Engineering and Building was provided to the participating property
owners, along with direct contacts in the Planning, Engineering and Building Departments to answer
any questions.
2.3 Look-Book Features
The Look-Book document provides an overview of the project, including background, Look-Book
goals, assumptions and exclusions, with the primary focus being on the four participating properties.
Each participating property is identified as a “test case” and the information provided includes:
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;
The requirements identified to date from the Engineering, Planning, and Building
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.
- 6 -
2.4 Project Outcomes To-Date
Allowing for more housing choice and affordability has been the primary goal of the SS and DGS
regulatory review. While the initial intent included facilitating more rental units, only one rental DGS
unit will be created through this Pilot Project. However, all four of the Pilot Project scenarios
represent families in separate households coming together to make an affordable housing choice
that provides not only financial benefits, but also social benefits to their families and ultimately to
the larger community.
2.4.1 Benefits to Families
As discussed in Section 3 above, the majority of inquiries received to date have been from property
owners with large properties interested in having a large DGS where family members may reside. It is
evident that all of the Pilot Project participants were considering options for their family members
prior to commencement of the DGS regulatory review and had either attended the open house event
or were following the process. As affordable homeownership options are dwindling due to increasing
housing costs, families are considering how to best utilize their collective resources to live within the
same community. Through the regulatory review process, many property owners have expressed that
the maximum permitted size of 90m2 (968 ft2) under the current regulations is not large enough for
their adult children and grandchildren, or their downsizing parents, and therefore did not choose to
pursue a DGS until the Pilot Project was proposed. As such, several inquiries for the larger form of
DGS were received prior to the May 1, 2018 Council report outlining the DGS Pilot Project process.
While only one of the participants (in scenario #4) will provide an urban lot example, it will contain a
SS and DGS. The property owners have stated they intend to rent out the DGS and permitting the
option to also construct a SS within the principal dwelling is enabling two related families to live on
the property while generating rental income.
2.4.2 Seeking Small DGS and Urban DGS Examples
Very few inquiries were received on the options for a smaller 20.3m2 (219 ft2) unit, DGS in urban
areas at 15% of lot area, and the SS and DGS on the same lot (although we do have one example of
the SS and DGS in this in the Pilot Project). This may be due to a couple of factors:
The notification period for property owners to confirm interest in the project was a very short
time period of just over one week;
Smaller DGS units are more likely to be for rental purposes and property owners may need
more time to consider and develop this idea, along with financing options, into their
household budget.
It is possible that if a second phase of the Pilot Project were advertised to the community, focusing
on the small units, but also allowing two or three examples of larger units (at 15% of lot area) on
urban sized lots and allowing a longer timeframe for notification and confirmation of interest, more
inquiries and potential project sites could be received. While the timeframe for Phase II would not be
able to coincide with the construction timeframe for the current Pilot Project, as DGS tours are
anticipated to commence in March 2019, it is proposed to follow the same process and include a
second round of DGS tours.
- 7 -
3.0 NEXT STEPS
3.1. DGS Pilot Project Process
The next steps in the process is to bring the Zoning Bylaw text amendments and the Housing
Agreement Bylaw to the next Council meeting on June 26, 2018 for consideration of First and
Second Readings on June 26, 2018. The aim is for the bylaws to be presented at the July 17, 2018
Public Hearing so that Third Reading may be considered by Council on July 24, 2018.
Once the bylaws receive Third Reading, the participating property owners may begin preparation of
their building permit plans in order to meet an application deadline set for August 20, 2018.
Achieving this deadline will provide the Building Department with sufficient time to process each
application by mid-September and then bring the bylaws to Council for final reading and adoption on
October 9, 2018. Building permit plans will not be issued until bylaw adoption and then each
property owner will be required to commence construction with a completion deadline of March 2,
2019. A schedule for the DGS tours is anticipated to be available and promoted in early 2019.
3.2 Proposed Phase II
If Council supports a Phase II for the DGS Pilot Project, as discussed in Section 2.4.2 above, the aim
would be to confirm property owners interested in constructing a:
Small DGS unit, between 20.3m (219 ft2) and 36m2 (387ft2);
Large DGS unit up to 15% of the lot area within the urban area on lot size between 557m2
(5,995 ft2) and 900m2 (8,611 ft2);
SS and DGS within the urban area.
The time proposed for Phase II of the DGS Pilot Project is as follows:
June through September 2018:
o Notifications on Phase II sent out through City webpage, FaceBook, Twitter, emails to
those on “update” list;
o Advertisements put into Maple Ridge News – in June, July, and August
If necessary, staff could also augment the process with a public information meeting as a
further strategy to increase awareness of the ongoing pilot projects.
Confirm up to 10 Phase II participants in the Fall of 2018;
Prepare Phase II Look-Book and present to Council for endorsement in early 2019, with the
intent to continue to follow in the same steps of the current Pilot Project process.
4.0 INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
It is anticipated that Planning staff will continue working on the DGS Pilot Project with the Building,
Engineering, and Fire Departments to respond to participant inquiries, review applications, and work
through the regulatory process towards construction of each DGS Pilot Project unit.
- 8 -
5.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
Should Council have concerns with any of the test cases presented in the Look -Book document and
wish to proceed in a different manner than the recommendations provided in this report, an
alternative to recommendation number 1 has been provided below. Recommendation number 2
remains unchanged.
1. THAT pursuant with the previously endorsed DGS Pilot process, that staff be directed to
prepare zone amending bylaws for test cases [insert test case(s)] identified in the DGS
Look-Book dated June 2018.
6.0 CONCLUSION:
The DGS Pilot Project has been popular early on for property owners intereste d in larger DGS units
for family members. Interest for these larger units was expressed through the public consultation
process in November 2017 and has continued through the Pilot Project participant selection
process. It is clear that allowing these larger units is providing both monetary and social benefits for
the participating families.
With the completion of the Look-Book document, the next steps will be to bring text amendments to
the Zoning Bylaw and Housing Agreement Bylaws to Council for consideration.
While increasing choice and stock for the rental market was a primary goal of the SS and DGS
regulatory review, only one of the Pilot Project examples will result in a rental DGS unit. However,
allowing more time for property owners to consider and investigate the option to construct a smaller
DGS unit, as Phase II to the Pilot Project, may result in more property owners to come forward with
feasible small unit and urban DGS projects.
“Original signed by Brent Elliott” for_____________
Prepared by: Lisa Zosiak, MRM, MCIP, RPP
Planner
“Original signed by Christine Carter”_____________________
Approved by: Christine Carter M.PL., MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”_____________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA. P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Paul Gill”________________________
Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A: The Detached Garden Suite Pilot Project Lookbook
Appendix B: DGS Pilot Project Letter of Agreement
The detached garden suite
pilot project lookbook
June
APPENDIX A
2 | The detached garden suite pilot project lookbook
Contents
Introduction
Background
A new direction:
The detached garden suite lookbook
Lookbook assumptions and exclusions
Property owners and sites selection process
Next steps
Contact
Test cases
#1 126th Avenue
#2 Dogwood Avenue
#3 Ansell Avenue
#4 Morrisette Place
Appendix
A. Acknowledgements
B.Recruitment ad for pilot project
C. Letter of agreement
D. DGS pilot project timeline
E. Engineering servicing estimate
F. Driveway policy
G. Wildfire construction requirements
5–9
12–27
29–39
Introduction
Background
A new direction:
The detached garden suite lookbook
Lookbook assumptions and exclusions
Property owners and sites selection process
Next steps
Contact
5
6
7
7
9
9
Background
What is a detached garden suite?
According to the City of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, a detached garden
suite (DGS) is a:
self-contained dwelling unit, accessory to, subordinate and detached from
a one family residential use, limited to one dwelling unit on the same lot,
located within the rear yard.
In short, a DGS is a fully detached small dwelling placed behind the
principal or main home on a single-family lot. Also known as an accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) or laneway house.
In 2008, the City adopted its DGS program. To date, approximately 40
DGS units have been built. Current ADU regulations allow for units to
be no smaller than 37m (398ft) or larger than 90m (968ft) or 10% of
the lot area. Additionally, a DGS is not currently permitted on a lot with a
secondary suite (SS).*
5 | Introduction
Single family lot
Principal dwelling
Possible
secondary suite
Detached garden suite
* A Secondary suite (ss) is a separate unit within the principal
dwelling or home. For instance, a basement or attic suite. To date, over
600 secondary suites have been built in Maple Ridge.
illustrated example of a detached garden suite
Small Housing BC partnership
In September 2017, the City of Maple Ridge partnered with Small
Housing BC (SHBC)² to explore an expansion of its DGS program
as part of SHBC’s multi-year project Small Housing: Bringing Little
Homes to the City. SHBC is contributing research and writing
skills, as well as leveraging its expert network, towards this
collaboration up until December 2018. The Small Housing project
is developed and managed by SHBC and funded by Vancity,
the Real Estate Foundation of BC and BC Housing’s Licensing &
Consumer Services (formerly the Homeowner Protection Office).
² Small Housing BC is a Vancouver-based non-profit in support of the
promotion and development of smaller housing forms (200 to 1500ft)
across British Columbia. It conducts research, convenes leading thinkers
and engages cities and other key stakeholders to accelerate the uptake
of small forms in our single-family neighbourhoods. For more on this
project and SBHC, see smallhousingbc.org.
Detached garden suite program expansion
Council directed staff to review existing DGS and secondary suite
regulations at the August 29, 2017 Council workshop, and look into
expanding both programs.¹
The review is intended to encourage a greater diversity of housing forms to
help improve housing choice within the community. Through this process,
the City hopes to create more affordable homeownership and rental
choices in residential zones where DGS and SS are already permitted.
On November 16, 2017, City staff brought key stakeholders together—
DGS property owners/developers and industry professionals—to discuss
opportunities around design and policy innovations. This event was
followed by a public open house on November 25, 2017. The City wanted
to gauge the community’s appetite for accessory dwelling units and get
feedback on its proposed ideas to increase DGS and SS uptake in Maple
Ridge. Attendees and the general public were also invited to share their
thoughts and concerns through a questionnaire (which was available
in paper format and online) up until December 16, 2017. The outreach
outcomes were then presented to Council through the February 6, 2018
workshop report. At that meeting, Council directed staff to explore
pathways to allow:
» Detached garden suites and secondary suites on the same lot,
» A minimum DGS size of 20.3m (219ft), and
» A maximum DGS size of 140m (1500ft) or 15% of the lot area
(whichever is less).
On May 1, 2018, City staff presented a pilot project process in a workshop
report to Council that would use real lots and DGS test cases to explore all
three situations; Council endorsed it. This lookbook is step one of this DGS
pilot project.
¹ Scoping reports for the secondary suite and detached garden suite review were presented
to council on September 19, 2017 and October 3, 2017 respectively. Each report outlined a
public consultation process and were endorsed by Council.
A new direction: The DGS lookbook
A lookbook is a conceptual design document. It helps readers better
visualize a project’s development and outcomes by using images and text to
illustrate and describe proposed scenarios.
This lookbook features four real properties in Maple Ridge. While each site
is unique, all homeowners want to build a DGS on his/her lot with features
not currently permitted in existing regulations; this includes the number of
dwelling units per site, and various configurations, forms and sizes. Through
this lookbook, the City is investigating the following test cases:
» Sites with a DGS and SS on the same lot,
» Detached garden suites placed in the exterior side and front yard
rather than the rear yard,
»Units above garages,
» Detached garden suites with a crawl space, and
» Units from 47.6m (512ft) to 140m (1500ft), or up to 7.5m
(24.61ft) high.
To achieve this, the booklet includes contextual and visual information
for each lot, and features: homeowner profiles, site plans and information,
site constraints or issues, servicing requirements, projected costs, and
conceptual designs/elevations to showcase placement and views adjacent
to existing buildings.
6 | Introduction
The goals of this lookbook are:
»To provide council and the community a visual roadmap
through the DGS pilot project
» To help inform Council on required zoning bylaw text
amendments (a prerequisite to the pilot project)
» To identify site challenges and possible solutions (based on
form and lot) that will inform pilot project DGS designs
» To outline site requirements and implications for future DGS
builders/homeowner-developers
» To increase program awareness and DGS/SS uptake overall
» To explore affordable housing options
Property owners and sites selection process
General
The City of Maple Ridge reached out to single-family property owners who
wanted to build a DGS on their owner-occupied lots to collaborate in this
exploratory pilot program expansion.
For participating in this lookbook and pilot, homeowners will have their
zoning bylaw amendment ($1,913) and public hearing ($882) fees waived in
order to develop their DGS; in exchange, the city will explore possible new
DGS arrangegemnts and be gifted access to approved building permit plans
for potential future use as pre-approved plans (subject to copyright). Note:
Eligible property owners are responsible for the work and cost associated with
future building permit plans, obtaining building permit approvals and the
overall construction of their unit. See Appendix C for the letter of agreement
between property owners and the City of Maple Ridge. For more on the pilot
project process, please see the May 1, 2018 Council workshop report.
Outreach
Outreach to potential homeowners for this pilot began after Council
endorsed the DGS pilot project on May 1, 2018. An online banner was
posted on the City’s website, FaceBook and Twitter accounts, and an ad
was put in the May 4t edition of the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows News (see
Appendix B). Attendees from the November 26, 2017 public open house,
who showed interest and signed up for DGS program updates, were also
emailed about the opportunity. The deadline to respond was May 13, 2018;
City staff received over 50 telephone and email inquiries.
Eligibility and requirements
The following variables were considered in selecting property owners and
sites for this lookbook:
» First come, first serve,
» Suitability of site,³
» Showcase a wide range of examples, both urban and rural, that depict
a variety of sizes, DGS forms and designs,
» Willingness by property owners to meet project objectives, timelines
and commitments, including the signing of a letter of agreement
and providing the City a refundable payment of $1000 to cover pilot
project related costs,
» Commitment to commence construction of the DGS immediately
upon adoption of the text amendment to the zoning bylaw and
building permit issuance, and
» Commitment to showcase their property and share their DGS story
once their units are complete.
7 | Introduction
Lookbook assumptions and exclusions
Assumptions
»There is community-wide support for an expanded DGS
program (based on findings from the City’s December 2017
questionnaire results)
» A revised DGS and SS program—with DGS/SS units on the same lot and
smaller minimums and units up to 140m (1500ft)—will encourage the
development of more affordable diverse housing options in the City,
and therefore, greater uptake of the DGS/SS program
» The featured lots demonstrate a cross-section of sites, their constraints
and requirements. This lookbook is intended to help inform future
homeowner-developers on the DGS development process should they
wish to build one on their property and should the pilot project be
expanded city-wide
Exclusions
»Fully designed DGS units; the units included in this lookbook are
concepts only based on initial conversations with the property
owners. One property owner provided preliminary design plans
and these plans were used to inform the concept plan for that site.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the conceptual designs
shown in the lookbook do not depict the style or materials that will be
used for DGS construction, as those details will be determined by each
property owner
» Fully defined costs, for servicing be they selected to servicing,
permitting or construction. The costs presented for each property test
case are order of magnitude in nature at this stage
³ Sites with Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) designation were excluded from this project.
Internal review process
City staff formed an internal working committee with members from the
Planning, Engineering, Fire and Building Departments. The group reviewed
shortlisted property owners, who later met with planning staff to discuss
project requirements and site details. Selected participants also conducted
a 30-minute questionnaire over the phone to learn more about their
property and reasons for building a DGS.
Referrals were drafted and reviewed by a working committee, who
then provided input on site-specific constraints, opportunities and
recommendations.
Final sites
8|Introduction
Test case Address Neighbourhood DGS scenario DGS size
1 26378 126t Avenue Whispering Falls DGS over a garage on acreage 140m (1500ft)
2 23525 Dogwood Avenue Yennadon One-storey DGS located in front yard on acreage 140m (1500ft)
3 12621 Ansell Avenue Academy Park Above garage DGS on front yard of an acreage corner
lot with height at 7.5m and potential crawl space
140m (1500ft)
4 10861 Morrisette Place Albion Area DGS and secondary suite on a single-family lot in a
new subdivision
48m (512ft)
Next steps
Text amendments
Should the test cases included in this lookbook be endorsed by Council,
text amendments⁴ to the zoning bylaw will be made. These will be brought
to Council for first and second readings, with a recommendation that the
amending bylaws go to public hearing and a final reading in fall 2018.
Pilot project and tours
This lookbook is a visual representation of the greater pilot project. If Council
approves a final reading, the homeowners will start construction on their DGS
units. We anticipate this could happen as early as the fall, with the pilot ending
in spring 2019 (see Appendix D for timeline).
In addition to building their new homes, participating property owners
will offer tours of their finished DGS to Council and the public for up to
two months prior to receiving final occupancy. They will also let the City
document their DGS journey by sharing images and their stories online and
through print media in order to showcase the outcomes of this pilot project
and increase awareness of the expanded DGS program. Once the tours are
complete, a final report to Council will be prepared and include:
» An update on lookbook designs and costing information,
» Feedback from property owners on their experience and project outcomes,
» Feedback received from surrounding neighbours on the completed units,
» Lessons learned through the pilot project process, and
» Recommendations on proceeding with an expansion of the DGS
regulations to fully incorporate the pilot project options into the
zoning bylaw.
Contact
For more information on this lookbook, the proposed pilot project and/or
the detached garden suite program, please contact the City of Maple Ridge’s
Planning Department at 604-467-7341 or planning@mapleridge.ca.
9 | Introduction
⁴ The text amendment bylaws are necessary to take these test cases from proposed to
actual DGS developments as part of this pilot project.
Disclaimer
This document was prepared in compliance with municipal
bylaws in effect at the time of the DGS Pilot Project property
inquiries. It is also noted that the information contained in
this document is preliminary and specific to each of the DGS
Pilot Project test cases and that the City’s position may change
if new information arises, or if a test case proposal changes.
Proceeding to DGS construction on the Pilot Project properties
is dependent upon Council approval of zoning bylaw text
amendments for each test case. Prior to proceeding with a
building permit application, all applicants are encouraged to
discuss their proposals with City staff to ensure that the position
noted within this correspondence remains valid, and that the
proposal is in compliance with all relevant and current city
bylaws, policies and objectives.
10 |
“It’s a family plan at this point.”
Keeps our family in Maple Ridge,
allows our children the opportunity
to own a home and the potential for
us to move into the DGS as we get
older. Keeps family close, especially,
if we need a helping hand.
—Brenda Richardson, participating homeowner in DGS pilot
Test cases
Test case #1: 126th Avenue
Test case #2: Dogwood Avenue
Test case #3: Ansell Avenue
Test case #4: Morrisette Place
12
16
20
24
A 140m² (1500ft²) DGS over a garage (with a building height
variance to 7.5m, 24.61ft), located in rear yard, on acreage
with an on-site sewage system.
No. persons in home:2
» With the DGS: 4
(parents, daughter and
husband)
» Ages: 58, 57, 27, 26
Years lived at property:
22 years
What we enjoy most about
our home/neighbourhood:
Safe for kids, neighbours are
respectful and tend to their yards,
it’s quiet
Homeowner profile:Garry and Lesli Altenried
Our detached garden suite (DGS) story:
We’re building a DGS for our daughter and her husband. They both
have good jobs but this allows them a foot in the door and to build
some equity. They will make the mortgage payments on the DGS
(estimate $1500 per month). We wouldn’t stay here if the family
weren’t part of the housing equation; we would look at downsizing.
We’re good for another 10 years or longer.
Test case #1
Site Plan 1. Principal dwelling 2. DGS 3. Parking
Our DGS
Unit size 140m (1500ft)
No. of storeys Two
Design details » DGS constructed over three-car garage
» 2 bedroom and 1 bathroom
» Open concept and contemporary with an
upscale Whistler feel
» Want to keep the same colour scheme and
stonework as the main house
Features » On-demand water and efficient heating
system
» Solar panels are a possibility but depends
on cost
Designer Hiring a professional but researching concepts
Builder Will do the general contracting but have
friends and family to help with framing,
plumbing and electrical hookups; we built our
house 22 years ago
Placement on lot Behind on-site sewage system encumbrance
area in centre rear yard; driveway will extend
to DGS garage
Type of
foundation
Concrete slab
Landscaping DGS will remain surrounded by existing trees
and cedar hedge
Servicing details Municipal water, on septic system
Costs (estimated)» Construction with foundation:
$250,000–$300,000
» Servicing (incl. water, sewage)¹: $7000
» Electrical (BC Hydro): Unknown
» Other: Electrician could be $3000-$10,000
13 | Test case #1: 126t Avenue
*Principal and accessory dwellings. City of Maple Ridge
Bylaw no. 3510-1985: accessory use means customarily incidental,
subordinate and exclusively devoted to the principal permitted
use or uses of land, buildings or structure.
¹ See Appendix E for a blank engineering servicing estimate form.
Site details
Address 26378 126t Avenue
Neighbourhood Whispering Falls
Zone RS-2 (one-family suburban residential)
Lot size 1.05 acres (4260m, 45,854ft)
Lot dimensions Front: 51.77m (169.85ft)
Side east: 62.75m (205.87ft)
Side west: 80.15m (262.96ft)
Rear: 37.96m (124.54ft)
Buildings on-site Principal and accessory dwellings*
Parking Three-car garage below DGS
Servicing Municipal water and on septic
Lot features/
challenges
Slight slope upward from west to east of site;
on septic and municipal water, the DGS may
require a separate septic field
Financials
Property value
()
$826,000
Improvements,
if any
$417,000
City of Maple Ridge departmental
requirements and/or comments²
Engineering
Policy:
» Only one access per lot is permitted, pursuant to Schedule D of the
Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw; proposed DGS to
utilize the existing driveway access off of 126th Avenue (see Appendix
F for Driveway policy)
» This property is located outside the Metro Vancouver Urban
Containment Boundary*
» There is a “no-build” Statutory Right of Way** on file for the subject
site, LMP19851, to maintain area for existing and future septic system
Frontage upgrades:
None
Underground servicing:³
» The existing 20mm water service connection will need to be
disconnected and a new 38mm service installed by City crews at the
applicant’s cost
» Sanitary disposal to be handled on-site via septic field. System may
need expansion with DGS construction. Approvals required through
Fraser Health
» There is no existing storm sewer fronting this property. Storm drainage
to be directed to the ditch fronting the lot. An on-site source control
facility will need to be constructed to effectively deal with the three-
tier stormwater management criteria
Utility works:
» Underground BC Hydro, TELUS services to the property line are
not required
» Coordinate all gas works
Planning
»Property is located in Wildfire Development Permit (DP) Area and
may be required to use fire retardant construction materials, as per
the document guidelines (see Appendix G)
» The Planning Department will bring the following to Council for
consideration and approval:
› Proposed Zoning Bylaw text amendment to allow a 140m
(1500ft) DGS with a building height up to 7.5m (24.61ft)
› Proposed Housing Agreement Bylaw to include:
• Ongoing owner occupancy on the subject property,
• Providing and maintaining one parking stall for DGS,
• Allowing tours of the constructed DGS, and
• Permitting use of personal profile information
Building
See DGS Guide for building permit requirements. Specific comments are
anticipated once complete building permit drawings received and reviewed
14 | Test case #1: 126t Avenue
Sustainability
Additional density on existing lot
Other
»If servicing upgrades or frontage improvements are required, the
applicant will be responsible to provide:
› Engineering construction drawings, and
› Assessment of the condition and capacity of any existing service
connections to the property or municipal system including water
distribution or storm sewer
» The applicant will have the option to have City crews complete the
servicing works or choose a contractor
» Legal/Property Title Documentation:
› Upon Council adoption of the Housing Agreement Bylaw (see
Appendix C, within letter of agreement), the fully executed
document must be registered on the property title through a
Restrictive Covenant***
Recommendations and/or next steps, if any:
»At the time of the building permit application, a detailed review of the
property will be provided by the City
» Prior to proceeding with a building permit application, it is
recommended to contact:
› The Engineering Department regarding site servicing
requirements; and the Planning and Building Departments
regarding any development permits or restrictions that may
apply to the property in question. The applicant will also be
responsible to coordinate all third party utility work including
BC Hydro, Telecommunications and Fortis
² The servicing standards identified below are only approximations and may change
through field verification or bylaw amendments at the time of application.
³ Each property is permitted one water connection, one sanitary connection and one
storm connection. Each connection provided is to be shared by both the existing
house and the proposed DGS.
*The Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) is a regionally
defined area that establishes a stable, longterm footprint for urban
development identified in Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth
Strategy. It can accommodate all growth projected for 2040.
** Statutory Right of Way is a legal term under the BC Land
Title Act: an easement without a designated dominant tenement
registrable under section 218.
*** A Restrictive Covenant is a signed agreement between
a property owner and, in this case, the City of Maple Ridge.
The agreement specifies some restriction of activities or land
use applied to a portion of the property.
top Perspective | Middle South elevation | Bottom West elevation
15 | Test case #1: 126t Avenue
A one-storey 140m (1500ft) DGS, located in the front
yard on acreage with municipal water and sewer service.
No. persons in home:2
» With the DGS: 5
(parents, son and his wife
and child)
» Ages: 60, 62
Years lived at property:
19 years
What we enjoy most about
our home/neighbourhood:
It’s quiet and private, and the
property is big enough that you
don’t see your neighbours as much
Homeowner profile:Brenda and Jim Richardson
Our detached garden suite (DGS) story:
Our property is on a large acreage with the main house (which is a
cottage converted into a rancher from 1956) by the river. Our DGS
would be closer to the road at the front of the property. Our son, his
wife and grandson would live in the DGS.
Test case #2
Site Plan 1. Principal dwelling 2. DGS 3. Parking
Site details
Address 23525 Dogwood Avenue
Neighbourhood Yennadon
Zone RS-2 (one-family suburban residential)
Lot size 1 acre (4047m, 43,561ft)
Lot dimensions Front: 48.22m (158.20ft)
Side east: 70.47m (231.20ft)
Side west: 108.17m (354.89ft)
Rear: 50.70m (166.34ft)
Buildings on-site Principal dwelling
Parking Building a detached two-car garage
Servicing Municipal water and on septic
Lot features/
challenges
Forested, on floodplain,* Alouette River at rear
of property
Financials
Property value
()
$990,000
Improvements,
if any
$135,000
Our DGS
Unit size 140m (1500ft)
No. of storeys One (at grade)
Design details » Country rancher with a double garage off to
the side but connected to the DGS
» 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms
» Want it to blend in nicely with nature and to
complement the main house (although the
DGS may be a bit more modern)
Features Will require fire retardant materials as we’re in
the Wildfire Development Permit (DP) area
Designer Will hire an architect
Builder Currently interviewing builders
Placement on lot Front yard on east side
Type of
foundation
Perhaps concrete slab; also interested to do a
crawl space for storage
Landscaping Remaining forest will provide landscaping
Servicing details Municipal water, installing sewer
Costs (estimated)» Construction with foundation:
$300,000
» Servicing (incl. water, sewage)⁴: $9000
» Electrical (BC Hydro): Unknown
» Other: None
17 | Test case #2: Dogwood Avenue
⁴ See Appendix E for a blank engineering servicing estimate form.
* Site constraints: Areas prone to flooding are designated as
floodplains by the federal and provincial government. Several
municipal policies and regulations reflect this information.
City of Maple Ridge departmental
requirements and/or comments⁵
Engineering
Policy:
Only one access per lot is permitted pursuant to Schedule D of the
Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw; the DGS will utilize the
existing access off of Dogwood Avenue (see Appendix F for Driveway policy)
Frontage upgrades:
Road widening is required under the Schedule D of the Subdivision and
Development Servicing Bylaw (see Appendix F); however, the existing
asphalt width of 6m (19.69ft) provides an adequate level of service for the
road, and as such, the Engineering Department will support a Development
Variance Permit application for Council approval to waive this requirement
Underground servicing:⁶
» The existing 25mm water service connection will need to be
disconnected and a new 38mm service installed by City crews at the
applicant’s cost
» There appears to be an existing service connection that seems to be
adequate for the intended use
» There is no existing storm sewer fronting this property; storm drainage
to be contained on-site, and an on-site source control facility will need
to be constructed to effectively deal with the three-tier stormwater
management criteria
Utility works:
» Underground BC Hydro, TELUS services to the property line are
not required
» Coordinate all gas works
Planning
»Property is located in Wildfire Development Permit Area and may be
required to use fire retardant construction materials, as per the DP
Guidelines (see Appendix G)
» Proposed removal of trees for DGS construction to comply with
requirements in the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No.
7133-2015
» The Planning Department will bring the following to Council for
consideration and approval:
› Proposed Zoning Bylaw text amendment to allow a 140m
(1500ft) DGS that will be located in front yard
› Proposed Housing Agreement Bylaw that includes:
• Ongoing owner occupancy on the subject property,
• Providing and maintaining one parking stall for DGS,
• Allowing tours of the constructed DGS, and
• Permitting use of personal profile information
› A proposed variance to the Subdivision and Development
Services Bylaw to waive road widening requirements
18 | Test case #2: Dogwood Avenue
Building
» This property is located in the floodplain and will require a report from
a professional engineer with experience in geotechnical engineering
certifying that the land may be used safely for the purpose intended,
pursuant to Section 8.3.1 of the Building Bylaw No. 6925-2012
»See DGS Guide for building permit requirements. Specific comments
are anticipated once complete building permit drawings received
and reviewed
Sustainability
Additional density on property
Other
»If servicing upgrades or frontage improvements are required, the
applicant will be responsible to provide:
› Engineering construction drawings, and
› Assessment of the condition and capacity of any existing service
connections to the property or municipal system including water
distribution, storm sewer or sanitary sewer
» The applicant will have the option to have City crews complete the
servicing works or choose a contractor
» Legal/Property Title Documentation:
› Upon Council adoption of the Housing Agreement Bylaw, the
fully executed document must be registered on the property title
through a Restrictive Covenant,
› Upon Council approval of a development variance permit to waive
road widening, as required in Section D of the Subdivision and
Development Services Bylaw (see Appendix F), a notification must
be placed on the property title, and
› The floodplain geotechnical report must be registered on the
property title through a Restrictive Covenant, pursuant to
Section 8.3.1 of the Building Bylaw
Recommendations and/or next steps, if any:
»At the time of the building permit application, a detailed review of the
property will be provided by the City
» Prior to proceeding with a building permit application, it is
recommended to contact:
› The Engineering Department regarding site servicing
requirements; and the Planning and Building Departments
regarding any development permits or restrictions that may
apply to the property in question. The applicant will also be
responsible to coordinate all third party utility work including
BC Hydro, Telecommunications and Fortis
⁵ The servicing standards identified below are only approximations and may change
through field verification or bylaw amendments at the time of application.
⁶ Each property is permitted one water connection, one sanitary connection and one
storm connection. Each connection provided is to be shared by both the existing
house and the proposed DGS.
top Perspective | Middle North elevation | Bottom East elevation
19 | Test case #2: Dogwood Avenue
An above-garage DGS unit with a potential crawl space
(and a building height up to 7.5m, 24.61ft) located in
exterior side yard of an acreage corner lot with municipal
water and sewer service.
No. persons in home:–
» With the DGS: 7
(3 parents, 2 daughters,
son-in-law, grandchild)
» Ages: 82, 51, 51, 27, 26,
25, 2
Years lived at property:
0, moving from Maple Ridge into
new home in July 2018
What we enjoy most
about our new home/
neighbourhood: The view, size of
the property, quiet neighbourhood
and mature landscaping
Homeowner profile:Margaret and Jay Crandell
Our detached garden suite (DGS) story:
We purchased this property because of its suitability for a detached
garage with a garden suite. Our daughter and her family will be
moving from their townhouse into the DGS. We may use the DGS
later on to age in place.
Test case #3
Site Plan 1. Principal dwelling 2. DGS 3. Parking
Site details
Address 12621 Ansell Street
Neighbourhood Academy Park
Zone RS-2 (one-family suburban residential)
Lot size 1 acre (4047m, 43,561.50ft)
Lot dimensions Front: 32.79m (107.58ft)
Exterior Side: 74m (242.78ft)
Interior Side: 86.45m (283.63ft)
Rear: 76.98m (252.56ft)
Buildings on-site Principal dwelling
Parking Two to three-bay garage
Servicing Municipal water and sewer
Lot features/
challenges
» Corner lot, circular driveway provided
access to Ansell and 126t
» In Fraser Sewer Area, but not within regional
Urban Containment Boundary; connecting to
existing sewer will require Metro Vancouver
approval (estimated at six months)
Financials
Property value
()
$1,155,000
Improvements,
if any
$219,000
Our DGS
Unit size 140m (1500ft)
No. of storeys Two
Design details » Two-storey DGS with the second floor above
» 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms
» Traditional or transitional style
» Windows will face the north, to the view; we
want DGS to be compatible, although not a
perfect match, with the main house, as we
may want to upgrade it down the road
Features On-demand hot water and possible hot water
heating
Designer Will hire an architect
Builder We will do the contracting (we built a house
in Maple Ridge 17 years ago)
Placement on lot Side yard, closer to 126t; DGS garage will
access existing driveway
Type of
foundation
Slab on grade but considering a crawl space
for storage
Landscaping DGS location will remain surrounded by
existing trees
Servicing details Municipal water and septic (and possibly
sewer; will need Metro Vancouver approval)
Costs (estimated)» Construction with foundation:
$250,000
» Servicing (incl. water, sewage)⁷: $8000
» Electrical (BC Hydro): Unknown
» Other: None
21 | Test case #3: Ansell Street
“It's a way to help our daughter
and family get into an affordable
detached home.”
—Margaret Crandell
⁷ See Appendix E for a blank engineering servicing estimate form.
City of Maple Ridge departmental
requirements and/or comments⁸
Engineering
Policy:
» Only one driveway access per lot is permitted pursuant to Schedule
D of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw, the existing
access must be used for the proposed detached garden suite (see
Appendix F for Driveway policy)
» This property is outside the Metro Vancouver Urban Containment
Boundary
Frontage upgrades:
Road widening is required to achieve a rural local road standard; however,
the Engineering Department will support a Development Variance Permit
application for Council approval to waive this requirement. The existing
asphalt width for Ansell Street is adequate
Underground servicing:⁹
» The existing 20mm water service connection will need to be
disconnected and a new 38mm service to be installed by City crews at
the applicant’s cost
» The existing sanitary service connection which serves the existing
house appears to be adequate for continued use. However, given the
property is outside the regional Urban Containment Boundary, the
new proposed dwelling will be required to dispose of sanitary sewage
by septic field or if a connection to the sanitary sewer is desired for the
proposed DGS. Metro Vancouver will consider a request for a sanitary
sewer connection if it includes a resolution in support from Maple
Ridge Council
» There is no existing storm sewer fronting this property. Storm drainage
to be handled on-site and overflow to the existing ditch, none to go
to adjacent properties. In addition, an on-site source control facility
will need to be constructed to effectively deal with the three-tier
stormwater management criteria
Utility works:
» Underground BC Hydro, TELUS services to the property line are
not required
» Coordinate all gas works
Planning
The Planning Department will bring the following to Council for
consideration and approval:
» Proposed Zoning Bylaw text amendment to include a building height
increase to 7.5m (24.61ft) and permit DGS location in exterior side yard
» Proposed Housing Agreement Bylaw to include:
› Ongoing owner occupancy on the subject property.
› Providing and maintaining one parking stall for DGS.
› Allowing tours of the constructed DGS, and
› Permitting use of personal profile information
22 | Test case #3: Ansell Street
»A proposed variance to the Subdivision and Development Services
Bylaw to waive road widening requirements
Building
See DGS Guide for building permit requirements. Specific comments are
anticipated once complete building permit drawings received and reviewed
Sustainability
None
Other
» Engineering will support a variance required to waive road upgrade
requirements in the Subdivision and Development Servicing of
Land Bylaw; Planning will send to Council at appropriate time
» If servicing upgrades or frontage improvements are required, the
applicant will be responsible to provide:
› Engineering construction drawings, and
› Assessment of the condition and capacity of any existing service
connections to the property or municipal system including water
distribution, storm sewer or sanitary sewer
» The applicant will have the option to have City crews complete the
servicing works or choose a contractor
» Legal/Property Title Documentation:
› Upon Council adoption of the Housing Agreement Bylaw, the
fully executed document must be registered on the property title
through a Restrictive Covenant, and
› Upon Council approval of a development variance permit to
waive road widening, as required in Section D of the Subdivision
and Development Services Bylaw (see Appendix F), a notification
must be placed on the property title
Recommendations and/or next steps, if any:
»At the time of the building permit application, a detailed review of the
property will be provided by the City
» Prior to proceeding with a building permit application, it is
recommended to contact:
› The Engineering Department regarding site servicing
requirements; and the Planning and Building Departments
regarding any development permits or restrictions that may
apply to the property in question. The applicant will also be
responsible to coordinate all third party utility work including
BC Hydro, Telecommunications and Fortis
⁸ The servicing standards identified below are only approximations and may change
through field verification or bylaw amendments at the time of application.
⁹ Each property is permitted one water connection, one sanitary connection and one
storm connection. Each connection provided is to be shared by both the existing
house and the proposed DGS.
top Perspective | Middle South elevation | Bottom East elevation
23 | Test case #3: Ansell Street
A 47.6m (512ft) DGS and a secondary suite on a new
single-family residential lot within the Urban Area Boundary.¹⁰
No. persons in home:–
» With the DGS: 2 families,
each set of parents has
3 kids
» Ages: 1.5, 5, 5, 7, 9, 13,
35–40 (4)
Years lived at property:
0, moving from Abbotsford into
brand new subdivision
What we enjoy most
about our new home/
neighbourhood: Closer to
school and work, bigger lot
Homeowner profile:Ramandeep and Swarandit Dhaliwal
Our detached garden suite (DGS) story:We’re bringing two
families together to live under one roof and adding a secondary suite
to the new main house (approximately 74m, or 800ft); the DGS in
the back will be rented out for about $900 a month. Later on, we may
move in our aging parents into the DGS.
Test case #4
Site Plan 1. Principal dwelling 2. DGS 3. ParkingWĂƌŬŝŶŐĂŶĚĨŽƌŵŽĨ'^ŝƐƐƚŝůůďĞŝŶŐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚ͘DŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
ǁŝůůďĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĂƚ&ŝƌƐƚĂŶĚ^ĞĐŽŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐƐ͘
Site details
Address 10861 Morrisette Place
Neighbourhood Albion Area Place
Zone RS-1b (one-family urban medium density
residential)
Lot size 588.30m (6332.40ft)
Lot dimensions Front/rear: 15m (49.21ft)
South side: 39.23m (128.71ft)
North side: 39.22m (128.67ft)
Buildings on-site None (part of a new subdivision and new lot
construction)
Parking Concrete driveway to the rear of the house; one
stall for DGS and one stall for secondary suite
Servicing Municipal water and sewer
Lot features/
challenges
Slope and right of way off the rear lot; requires
a 3m (9.84ft) setback
Financials
Property value
()
$384,000
Improvements,
if any
Vacant, new subdivision
Our DGS
Unit size 47.60m (512ft)
No. of storeys One
Design details » Single-storey with 1 bedroom and 1
bathroom
» Contemporary style with a semi-flat roof
» Design is already complete, with the DGS
matching the exterior and colour of the
main house
Features Separate meter for electrical
Designer Method Design
Builder Ricky Flora of Swaraj Developments Ltd.
Placement on lot Rear yard, closer to south side yard lot line
Type of
foundation
Concrete slab
Landscaping New build, will require landscaping
Servicing details Off-site servicing requirements currently under
construction under 2012-109-SD; water, sewer
and drainage at rear of property
Costs (estimated)» Construction with foundation and
Servicing (incl. water, sewage)¹¹:
$60,000
» Electrical (BC Hydro): Unknown
» Other: None
25 | Test case #4: Morrisette Place
¹⁰ Urban Area Boundary is a municipally defined boundary that clearly designates
areas that are identified for urban uses from areas that are identified for suburban
and rural uses. Note: UAB and Metro Vancouver’s Urban Containment Boundary
terms are similar in concept.
¹¹ See Appendix E for a blank engineering servicing estimate form.
City of Maple Ridge departmental
requirements and/or comments
Engineering
Policy:
» Only one access per lot is permitted pursuant to Schedule D of the
Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw; proposed DGS to share
access with future principal dwelling (see Appendix F for Driveway policy)
» There is a 3m-wide (9.84ft) Statutory Right of Way along the westside
of the property for drainage purposes under Plan EPP70728
» All subdivision works must be complete prior to Building Permit
application
Frontage upgrades:
All frontages works along Morrisette Place are currently being constructed
under Subdivision Application File No. 2012-109-SD
Underground servicing:
All utility servicing works along Morrisette Place are currently being
constructed under Subdivision Application File No. 2012-109-SD
Utility works:
» Underground BC Hydro, TELUS services to the property line are
required; this may be accomplished from service dips from existing
overhead wires
» Coordinate all gas works
Planning
The Planning Department will bring the following to Council for
consideration and approval:
» Proposed Zoning Bylaw text amendment to permit a SS and DGS on
the same lot
» Proposed Housing Agreement Bylaw to include:
› Ongoing owner occupancy on the subject property,
› Providing and maintaining one parking stall for DGS,
› Allowing tours of the constructed DGS, and
› Permitting use of personal profile information
26 | Test case #4: Morrisette Place
Building
See DGS Guide for building permit requirements. Specific comments are
anticipated once complete building permit drawings received and reviewed
Sustainability
None
Other
» If servicing upgrades or frontage improvements are required, the
applicant will be responsible to provide:
› Engineering construction drawings, and
› Assessment of the condition and capacity of any existing service
connections to the property or municipal system including water
distribution, storm sewer or sanitary sewer
» The applicant will have the option to have City crews complete
the servicing works or choose a contractor
» Legal/Property Title Documentation:
› Upon Council adoption of the Housing Agreement Bylaw, the
fully executed document must be registered on the property
title through a Restrictive Covenant
Recommendations and/or next steps, if any:
» At the time of the building permit application, a detailed review of
the property will be provided by the City
» Prior to proceeding with a building permit application, it is
recommended to contact:
› The Engineering Department regarding site servicing
requirements; and the Planning and Building Departments
regarding any development permits or restrictions that may
apply to the property in question. The applicant will also be
responsible to coordinate all third party utility work including
BC Hydro, Telecommunications and Fortis
The servicing standards identified below are only approximations and may change
through field verification or bylaw amendments at the time of application.
Each property is permitted one water connection, one sanitary connection and one
storm connection. Each connection provided is to be shared by both the existing
house and the proposed DGS.
top Perspective | Middle South elevation | Bottom West elevation
27 | Test case #4: Morrisette Place
Appendix
A. Acknowledgements
B.Recruitment ad for pilot project
C. Letter of agreement
D. DGS pilot project timeline
E. Engineering servicing estimate
F. Driveway policy
G. Wildfire construction requirements
29
30
31
36
37
38
39
A. Acknowledgements
City of Maple Ridge staff, including:
Lisa Zosiak, planner
Brent Elliott, manager of community planning
Bill Ozeroff, manager of permit services
David Pollock, municipal engineer
Michael Van Dop, deputy fire chief
Eric Morin, subdivision development tech
Participating property owners and
collaborators:
Garry and Lesli Altenried
Brenda and Jim Richardson
Margaret and Jay Crandell
Ricky Flora
Ramandeep and Swarandit Dhaliwal
Small Housing BC, contractors and
design consultants including:
Anastasia Koutalianos
Callahan Tufts
Tracy Ly
29 | Appendix
B. Recruitment ad for
pilot project
30 | Appendix
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Tel: 604-463-5221 • Fax: 604-467-7329
www.mapleridge.ca
DETACHED GARDEN SUITE
PILOT PROJECT
Considering Construction of a Detached Garden Suite?
Detached Garden Suites (DGS) have been permitted in Maple Ridge since 2008. As
part of a process to explore opportunities to expand our DGS program, the City of Maple
Ridge is looking for property owners who are considering constructing a DGS. If you are
interested in one of the following DGS options on your property, we want to hear from
you:
• A Secondary Suite and DGS on the same lot;
• A DGS that is between 20.3m2 (219 ft2) and 28m2 (300 ft2) in size; or
• A DGS that is 140m2 (1500 ft2) in size or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less.
The City is interested in working with property owners who would be willing to showcase
their property and their DGS story once completed. A process to undertake Zoning
Bylaw regulatory amendments will be required for all properties selected to participate.
Property owners will be responsible for the work and cost involved in preparing building
permit plans, obtaining building permit approvals, and undertaking construction*.
The primary benefi t to participating in this pilot project is to help explore these new DGS
forms while also enabling property owners to construct a DGS under special provisions
that would not otherwise be permitted under existing Zoning Bylaw regulations.
Please visit www.mapleridge.ca for more information. If you want to confi rm your interest
in the DGS Pilot Project, or for more information please contact Lisa Zosiak at lzosiak@
mapleridge.ca or 604-467-7383.
Deadline for your interest in participating is Sunday May 13, 2018. Please contact Lisa
with your name, address, and information on DGS option of interest.
* Subject to Council adoption of a Zoning Bylaw amendment.
!%#! % %%#!# %0
*/%
&" )"+$ & "%*&(% *)&(*% (, -% *). )* $ * ($
+ *:;( +"* %$)4 "%*(% * )) +"*%*!&"*-$
/B@AH$
/
B@AI4
$ (+(/ B@AH %+$ " (* * * * %""%- $ * ( %&* %$) %( &%*$* " ( +"*%(/
.&$) %$) %-)* (%+ "%*(% *3
•%$(/+ *$%$* )#"%*2
•# $ #+#% B@4C#B:BAI *B; $) 02
•#. #+#% AD@#B:AE@@ *B; $) 01%(AEL% * "%*(1- ,( )"))4
$
/ B@AH1 %+$ " $%() * "%* (% * &(%)) :) &&$ . ;1 - - "" $,%",
(* $ *$ ".#&")% * %,%&* %$)*%) %-)*%* %##+$ */4
) **(% (#$*%+*" $)* * # $ $* ('+ (%## *#$*)% * */$""() $*)
&(* &* $ $* "%*(% *4
0+/ !%#! %
%""%- $ * #" $%+*" $)* ('+ ()*&) $,%", $* "%*(% *4
31 | Appendix
C. Letter of agreement
Page 1 of 5
!%#! % %%#!# %1
1+/ !%#! %! % %$
1+0 %(! " ! % %$
)&(* &$* $* "%*(% *1* */%
&" %## *)*%* %""%- $ 3
• */%
&" - ""&(&( %%!7%%!%+#$*% ! (%+$ $ %(#* %$$
%$&*+"&"$) %( &(* &* $ &(%&(*/4
• */ $*$)*%&(%+ %%!7%%!* *- "" $"+&(%+* %$%)*)*%*" $ =E1@@@4
*/.&*)* * &(* &* $ %-$(- ""'+""/) (* &(%+* %$%)*% * %%!7
%%!$* %)**% %-$(- ""&$%$ %-#$/&(%&(* )(&(* &* $ $*
"%*(% *4
* ))* #** * &(%&(*/%-$(- ""('+ (*%&/*-$=E@@$
=A1@@@*%&(* &*$(%+&* %%!7%%!&(%+* %$%)*)4 */- ""%$ (#*
) (%)*/ (12)1/054
•
$ %(#* %$*% $"+ $* %%!7%%! )) %""%-)3
4(%&(*/-$(&(% ")$)*%(/ %( "%*(% *&(%&(*/2
4 %+( %%%$*.*2
4 *%$ * %$)2
4 *)(, $ ('+ (#$*)$)* #*("*%)*)2
4 *"$2
4%$&*+"",* %$)4
•
&" "$$ $ &(*#$* - "" %#&"* * %%!7%%! %+#$* $ &()$* *%
%+$ " %(%$) (* %$% $%()#$* $ +$B@AH4
•
&" "$$ $ &(*#$*- ""%#&"*%$ $ /"-*.*#$#$*)$ %+) $
(#$*/"-) %( &(* &$*&(%&(*/$( $ *%%+$ " %( %+(( $ )$
&+" ( $ 1) %""%-)3
oA)*$B$ $ )8 +$B@AH2
o+" ( $ 8 +"/B@AH2
oC( $ 8 +"/B@AH2
o $" $ $%&* %$- ""(%+ **%%+$ "- $+ " $ &(# *)((/
*% ))+ %(& "%*&(% *&(%&(* )8*%(B@AH4
•(($ %(&+" *%+()% %#&"*+$ *)* *- "") +" %()& /)$
%+()%,(&( %% *-%#%$* )4
•&%$%#&"* %$% * &+" *%+()1 $"%+&$/&(# *)- "" ))+*%+$ *)* *( $
+""%#&" $- * + " $ &(*#$*('+ (#$*)4
32 | Appendix
C. Letter of agreement
Page 2 of 5
!%#! % %%#!# %2
1+1 #!"#%(' #! % %$
%&(* &* $* "%*(% ** &(%&(*/%-$()#+)* (*%* %## *#$*)%+*" $
"%-$%$ (#- * ) $*+(:);** $% * )%+#$*4
•/#$**%* */%
&" *%%,(%)*)% %%!7%%!&(&(* %$ $* )* #*
#%+$*% =E@@*%=A1@@@:#%+$**%%$ (#/ */;#+)*& / (15)1/054
• &(%&(*/%-$(#+)*&(&($(*) $%$* )+ *&(%&(*//#()
& 04)
1/051 $%($- * * */5),"%&#$* $%" /F4BA1 $&(&(* %$ %(* %$ $
/"-*.*#$#$*&(%))2
• &(%&(*/%-$(- "" ## *"/%##$&(&(* %$% + " $ &(# *&"$)) (
"%*(% *%&* %$:); ## *"/ *(* %$ $ /"-*.*#$#$*:);( ,#
,2#- 2
• &(%&(*/%-$(- "")+# *%#&"*+ " $ &(# *&&" * %$1 $"+ $ &&" * %$
)1*%*
&" + " $ &(*#$*/&&$%1/)1/05 $%((* *+ " $ &(# *)
%(%$)*(+* %$#/(/ %( ))+$/&*#(AG1B@AH4
• &(%&(*/%-$(#+)* (*% +""/.+* %+) $ (#$*/"- ## *"/+&%$
%&* %$/%+$ "$* */- ""( )*(* .+* %+) $ (#$*/"-%$*
&(%&(*/* *"1** &(%&(*/%-$(5).&$)1- %+) $ (#$*- "" $"+
%## *#$*)*%3
4$ % $ %-$(%+&$/%$* )+ *&(%&(*/2
4(%, $ $# $* $ $ %$&(! $ )*"" %(* :$%$ * %$")*"" %(
)%$(/)+ * &&" ";2
4""%- $ *%+()% * %$)*(+*+$ * %(%+$ "$* %##+$ */ %(
&&(%. #*"/*-%#%$* ) *(( , $ &(" # $(/%+&$/1+*&( %(*%( , $
$"+&$/2
4(# ** $ * +)% &()%$"&(% " $ %(#* %$% &(%&(*/%-$()$ # )
$%$ % $ -$&( $*# *% +(* () %-)* & "%*&(% *%+*%#)4
• &(%&(*/%-$(#+)*%##$%$)*(+* %$ ## *"/+&%$%&* %$% * /"-)
( ((*% $* )%+#$*$$)+(* *%$)*(+* %$% * +$ *:$%$(/+ *
+$ *- (&&" ";(%#&"*$(/ %(( &*% &(" # $(/%+&$/&(# */
#1)1/064
•&%$ ( , $ &(%, ) %$" %+&$/ &(# * %( * +$ *1 * &(%&(*/ %-$( #+)*
&(# *&+" *%+()% * +$ * %(*-%#%$* &( %2
• &(%&(*/%-$($) $(&()$** ,#+)* (*%*($) (%-$() &$%&/( *
% * &&(%, + " $ (# * &"$) %( * +$ * *% * */ %
&" : $ $
"*(%$ %(#*;1$* */#/+))+ &"$))&(7&&(%,+ " $ &(# *&"$)
%(* &%*$* "+)% %* (
&" &(%&(*/%-$()- %- ) *%%$)*(+*) # "(
$* +*+(4
•&%$%#&"* %$% * *-%#%$* &+" *%+(&( %1 $"%+&$/&(# *)- "" ))+*%
+$ *)* *( $ +""%#&" $- * + " $ &(*#$*('+ (#$*)4
33 | Appendix
C. Letter of agreement
Page 3 of 5
!%#! % %%#!# %3
1+2 !%#! %$ $
•
%+$ "%)$%*$%() %%!7%%!&(%&(* )%( ,&&(%&( *( $ *%* /"-)
( (( *% $ * ) %+#$*1 * */ %
&" ) +$($% %" * %$ *% &(# *
%$)*(+* %$% * %&* %$)%$*#&"*/* "%*(% *4
•""&(%&(*/%-$()- % (*%&(* &* $* "%*(% *%)%** (%-$( )!$
- ""$%*( +$ $$/-//* */%
&" %+$ " %%))*%$%*&(%
- * * ) "%*(% **$/* #%(/%+(+$"*%#** " $)%(&(%- * *
"%*(% *4
1+3 %(
• +$() $(%&(*/-$( (/("))* */$ $#$ )* */$),)
* */ (#")) (%# $ $)* "" * %$)1 +) % * %$)1 )+ *)1 " #) : $"+ $ %(
$ +( %+) * %$;1 %)*)1 " " ) $ .&$ *+()1 .&$))1 *)1 #$)1 "%)))
: $"+ $ %$%# "%));$""" " * )% - *)%,(! $ %-)%,(( ) $ %+*% %( $$/
-/+*%%(("* $ *%* */5)&(* &* %$ $* ) (#$*4
•)& *$/&(%, ) %$ $* ) **(% (#$*%($/)+)'+$* (#$**-$*
*/$* (%&(*/-$(("**%1( ) $ (%#%(&(* $ $ *%* ,"%&#$*$+)
% * (%&(*/-$(5)"$) %(* ($+ *1* */ )$%)$%*$- ""$%*
%" *% $#$ /* (%&(*/-$( $()&*% $/.&$))1*1# )1" #)
%(%$*(*" " * )% - *)%,($*+( $"+ $ $ " $*)% * (%&(*/-$(%(
* %)%$*(* $ - * * (%&(*/-$(*%&(* &* $,"%& $ * ($+ *
%$* -$(5)(%&(*/)%$*#&"* $* ) **(% (#$*4
• (%&(*/-$(#+)*&( %( * 0( , $ + " $ &(# **%%$)*(+** ($
+ * ) %$*#&"* / * ) **( % (#$* $ * (%&(*/ -$( #+)* &(%,
, $% $)+($:- * # $ #+#,"+% =A# "" %$; $#$ / $ * (%&(*/-$(
$)* "" * ( &(*/ " #) % $ " $ %( # ( ) $ 6%+(( $ %+* (%# *
%$)*(+* %$$,"%&#$*% * * ($+ *$- $)+($ $#$ )
%* * */$* (%&(*/-$( %($/# %( $ +(/ $+((/$/##(% *
&+" +( $ * *%+()% * (%&(*/-$(5)"$)$% * * ($+ *4
34 | Appendix
C. Letter of agreement
Page 4 of 5
!%#! % %%#!# %4
* &(* ) (*% ,.+** ) **(% (#$** )/%
B@AH4
!%#! %#$$*99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
#!"#%(' #,$-
999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999
:")( $*;
:")( $*;
999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999
$*+( $*+(
%(! "
99999999999999999999999999999999
+* %( 0 $*%(/
99999999999999999999999999999999
+* %( 0 $*%(/
35 | Appendix
C. Letter of agreement
Page 5 of 5
36 | Appendix
D. DGS pilot project timeline
E. Engineering servicing estimate form (blank)
37 | Appendix
Preliminary Engineering Servicing Review-Single Family Dwelling
Property Address
Engineering File No.:Property Inquiry
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT EXTENTION
PRICE
1.0 Water Distriution System (W)
1.1 Watermain 300mm
1.2 Water Service Connection
2.0 Sanitary Sewer (SS)
2.1 San. Sewer Main 250mm (2-2.5m)
2.2 Sanitary Service Connection
3.0 Storm Drainage System (SD)
3.1 Storm Sewer 250mm (2-2.5m)
3.2 Storm Service Connection
4.0 Road Works (A, C, SW, BT, SL, ST)
4.1 Urban Widening 2.5m
4.3 Concrete Curb & Gutter
4.4 Sidewalk 1.6m
4.5 Boulevard Treatment
4.6 Street Trees
4.7 Streetlight c/w ducting
5.0 Underground Wiring (UW)
6.1 Hydro Service to Property
6.2 Gas Service to Property
6.3 Telecomunication Service to Property
10.0 Transportation (TB)
10.1 Transit Bay
10.2 Bike Route
11.0 Miscellaneous
11.1 Latecomer Charges
11.2 Fraser River Escarpment
11.3 Floodplain
PAGE TOTAL
TOTAL $
DATE BY SHEET 1 OF 1
The level of servicing required is based upon the current zoning and site conditions identified through online
mapping and available documentation, no field review or detailed assessment of the property has been
completed at this time. The servicing standards identified below and in the attached cost estimate are only
approximations and subject to change overtime through field verification or bylaw amendments.
38 | Appendix
F. Driveway policy
Schedule D of Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw: Design Criteria Manual (September 2015), pages 18–19;
https://www.mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/6033/Part-1.
To view Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw in full, see:
https://www.mapleridge.ca/DocumentCenter/View/577/Subdivision-and-Development-Servicing.
R13 Driveways
R. Residential Access to Arterial and Collector roads
Residential driveway access to an arterial road is not permitted. Wherever
physically possible, alternate access shall be dedicated to preclude
residential driveways accessing directly onto arterial roads.
Residential driveway access to town center collector roads from properties
with an area less than 370m2 is not permitted, alternate access shall
be dedicated to preclude residential driveways accessing directly onto
collector roads.
R. Number of Driveways
One primary driveway is permitted per property.
A secondary driveway requires approval by the Municipal Engineer and may
be permitted to access land with a physical barrier such as conservation
area or steep slope, upon demonstrated need to support the intended land
use, or for emergency response.
Where a lot abuts roads of different classifications, the primary driveway
shall be located to access the road of the lower classification and secondary
access from the same or higher classification.
Driveway crossings from the road pavement to the property line shall
conform to the applicable standard drawing.
R. Driveway Location and Width
a. Single family urban development’s driveways shall have a minimum
width of 4m and a maximum width of 6m and in no case exceed 50%
of the frontage width. Driveways on corner lots shall be no closer than
7.5m from the lot corner nearest the intersection. All urban residential
driveways with barrier curbs will require letdowns to City standards.
b. Commercial, industrial, institutional, comprehensive and multifamily
development driveways shall have a minimum width of 6m to a
maximum of 9m. For access with center islands the access in shall have
a minimum width of 6m and access out shall have a minimum of 4m.
Driveways on corner lots shall be located no closer than 15m from the
property line of the adjoining road. Where a corner lot adjoins a road
of different classification, the principal driveway shall be constructed
so as to access the road of the lower classification and emergency
access to the higher classification, except for service stations where
access may be provided from both adjoining roads.
R. Driveway Grades
Driveway access grades shall be designed to permit the appropriate
vehicular access for the zone, without “bottoming-out” or “hanging-up”.
From edge of pavement to property line, the driveway shall follow proper
boulevard slope to drain towards the road. For the first 10m on private
property, the maximum grade shall be limited to 10% if accessing a
collector, or if a commercial or industrial zone.
R. Driveway Letdown and Curb Return
At the discretion of the Municipal Engineer, access to large parking areas,
commercial, industrial and multifamily developments may be by curb
returns rather than a driveway letdown.
The Municipal Engineer may require deceleration and acceleration lanes for
access off major roads for safety reasons and to minimize disruption to traffic
flows. Design of such access shall follow the recommendations of the current
Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Highway Engineering Branch
“Design Manual” and TAC “Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads”.
G. Wildfire construction requirements
39 | Appendix
Wildfire Construction Requirements
(Building upgrades to construction in Wildfire Areas with no DP)
Page 1 of 1
"This information is provided for convenience only and is not a substitution of applicable City Bylaws, Provincial or Federal Codes or
Laws. You must satisfy yourself that any existing or proposed construction or other works complies with such Bylaws, Codes or other
laws."
City of Maple Ridge Revised 2018-05-11
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7311 Fax: 604-467-7461
Enquiries only at: buildingenquiries@mapleridge.ca Inspection Requests: inspectionrequests@mapleridge.ca
The following are requirements for Single Family Dwellings and accessory residential buildings being constructed
within Wildfire Areas that do not have a Development Permit registered against title. Buildings constructed within
designated Wildfire Areas are required to upgrade those building elevations that face the forest edge to provide a
more fire resistant elevation to minimize the propagation of fire. The construction of these building elevations
must comply with the following;
Roofing Materials
% Roof materials shall have a Class A or B fire resistance rating as defined in the current BC Building Code.
Examples of typical Class A or B roofing products include (but are not limited to) Asphalt Shingles, Metal,
Concrete Tile, Clay Tile, Synthetic, Slate, Hybrid Composite materials.
Note: Wood shakes & shingles are not acceptable unless certified to Class A or B.
Exterior Cladding
% Exterior cladding shall be constructed of ignition-resistant or noncombustible materials such as;
o Stucco, metal siding, brick, cement shingles, cement board, concrete block, poured concrete,
concrete composite, rock and logs or heavy timber.
Note: Wood & Vinyl sidings are not permitted.
o Decorative construction features such as fascia, trim board materials and trim accents are
exempted from this requirement.
Overhanging Projections & Cantilevered Floors
% Overhanging projections attached to buildings and their support (ie. decks, balconies, porches, structural
columns, beams) shall be constructed of heavy timber construction, ignition-resistant or noncombustible
materials such as those allowed in the “Exterior Cladding”.
% The underside of all exposed floors (i.e. underside of balconies, decks and porches) with clearance less
than 3 feet from the ground, creating a confined space, shall be skirted with fire resistant materials such
as allowed for “Exterior Cladding”, OR noncombustible, corrosion-resistant metal screen with opening not
more than ¼” (6.3mm) in size.
% The underside of all exposed floors with clearance more than 3 feet shall be protected with ignition-
resistant or noncombustible materials such as those allowed under “Eaves, Soffits & Vents”.
% The underside of all cantilevered floors (ie. Bay windows, hutches, window seats) shall be protected with
fire resistant materials & have the floor system fire blocked at the exterior wall plane.
% Areas under all overhanging projections must be kept clear of debris.
Exterior Doors & Windows
% Exterior doors and garage doors shall be of noncombustible construction (i.e. metal clad, solid core wood
or have a 20 minute fire protection rating), and must meet the requirements of NAFS.
% Exterior windows, glazed doors, windows within exterior doors and skylights shall be tempered glass,
multi-layer glazing, or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes, and must meet the
requirements of NAFS.
% Openable windows shall be covered with noncombustible corrosion-resistant screens.
Eaves, Soffits & Vents
% All eaves, ventilation openings in exterior walls and vents through roofs including soffits shall be covered
with noncombustible, corrosion-resistant wire mesh or be designed to prevent flame or ember
penetration into the structure.
% Eaves and soffits shall be constructed of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials.
Chimney
% Spark arrester screens are required on all wood burning appliances.
For more information on this lookbook, the proposed pilot project
and/or the detached garden suite program, please contact the City
of Maple Ridge’s Planning Department at 604-467-7341 or
planning@mapleridge.ca.
DGS Pilot Project Letter of Agreement Page 1
DETACHED GARDEN SUITE PILOT PROJECT
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
The City of Maple Ridge has launched a pilot project as part of a review of its existing Detached Garden
Suite (DGS) regulations. The DGS Pilot Project is scheduled to take place between May 2018 and May
2019. In February 2018 Council directed that the following three options for potential regulatory
expansion be showcased through a DGS Pilot Project:
Secondary Suite and DGS on the same lot;
DGS minimum of 20.3m2 (219 ft2) in size;
DGS maximum of 140m2 (1500 ft2) in size, or 15% of the lot area, whichever is less.
In May 2018, Council endorsed the DGS Pilot Project process (see Appendix A), which will involve
creating tangible examples of the above options to be showcased to the community.
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 Timeline
The following timeline outlines the required steps involved in the DGS Pilot Project.
APPENDIX B
DGS Pilot Project Letter of Agreement Page 2
2.0 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 will include production costs totaling $5,000. 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. It is estimated that each property owner will be required to pay between $500 and
$1,000 to participate and recoup the Look-Book production costs. The City will confirm the
shared cost by May 23, 2018.
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.
Maple Ridge Planning Department will complete the Look-Book document and present to
Council for consideration of endorsement in June 2018.
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, as follows:
o 1st and 2nd Readings – June 2018;
o Public Hearing – July 2018;
o 3rd Reading – July 2018;
o Final Reading and Adoption will be brought to Council when building permits are ready
to be issued for pilot project properties – October 2018.
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.
DGS Pilot Project Letter of Agreement Page 3
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 in the estimated
amount of $500 to $1,000 (amount to be confirmed by City) must be paid by May 28, 2018.
The property owner must prepare and erect a sign on the subject property by Friday, June 15,
2018, 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 August 20, 2018 in order that building permits
for DGS construction may be ready for issuance by September 17, 2018.
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. 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;
d. 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
March 2, 2019.
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.
DGS Pilot Project Letter of Agreement Page 4
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.
2.4 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
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.
DGS Pilot Project Letter of Agreement Page 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Letter of Agreement this day of
2018.
DGS Pilot Project address: _______________________________________________
Property Owner(s)
_________________________________ _____________________________________
NAME (Please Print) NAME (Please Print)
_________________________________ _____________________________________
Signature Signature
City of Maple Ridge
________________________________
Authorized Signatory
________________________________
Authorized Signatory
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: February 6, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Rental Housing Program: Rental Options for New Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Existing City policy encourages the voluntary provision of rental housing, through which 604 secured
rental units have been proposed through recent commercial, market condominium or purpose-built
rental projects. These rental housing units would represent approximately 23% of the total number of
dwelling units being proposed through new development. Building from this success to-date, and in
pursuit of Council direction to identify options to encourage greater rental housing opportunities in
the City, staff and a consultant have prepared an overview of additional options available to the City
related to rental housing.
CitySpaces Consulting, the consultant involved with the development of the City’s Housing Action
Plan, was re-engaged to provide an overview of municipal best practice regarding rental policy and
regulatory options from around the Metro and Fraser Valley regions (Appendix A). While many
municipalities rely on policy and some utilise zoning tools, municipalities such as the Cities of North
Vancouver, Richmond and New Westminster have developed programs that make clear their
respective interests in securing rental units and/or cash in-lieu contributions through new
development. Additionally, in the City of Chilliwack, a non-profit Housing Hub represents an example
of a non-governmental approach towards addressing the rental housing needs in their community.
The policy and regulatory options presented in this report and its attachment are being presented to
inform Council’s deliberation on how to address the matter of securing rental units at the time of
development. In doing so, staff is recommending two options that would augment the City’s existing
voluntary approach, both of which would necessitate follow up reports be brought forward to outline
the necessary policy and/or regulatory amendments, if approved. Alternatively, Council may prefer to
establish a new Community Amenity Contribution (CAC), by increasing the existing CAC contribution
rates, which would be targeted towards affordable, rental and special needs housing.
RECOMMENDATION:
1)That, as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program, staff bring forward reports
outlining:
a)A Density Bonus approach that would optionally require, in exchange for bonus density, the
provision of secured rental units, secured affordable rental units, and/or a cash -in-lieu
contribution;
b)A Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) approach that would maintain existing CAC
contribution rates, but allocate 20% of all CAC funds received towards affordable housing.
4.3
2
BACKGROUND:
On September 14, 2015 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Implementation
Framework. The HAP Implementation Framework builds from the key strategies recommended in the
Housing Action Plan. Strategy Four of the HAP is to Create New Rental Housing Opportunities.
On August 29, 2016, during a follow-up Workshop discussion related to the prioritisation of the list of
available regulatory and infill measures to facilitate the development of greater rental opportunities
in the City, Council directed staff to prepare a detailed report and amending bylaw package for the
following actions:
1. Review and expand the Secondary Suites Program;
2. Review and expand the Detached Garden Suites Program;
3. Permit duplexes in Single Family zones without rezoning, on minimum, lot sizes of 557 m2
in the town Centre and 750 m2 within the Urban Area Boundary; and
4. Develop a policy to support rental units above commercial.
On October 24, 2016, Council directed staff to prepare reports on the following incentives for rental
housing:
1. Fast Tracking Applications
2. Reduce/Waive Development Cost Charges
3. Reduce/Waive Rezoning, Development Permit and Building Permit Fees
4. Payment of Fees for Legal Documents
5. Detached Garden Suites Pilot Project
On September 19, 2017, Council directed staff to initiate a community engagement process to gain
feedback on a number of possible options to expand the City’s Secondary Suites program as part of
the City’s effort to encourage greater rental opportunities in the City, and to report back the results
for next step directions.
On October 3, 2017, in a further effort to foster more rental housing, Council endorsed a community
engagement process to review possible opportunities to expand the City’s exiting Detached Garden
Suite program and to report back outcomes for further direction.
On December 12, following a discussion related to Community Amenity Contribution and affordab le
housing, Council expressed interest in receiving a report outlining options to facilitate the
development of rental housing in the Maple Ridge.
DISCUSSION:
Based on Council’s direction stemming from their August 29, 2016 workshop meeting, staff’s
original focus was the creation of rental housing opportunities above commercial uses. Council has
subsequently been addressing this specific interest as individual applications come forth, each on a
case by case basis.
To date, Council has required residential units above some commercial developments, including
Silver Valley Road and 232 Avenue, and 240 Street and 112 Avenue; however, Council has waived
this requirement for other commercial developments, including the medical building/Doctors office
on Lougheed Highway, just east of 216 Street, and the two commercial developments located at
11951 240 Street (Tim Hortons) and 11939 240 Street.
3
In addition, through ongoing Council conversations, the interest in rental housing has broadened
beyond commercial developments to include other forms of development, notably multi-family
residential projects. Council specifically raised questions about pursing cash in-lieu of the direct
provision of rental units through the evaluation of the rezoning at 22638 119 Avenue and 22633
Selkirk Avenue.
Given the evolution of the conversation on rental housing, and in response to Council’s 2016 and
more recent December 2017 discussions that expressed an interest in examining opportunities to
gain more rental housing stock, staff widened the focus of their original assessment. Staff also
sought additional insights from a consultant, CitySpaces Consulting, given their familiarity with the
City’s and other municipal Housing Action Plans. This report and the attached consu ltant research
brief examines the City’s existing practices to encourage rental housing through development in light
of best practices identified from across the Metro and Fraser Valley regions. The report further
outlines for Council a number of possible options and considerations for facilitating the delivery of
rental housing through both development, be it rental over commercial or market rental through
residential projects.
This staff report is the third report coming forward in response to Council’s interest in creating more
rental opportunities in the City, and relates to the parallel discussion held by Council regarding the
use of Community Amenity Contributions to address housing affordability, in part. Separate and
future reports are anticipated in early 2018, including an assessment of the possible financial
incentive opportunities that may be considered towards incentivising the development of rental
housing in the City. The overall intent of this and the reports to come will be to help establish the
framework for a potential Rental Housing Program in Maple Ridge.
a) Existing Rental Housing Policies
From a review of our surrounding communities in the Metro and Fraser Valley regions, and from the
research undertaken by the consultant, municipalities generally appear to favour policy and zoning
measures to influence the delivery of affordable housing. Typical measures include:
Official Community Plan and Area Plan policies encouraging the provision of housing choice;
Permitting secondary suites or detached suites (a.k.a. garden suites) in single family zones;
Density bonus provisions for affordable housing;
The permitting of infill housing forms (e.g. triplex, fourplex, smaller lots, etc.) in certain single
family zones;
The requirement and use of Housing Agreements to secure affordable housing.
While the City utilises many of the above tools, our approach is fundamentally policy based (as
opposed to reliant on zoning) and is voluntary. Through the City’s Official Community Plan, rental
housing is encouraged:
Policy 3 – 31: Maple Ridge supports the provision of rental accommodation and encourages
the construction of rental units that vary in size and number of bedrooms.
Policy 3 – 32: Maple Ridge supports the provision of affordable, rental and special needs
housing throughout the City. Where appropriate, the provision of affordable, rental, and
special needs housing will be a component of area plans.
4
Consistent with the above direction, the City’s Housing Action Plan establishes as a key strategy the
creation of new rental housing opportunities. As a short term action item, the endorsed 2015
implementation plan suggests the widening of the City’s residential-over-commercial zoning
regulations to include more zones, zones that apply to areas of density transition, as well as the
potential use of density bonuses, and other incentives to foster greater rental housing in the City.
b) Rental Market Snapshot
According to CMHC’s 2016 Rental Market Report, the regional rental market remained tight in 2016.
Strong demand for rental units in the Metro Region outpaced new additions to the supply. Such
pressures caused vacancy rates to decrease while rents continued to rise in 2016. Across the
region, the overall vacancy rate declined to 0.7 per cent from 0.8 per cent in 2015. In the Ridge
Meadows sub-region, a more significant decline was observed with vacancy rates falling from 1.6 in
2015 to 0.5 in 2016. In terms of rents, regionally rents increased by about 6%, resulting in an
average of about $1,200. For our more local sub-region, average rents were seen to be about $864.
Breaking this data down further by structure type, the CMHC average rent data for Maple Ridge
largely focused on private apartment units. In the Ridge Meadows sub-region, there were 1,566
apartment units with the average rents being about $837 in 2016. For comparison purposes, staff
examined how local rents might have changed over the past year by undertaking an assessment of
rental listings in Maple Ridge for the period of October 1st to the 31st, 2017. From the assessment,
staff identified that the average rents for an apartment in Maple Ridge as of October 2017 were
roughly $1,100. As with the CMHC 2016 data, there were few 3+ bedroom apartment rental listings.
c) Rental Units in Stream
Looking forward, staff also examined the future supply of new rental units that are anticipated
through our development process. As of October 2017, there are currently 604 rental units being
proposed through current development applications across the City, with the majority proposed in
the Town Centre.
By comparison, for the same moment in time there were currently about 2,060 units/lots (non-
rental) being proposed across the City. With that, it appears that about 23% of all units currently
being proposed could be rental, pending final reading.
Looking more closely at the 604 rental units that are currently proposed through new development:
66% (397) of the rental units are derived from 3 proposed purpose-built rental buildings;
34% (207) of the rental units are secured market rental units that are either proposed above
commercial uses in various projects throughout the City or form part of a larger market
condo project;
70% (424) of all of the proposed rental units are intended to be in the Town Centre, with the
remaining projects intended for the Port Haney, Silver Valley, or Albion neighbourhoods.
d) Municipal Comparison and Rental Housing Options
Specific to rental housing, the attached CitySpaces Consulting report (Appendix A) takes a closer look
at a number of surrounding and wider Metro municipalities, highlighting the best practices
undertaken towards encouraging and/or requiring the provision of rental units through new
development.
From the research, three possible options have emerged for addressing the delivery of rental
housing in the City:
5
1. Retain the Existing Status Quo:
Going forward, this option would see the City maintain is current use of policy to encourage
the voluntary inclusion of rental housing as a part of either a commercial or residential
development proposal. This option alone is not recommended, but such policies could be
augmented as discussed below, in order to expand the City’s ability to deliver rental housing.
2. Require Rental Housing through a Density Bonus:
Consistent with the approaches undertaken by the Cities of North Vancouver and Richmond,
this option would see City policy and zoning be amended to outline a set of density bonus
regulations that would optionally require the provision of rental housing at the time of
development, only if the developer chose to pursue the available bonused density. That is,
density bonus programs are optional in nature, and as illustrated below, such amenity zoning
would set out both a fixed base level of density available outright to all development and an
optional maximum permissible density that could be achieved should the applicant wish to
provide rental housing as an amenity contribution.
Figure 1: Illustration of Base Density (Light Blue)
and Bonus Density (Dark Blue) as part of a Density Bonus Program
From the Consultant’s report, such bonus density rental requirements could be tiered
depending on the type of rental unit prioritised by the City. For example, for market
condominiums or low-end of market projects (as defined in the Consultant’s report),
policy/zoning could require that 10% of the total proposed number of units be secured as
rental, in exchange for the bonus density. Similarly, should non-market units be prioritised,
the secured rental requirement could be lowered to 5% of the total propose d number of
rental units, in light of the increased cost to provide such units.
Such a density bonus approach could exist in parallel with the City’s existing policies that
encourage the voluntary inclusion of rental housing as part of a proposed development.
Further, and consistent with Council’s October 24, 2016 direction, any rental requirements
premised under a density bonus framework could include additional incentives that may
further encourage the provision of rental units. As noted in the October 2016 Council
discussion, such incentives may include: the covering of legal fees involved in registering
Housing Agreements; reducing rezoning, development permit and/or building permit fees;
fast tracking applications; and/or reducing development cost charges. From their research,
the Consultant has proposed that should Council opt for this direction, that similar to the City
of New Westminster such incentives be offered to help facilitate both increased levels of
6
affordability and the long-term preservation of such rental units, with a focus on secured
terms of at least 60 years (or life of building whichever is greater).
As outlined in the two municipal examples of the City of North Vancouver and City of
Richmond, such a density bonus approach could be further detailed by also outlining
requirements that of the secured rental units provided, that a number also be tailored
towards families by ensuring that a certain percentage of such units are three-bedrooms.
Should Council opt for this approach, management of any directly provided rental options
would require further direction (see below section Management of Rental Housing). However,
it is worth noting that under such an approach, cash-in-lieu of the direct provision of rental
units could still be a choice for future applicants. As in the case of the City of Richmond, a
cash in-lieu contribution may be provided where the small size of a residential project makes
the provision of rental units unfeasible, or where the project is a commercial development.
Based on the above, staff recommends preparing a report to further explore this option,
including identifying any implications to existing land economics and the City’s zoning bylaw.
3. Require an Affordable Housing Community Amenity Contribution
The City currently requires the provision of a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) at the
time of any rezoning, which may be applied at Council’s discretion towards the delivery of
future affordable, rental and special needs housing under the City’s CAC Legislative Policy
6.31. To provide greater clarity, this approach would necessitate that the existing CAC policy
be amended to identify the preferred allocation of all CAC funds received that should be
directed specifically towards the creation of affordable housing in the community. As Council
may recall from its recent December 12, 2017 CAC discussion, such an approach could take
two forms:
i) Council could opt to allocate at least 20% - or as Council may otherwise direct – of all
City-Wide CACs collected directly towards the creation of new affordable housing; or
ii) Council could increase current CAC contribution rates, which would effectively create a
new affordable housing CAC, over and above the CAC rates required across the City. This
approach could be in-lieu of any encouragement or requirement to provide rental units.
As noted in the December 2017 Council discussion, staff acknowledges that the City’s
Development Liaison Committee did not support an increase to our CAC contribution rates,
suggesting that it was too soon as the CAC program was only introduced in 2016. With that,
and in reflection of Council’s recent discussion, staff recommends preparing amendments to
Council’s Policy 6.31 to outline that a minimum of 20% of all City-Wide CAC’s collected be
directly reserved for investments in affordable housing.
In addition to the policy amendments, staff from the Planning and Finance Departments is
also recommending that an amendment bylaw to the City’s existing Reserve Fund be
prepared for Council’s approval.
Key to this cash contribution discussion is the valuation of such cash contributions in
comparison with directly provided rental/affordable housing units. A more detailed
discussion on this latter point is provided below.
7
e) Management of Rental Housing
As outlined in more detail in the attached CitySpaces report, the experience s from Richmond and
Chilliwack’s Housing Hub concept demonstrates that the non-profit sector is increasingly willing to
partner with the development community to administer and monitor rental units once created. As
also evidenced by the Richmond example, the City can play a role in facilitating such arrangements
through the establishment of a list of possible non-profit housing societies interested in managing
market and/or non-market rental housing components proposed through development. A recent
delegation by the YWCA indicated an interest in participating in such a program.
f) Direct Provision of Rental Units vs. Cash In-lieu
Throughout 2017, during the review and consideration of various development applications, Council
has debated the merit of seeking the direct provision of rental units vs. accepting cash in-lieu as part
of either a mixed-use commercial or larger residential condo project.
From the consultant report, it is noted that some municipalities like North Vancouver and Richmond
require the direct provision of secured rental units while New Westminster considers a voluntary
cash in-lieu alternative to the direct provision of rental units.
The evaluation of either seeking a direct provision of rental units and/or accepting a cash in-lieu
alternative depends greatly on the valuation of either the units provided or the cash contribution
rate. For clarity, the term “value” was examined by staff, in working with Rollo + Associates, through
three separate analyses: the construction value required to build one rental unit; the revenue value
expected from one rental units; and the sales value of one rental unit. Combined, these assessments
identified that the typical value of a market condo in Maple Ridge is about $250,000 - $300,000.
Such an achieved value under the direct provision approach would conceivably be challenging to
replicate under a strictly cash in-lieu option, especially if a development proposal had the potential to
contribute multiple rental units. However, it may be more equitable to conceive the value of a cash
in-lieu contribution as not being 100% equivalent to that of a unit gained through the direct provision
approach. Rather, a cash in-lieu option may be more likely to generate 20-25% of the estimated
value of a rental unit, which may be reflective of the typical partnership arrangements (i.e. with other
levels of governments, developers, non-profit groups, etc.) that are often entered into to build a
purpose-built affordable housing/rental project.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Noting the success of the City’s existing policies that encourage the voluntary delivery of rental units
through development, staff has put forth two recommendations that could augment our policy base,
towards directing density bonus incentives along with a specific percentage of CAC amenity funding
to help foster greater rental housing opportunities in the City. Acknowledging that CAC’s are a
requirement of any rezoning, staff note that the proposed density bonus approach would be optional.
With that, staff raises for Council an alternative approach to recommendation 1(b) above that would
establish a clear requirement for development to address the matter of rental housing:
1. b) That, in lieu of the direct provision of rental units at the time of development, staff be directed
to report back on an appropriate increase to the existing Community Amenity Contribution
(CAC) rates in order to create a new Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing CAC.
CONCLUSION:
Rental housing is a key policy interest, as set out in the Official Community Plan and the City’s
Housing Action Plan. Building from the success the City has had to -date in encouraging the voluntary
provision of rental housing through new development; the attached CitySpaces Consulting report
identifies a number of possible approaches to further advance rental housing opportunities in Maple
8
Ridge. From this work, and past discussions with Council and development industry representatives,
this report recommends two options to augment our existing voluntary policy approach; namely, the
development of new zoning that offers bonus density in exchange for the provision of secured rental
housing; and the use of the City’s existing CAC program to clarify and direct that 20% of all
contribution rates received be allocated towards future affordable housing. Alternatively, Council may
prefer to increase the existing CAC contribution rates, effectively creating a new CAC over and above
the current CAC rates required across the City, to be applied towards Affordable, Rental and Special
Needs Housing.
“Original signed by Brent Elliott”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Brent Elliott, MCIP, RPP,
Manager of Community Planning
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng.
General Manager, Public Works and
Development Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn” for
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment: CitySpaces Consulting, Research Brief - Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements, Jan. 31, 2018.
RESEARCH BRIEF
Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements
Prepared for the City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018
Photo: Lotus Johnson, Flickr Creative Commons
APPENDIX A
Table of Contents
Introduction 1 ........................................................................................................................................................
Regional Context 2 ...............................................................................................................................................
Regional Housing Pressures 2 ......................................................................................................................................
Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy 3 ......................................................................................
Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation 4 ...................................................................................................................
Comparable Municipalities 7 ..............................................................................................................................
City of North Vancouver 7 .............................................................................................................................................
City of Richmond 9 ........................................................................................................................................................
City of New Westminster 12 .........................................................................................................................................
Communities in the Fraser Valley 14 ...........................................................................................................................
Summary of Comparable Municipalities 16 ...............................................................................................................
Key Considerations for the City of Maple Ridge 18.........................................................................................
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018
Introduction
The City of Maple Ridge prepared its second Housing Action Plan in 2014. The Plan outlines priority issues
including the need for market rental housing, recognizing that the existing rental housing stock in Maple Ridge
is aging and the demand for rental housing is increasing. The Plan’s Strategy #4 to Create New Rental Housing
Opportunities suggests that the City could secure market rental housing through providing incentives,
including in new mixed-use commercial development projects with rental units above commercial floors.
The City has made progress since adopting the Housing Action Plan, including securing rental housing units:
•As of October 2017, there were 669 proposed rental units across the entire City of Maple Ridge. The
majority of which (489 or 73%) are located within the Town Centre, and the other (180 or 27%) are located
outside the Town Centre.
•As of October 2017, there were 2,060 market condominiums proposed for the entire City of Maple Ridge.
Combined with rental units, there are a total of 2,729 multi-family units being proposed for the City.
The market response to develop more rental housing units is directly responding to the housing need in Maple
Ridge, as well as the overarching rental housing policy established by the City through its Housing Action Plan.
Still, the policy is broad in its description and does not outline a minimum requirement for rental units within
new residential development projects. While it allows for development flexibility, the absence of a minimum
requirement can result in missed opportunities to secure rental housing, including rental housing that is more
affordable to low and moderate income earners.
In addition, since the endorsed Housing Action Plan in 2015, there have been considerable changes to the
market and, on the whole, there are more pressures and demand for rental housing, including market rental
and affordable rental units. This is being observed throughout the Metro Vancouver region, as described in the
regional context section of this report, which is affecting the availability and affordability of the rental housing
supply in Maple Ridge.
In August 2016, City staff were directed to explore the opportunities to include rental housing units over
commercial spaces. This research brief examines the broader perspective of securing rental units through all
forms of development, specifically how a select number of other municipalities in the region are securing
rental housing units in new development projects, with considerations for potential application in the City of
Maple Ridge. This research is an initial first step and it is anticipated that follow-up research will be undertaken
following Council’s direction on next steps.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 1
Regional Context
Regional Housing Pressures
The 2016 census reported the Metro Vancouver region as
having a population of over 2.4 million people, a 6.5%
increase since the 2011 census . Metro Vancouver’s member 1
municipalities that have experienced the most significant
population growth increases are outside Metro Vancouver’s
core, including Maple Ridge (+8.2%), Surrey (+10.6%) and the
Township of Langley (+12.6%)1. The population increases for
these municipalities can be attributed to many factors,
including migration from other areas of the province, the
country, internationally as well as intra-regional migration.
The increased population growth for communities like Maple
Ridge generates pressure on the local housing stock,
including homeownership, market rental and non-market
housing tenures. The median resale housing price in the
region for a detached dwelling is $1.4 million . With fewer 2
households able to enter the homeownership market, the
rental housing supply experiences added pressure. The
region’s overall vacancy rate is 0.7%, with the average rent for
all unit types at $1,223 . The most significant increase in rental 3
households is within the age cohort between 25 and 291, who
are spending more time in school and postponing “family
formation” given the high cost of housing and living. The
supply and demand dynamics of the region have placed
upward pressures on the cost of rent in the region.
The real estate market has responded to the surge of rental
housing demand, and starts for purpose-built rental units in the region have reached record highs3. While
there is movement to create new rental units throughout the region, the region is dredging out of a rental
housing supply deficit from the lack of rental housing construction in the past three decades. And, while new
market rental units are targeting moderate income earning households in the region, the average rents for
these new units remain largely unaffordable for low-income households and vulnerable populations. Over 43%
Statistics Canada, 2016 Census1
Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, December 2016 Market Highlight Report2
CMHC Market Rental Report, 20163
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 2
‣Market rental: Means market rental
units delivered by the private market
with rents determined at fair market
value. This includes purpose-built
rental housing as well as rental
housing delivered through the
secondary rental market such as
secondary suites, rental condominium
units, or other investor-owned
houses/units.
‣Low-end market rental: Means
rental units provided at slightly lower
rental rates than the average market
rental prices. Typically, low end
market rental is provided at 10%
below CMHC average market rents
for the area and households are not
eligible for subsidized non-market
housing.
‣Non-market rental: Means
affordable housing that is owned or
subsidized by government, a non-
profit society, or a housing co-
of renters in the Metro Vancouver region pay greater than 30% or more of their gross income on housing
costs1,. 4
Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy
In response to the regional growth pressures and housing affordability issues, and to advance its’ complete
community goals of Metro 2040 Strategy, Metro Vancouver prepared an update to its’ Regional Affordable
Housing Strategy in 2016. A strong focus of the strategy was on encouraging and facilitating the development
of rental housing throughout the region, outlining specific actions for the region as well as other jurisdictions,
including member municipalities. Specific strategies include:
•Expand the supply of rental housing, including new purpose-built market rental housing.
•Facilitate new rental housing supply that is affordable for very low and low income households, as well as
facilitate non-profit and co-operative housing providers to create new mixed-income housing through
redevelopment or other means.
•Increase the rental housing supply along the Frequent Transit Network (FTN), including to plan for transit station
areas, stop areas and corridors to include rental housing affordable for a range of income levels; as well as
encourage mixed-income rental housing near the FTN.
The Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy outlines specific considerations for municipalities
to implement the above strategies through local plans, policies and programs, as follows:
Table 1: Regional Affordable Housing Strategy - Excerpts for Municipal Considerations
2.f. Offer incentives and using tools that will help
make development of new purpose-built market
rental housing nancially viable (i.e. parking
reductions, fee waivers, increased density, and
fast- tracking) as needed.
3.n. Offer incentives to non-profits and cooperatives
for proposed new mixed income housing (i.e.
parking reductions, fee waivers, increased density,
and fast-tracking) to assist in making these housing
options financially viable.
2.g. Offer incentives and using tools to preserve
and sustain existing purpose-built market rental
housing (i.e. reduced parking, increased density
for infill development, transfer of density, one for
one replacement policies, standards of
maintenance bylaws) as needed.
3.o. Clearly state expectations and policies for
development of new non-profit rental and co-
operative housing.
Andy Yan, 20174
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 3
Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation
The Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation (MVHC) is a non-profit organization that provides affordable
housing for low and moderate income households. The MVHC owns and operates 50 sites with market and
2.h. Facilitate non-profit housing organizations to
purchase existing rental buildings for
conversation to non-profit operation.
3.p. Ensure a portion of amenity contributions or
payments in lieu are allocated for housing
affordable to low and moderate income
households.
2.i. Supporting efforts to reduce rental operating
costs by improving energy performance of
purpose-built rental buildings through the use of
energy efficiency incentives offered by Fortis and
BC Hydro, such as energy advisors, energy
audits, demonstration projects, etc.
3. q. Allocate housing reserve fund monies to
affordable housing projects based on clearly
articulated and communicated policies.
2.j. Establish bedroom mix objectives to
accommodate families in new condominiums
and purpose built rental housing.
3. r. Work with non-profit co-operative housing
providers to address issues related to expiring
operating agreements, including renegotiating or
renewing municipal land leases, if applicable, with
suitable provisions for affordable housing,
facilitating redevelopment at higher density, and/or
other measures, as appropriate.
2.k. Provide clear expectations and policies for
increasing and retaining the purpose-built
market rental housing supply.
4. g. Establish transit-oriented inclusionary housing
targets for purpose built rental and for housing
affordable to very low to low income households
within 800 metres of new or existing rapid transit
stations and 400 metres of frequent bus corridors
that are anticipated to accommodate enhanced
residential growth.
2.l. Require tenant relocation plans as a condition
of approving the redevelopment of existing
rental housing.
4.h. Provide incentives for new purpose-built rental
housing and mixed-income housing located in
transit-oriented locations to enable these
developments to achieve financial viability, as
warranted.
2.m. Ensure that developers notify tenants
impacted by redevelopment of their rights under
the Residential Tenancy Act.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 4
subsidized rental housing for more than 10,000 people in the region, including the Fraserwood Apartment
building located at 22450 121st Avenue in Maple Ridge . 5
The Regional Affordable Housing Strategy outlines specific actions for the MVHC to address regional housing
issues. Specifically:
•Work with municipal partners to identify suitable MVHC sites for redevelopment at higher density to
increase the supply of mixed-income non-profit rental housing, providing that adequate municipal
incentives and / or other funding is available.
•Explore the sale of surplus or under-utilized MVHC sites with proceeds reinvested into other sites that offer
greater opportunity to supply more affordable housing units.
•Explore with municipalities opportunities on municipal sites for expanding the supply of mixed-income
non-profit rental housing.
•Consider management of affordable rental units obtained by municipalities through inclusionary housing
policies, provided the units can be managed by MVHC on a cost-effective basis.
•Create a tenancy management package providing MVHC estimated fees for services to manage, on a cost
recovery basis, various aspects of affordable housing units obtained through municipal policies.
•Explore making available for relocating tenants of redeveloping non-profit and purpose-built market rental
projects rental housing from within MVHC’s existing portfolio of market rental units.
The MVHC has continued to move forward on acquiring more units within their portfolio since the adoption of
the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, through a combination of new-build projects, redevelopment of
existing sites, and acquiring units generated through municipal policies such as inclusionary zoning.
One notable MVHC housing redevelopment currently underway is the Heather Place Redevelopment in
Vancouver. This redevelopment will replace the existing 86-unit townhouse complex with 230 purpose-built
rental apartments consisting of one, two and three bedroom units. As part of the terms established at rezoning,
the MVHC and the City of Vancouver entered into a Housing Agreement in the form of a Building
Use Covenant that requires 23% of future tenants to have rent-geared-to-income (RGI) under the MVHC’s
existing program, while an additional 11.5% will be rented at rates where the maximum occupancy charges are
affordable to households with an income at or below BC Housing’s Housing Income Limits (HILs). Essentially,
the future rents of 34.5% of Heather Place tenants will be calculated at 30% of their gross income, HILs, or less.
Affordable Rental Housing Guide, Metro Vancouver, 20165
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 5
Actively engaged in building their portfolio, there are opportunities for MVHC to work with municipalities, like
Maple Ridge, to invest, develop, redevelop, or acquire units through private market development projects and
public sector partnerships.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 6
Comparable Municipalities
A select number of member municipalities have updated their Housing Action Plans since the adoption of the
Metro Vancouver Regional Affordable Housing Strategy in order to align their local actions with broader
regional initiatives, including requiring rental housing units in new development projects. Others have
developed stand-alone policies to encourage and facilitate more rental housing units in their communities,
many tied directly to a density bonus policy. The following section summarizes these actions.
City of North Vancouver
The City of North Vancouver prepared their first Housing Action Plan in 2016. While the City has implemented
housing policy for decades, this was their first comprehensive review and plan that compiled all City housing
policies in one cohesive document, and one that aligns with the City’s recently adopted Official Community Plan.
Below is a summary of select housing actions from their plan to secure rental housing units.
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City of North Vancouver defines affordable housing as rental housing that is affordable to low to moderate
income households, where households pay 30% or less of their gross income towards housing costs. Within this
broad definition is “mid-market rental units” - commonly referred to as “low-end market rental units”, are units
provided at slightly lower rental rates than the average market rental prices in North Vancouver and “non-market
rental units”, units occupied by households with incomes below the Housing Income Limits (HILs) defined by BC
Housing.
Table 2: City of North Vancouver Definition of Affordable Housing
MID-MARKET RENTAL UNITS
Unit Type Maximum Household Income
Limit for Eligible Applicants Average Rent (2015)Mid-Market Rents
Bachelor $31,400 $876 $788
1 bdrm $37,000 $1,024 $921
2 bdrm $46,000 $1,279 $1,151
3 bdrm $57,000 $1,586 $1,427
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 7
The definition of affordable housing outlined in Table 2 are calculated as follows:
•The maximum mid-market rents are based on 10% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for the City
of North Vancouver, by unit type.
•The maximum household income limits for mid-market rents are determined by calculating what 30% of
gross household income would be for the mid-market rents (rents determined by CMHC).
CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
To incentivize new mid-market rental units, the City utilizes its density bonus tool for new development projects,
where the City requires built mid-market rental units in exchange for additional density (1.0 floor space ratio
density bonus) for new projects. Specifically:
•All new 100% purpose-built market rental development projects seeking the density bonus incentive are
required to provide a minimum of 10% of units as mid-market rental units. All mid-market rental units
generated through private development must be secured up to a period of 10 years.
•In addition, 30% of increment/bonus amount of density is required to be provided as non-market rental
housing, secured in perpetuity.
•Cash-in-lieu contributions are accepted only in unique circumstances, and at the discretion of the City, in
order to assure timely mitigation of additional density in a neighbourhood, when deemed appropriate.
The City of North Vancouver also introduced a new family-friendly housing policy in order to increase the number
of multi-unit housing projects that meets the needs of families, given the current multi-unit stock has limited units
with enough bedrooms to accommodate all members of a family household and given that fewer families are
able to purchase larger units such as single-detached homes. The family-friendly housing policy requires:
•A minimum of 10% of units to be three or more bedrooms for all new multi-unit residential development
projects, including both purpose-built rental housing projects and condo/stratified projects.
In support of the family-friendly housing policy, the City is also looking to update their sustainable development
guidelines to incorporate design considerations that meets the needs of families, such as ground-oriented units,
multi-generational outdoor amenity spaces, and child and youth friendly spaces.
In addition to the above policy, the City may consider bonus density transfer to another site in order to maintain
an existing rental building. For this condition to apply, a recipient site for the density transfer must be determined
in advance, and at the City’s discretion, with a demonstrated business plan to upgrade/repair the existing rental
building.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 8
SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED
The City of North Vancouver planning department provided insight and lessons learned on their mechanisms to
secure rental units. The planning department indicated that the first units of the 10% mid-market units secured for
10 years are currently under construction. They recognized that their incentives have been working in securing
the units in recent developments, however they have not yet had to provide administration for these units. The
City also recognized that there will be a learning curve when these rental units are operational and require
administrative oversight.
The planning department also indicated that, because of increased demand for rental housing, Council has
recently directed staff to research the feasibility of increasing the percentage of required mid-market rental units
in a development from 10% to 20%. Council has also requested whether these units could be secured for a
longer period than 10 years. The planning department recognizes that there is a balance to find with incentivizing
mid-market rental units and also providing more non-market units in the City.
One unique challenge experienced by the planning department is related to their family friendly housing policy.
They have found that feedback has been overall positive, however some family friendly units are being rented to
downsizing retirees. To further incentivize family use of family friendly units, the planning department is
considering opportunities to integrate family-friendly design features into future units to ensure they are matched
to the target population of families. This process has not yet started.
City of Richmond
The City of Richmond initiated an update to their 2007 Affordable Housing Strategy, now their Housing Action
Plan, in 2016. The City undertook community consultation and policy research in 2016-2017, and are currently
drafting the Housing Action Plan, anticipated to be adopted in early 2018. Below is a summary of the supported
policy directions related to securing rental housing units.
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City of Richmond broadly defines affordable housing as rental housing that is affordable to low and
moderate income earners. The City has two affordable housing categories: low-end market rental (LEMR) units,
and non-market rental units. Both of these categories are defined by maximum total household income (to
determine household eligibility for units generated in these categories), and total maximum monthly rent by unit
type. These definitions apply to units secured through new development projects, described further under the
City’s mechanisms to require rental units in new projects.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 9
Table 3: City of Richmond Definition of Affordable Housing
The above definitions of affordable housing are calculated as follows:
•For LEMR units secured through development, income thresholds are based on 10% below BC Housing’s
Housing Income Limits (“HILs”), and maximum rents based on 10% below CMHC’s average market rents
reported for Richmond.
•For non-market rental projects supported by the City, income thresholds are based on 25% below BC
Housing HILs, and maximum rents are based on 25% below CMHC’s average market rents reported for
Richmond. Given the challenges to make non-profit / deeply subsidized housing projects viable, the City
considers flexibility to allow for a range of rent structures in cases where projects are proposed to be 100%
affordable rental (which can include low-end market rental and non-market rental units).
CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The City of Richmond utilizes an inclusionary housing approach to secure rental housing units in new
development projects, where a density bonus is required in exchange for “built” low-end market rental units
secured through a housing agreement registered on title. Since 2007 when the original City’s Affordable Housing
Strategy was adopted, the City had secured 423 LEMR units through development, of which 131 units have been
built.
•At that time, developers were required to contribute 5% of the total residential floor area for development
projects over 80 units as LEMR units in exchange for density bonus.
LEMR UNITS NON-MARKET RENTAL UNITS
Unit
Type
Maximum Total
Household Income
(“Threshold”) for Eligible
Applications
Maximum
Monthly
Rent
Maximum Total
Household Income
(“Threshold”) for Eligible
Applications
Maximum
Monthly
Rent
Bachelor $36,650 or less $759 $28,875 or less $632
1 bdrm $38,250 or less $923 $31,875 or less $769
2 bdrm $46,800 or less $1,166 $39,000 or less $972
3 bdrm $58,050 or less $1,436 $48,375 or less $1,197
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 10
•Also at that time, developers of projects with less than 80 units were required to make a cash-in-lieu
contribution.
As part of the updated Housing Action Plan, the City re-evaluated their policy for percentage requirement and
cash-in-lieu contributions. An economic analysis was undertaken to test the financial viability of increasing the
built requirement, as well as the viability of decreasing the project size threshold from 80 units to smaller 30 to 60
units. As a result of this analysis, the City is supporting the following policy directions in their anticipated Housing
Action Plan update:
•Increase the minimum developer contribution of built units from 5% to 10% total residential floor area,
applied to new multi-unit projects that are 60 units or larger (reduced from 80 units or larger).
•Cash-in-lieu contributions (generated through single-detached, townhouse, and multi-unit residential
rezoning projects) are applied to new development projects that are less than 60 units. Funds generated
through the cash-in-lieu policy are directed to the City’s Affordable Housing Reserve Fund and used to
support affordable housing projects in partnership with the non-profit sector and senior levels of
government.
•As part of the updated Housing Action Plan, the City is raising the cash-in-lieu contribution rates to better
match the built-unit contribution towards supporting future affordable housing projects. The proposed rate
increases were informed by an economic analysis, which found that the City of Richmond’s floor area
contribution rate was higher than the equivalent cash-in-lieu contribution rates in terms of overall value of
affordable housing units produced. To create a more equitable approach, the cash-in-lieu contribution rates
are proposed to be increased to match the “built” value, as illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: City of Richmond Cash-in-Lieu Contribution Rates
In addition, the City is proposing a new policy to generate more family-friendly rental units in new residential
development projects. The family-friendly housing policy will require:
Housing Type Current Cash-in-Lieu Contribution
Rates ($ / square foot)
Proposed Cash-in-Lieu Contribution
Rates ($ / square foot)
Single-detached $2 $4
Townhouse $4 $8.50
Multi-unit Apartment $6 $10 (wood frame construction)
$14 (concrete construction)
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 11
•A minimum of 15% two-bedroom units and 5% three-bedroom units for all LEMR units secured in new
development projects.
Overtime, the City will monitor the policy and unit absorption and consider applying the same required
percentage of family-friendly units in all new market rental development projects.
The City has also established minimum LEMR unit sizes and are considering waiving development cost charges if
LEMR units are purchased by a non-profit housing society. The City has also made a commitment to facilitate
potential partnerships between developers and non-profit housing societies in the pre-application and rezoning
stages of development projects to address the management and administration of LEMR units generated
through private market development projects. The City, through its Housing Action Plan implementation, will be
issuing a RFP to create a pre-approved list of non-profit housing providers that can be informed about and
potentially partner on development opportunities to manage LEMR units.
SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED
The City of Richmond’s planning department provided insights and lessons learned on their mechanisms to
secure rental units. The planning department indicated that they recently implemented a policy change from 5%
of total residential floor area for projects of 80 units or more to 10% of total residential floor area for projects of
60 units or more. While 423 LEMR units were secured under the previous requirements, a couple of new
applications have been submitted under the new requirements but none have reached the housing agreement
stage yet.
The planning department had also made changes to requirements based on operational challenges for the low-
end of market units. To make it easier for operators, the City is encouraging low-end of market units to be
clustered in a development, rather than equally distributed across a project. This change is based on Council
direction to limit City involvement in management of the units and incentivize non-profit operators to become
involved. The planning department is also looking for ways to facilitate relationships between the non-profit
sector and developers, including creating a pre-qualified list of non-profit operators. The hope is to involve non-
profits in the development process early on to ensure success with non-profit friendly design and operations.
City of New Westminster
The City of New Westminster prepared an Affordable Housing Strategy in 2010, which was an update to their
original 1998 housing strategy. A key goal of this plan was to preserve and enhance the City’s rental housing
supply, and particularly housing for low and moderate income households. The following summarizes how the
City of New Westminster defines housing affordability, and an overview of their secured market rental housing
policy.
DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City has a broad definition of affordable housing in their community, as described in their 2010 Affordable
Housing Strategy:
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 12
•“Affordable housing is homeownership and rental housing for low and moderate income households that
does not cost a household more than 30% of its gross income (before-tax)”.
CURRENT MECHANISMS TO SECURE RENTAL UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The City of New Westminster has implemented actions within their Affordable Housing Strategy since its
adoption, including a policy for secured market rental housing originally prepared in 2013. The policy utilizes
financial incentives and bylaw regulations in order to retain and renew the existing rental housing supply and
to encourage the creation of new rental housing units.
•The City of New Westminster’s Secured Market Rental Housing Policy is designed to reduce the financial gap
between rental housing development and market ownership development towards making purpose-built
rental housing projects more likely to be viable.
Within this context, the City of New Westminster has three types of secured market rental housing categories: (i)
long-term; (ii) medium term; and, (iii) short-term. The City provides the most incentives for the long-term secured
rental housing projects, and less incentives/less certainty for medium and short-term projects.
•Long-term secured market rental housing projects: purpose-built rental housing units secured for 60 years or
the life of the building, whichever is greater. Incentive tools include density bonus, reduction in building
permit fees (50%), concurrent rezoning and development permit application process, and City payments for
legal fees to prepare housing agreement and covenant documents. Parking reduction incentives are
provided for sites located within 400m of skytrain stations, along the Frequent Transit Network or the
downtown, and payment in-lieu of parking for further relaxations on sites within 400m to transit.
•Medium-term secured market rental housing projects: are also purpose-built rental housing units, secured for
30 to 59 years. For this category, the City may offer most of the same incentives as the long-term secured
market rental housing projects (reduction in building permit fees, concurrent rezoning and development
permit process, and payment of legal fees). Outright parking reductions are not offered for this category,
however parking variances may be considered. The City uses their discretion to grant incentives, depending
on the model and program proposed.
•Short-term secured market rental housing projects: are also purpose-built rental housing projects, secured for
a minimum of 10 years. The City only offers an incentive to pay for legal fees to prepare and register housing
agreements and covenant documents. Outright parking reductions are not offered for this category, however
parking variances may be considered.
In New Westminster, there is no required percentage of units to be secured as market rental. The program is
voluntary for private developers if they wish to pursue the incentives. In some cases, the City may receive
applications that have a rental market component (not 100% purpose-built) which, at the City’s discretion, may
offer incentives for a component/portion of the project (i.e. 50% purpose-built may be offered half the density
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 13
bonus increase compared to 100% purpose-built rental projects). The City considers these on a case by case
basis and within the neighbourhood, location and scale context.
The New Westminster secured market rental policy and incentives are only geared towards market rental units,
and does not include low-end market rental units or non-market rental units. However, the City, through its
complementary Affordable Housing Strategy actions, encourages the inclusion of low-end market rental and non-
market units in these projects, but is not a requirement. The City also does not offer cash-in-lieu as a substitute for
built units, only payment-in-lieu for parking spaces.
In addition, the City of New Westminster was the first municipality in Metro Vancouver to introduce a family-
friendly housing requirement for all new multi-unit development projects, in 2015. The family-friendly housing
policy requires:
•For new multi-unit purpose-built rental projects, a minimum of 25% two and three bedroom units, and of
those 25% a minimum of 5% three or more bedroom units.
•For new multi-unit ownership/condominium projects, a minimum of 30% two and three bedroom units, and
of those 30% a minimum of 10% three or more bedroom units.
SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS LEARNED
The City of New Westminster’s planning department shared insights and lessons learned on their mechanisms to
secure rental units. The planning department noted that they have received comments from developers that the
bonus density and the parking reductions have been significant factors in encouraging rental development. As of
January 2018, 330 secured market rental units have been completed through the policy. In addition, another 784
secured market rental units are under construction and 298 secured market rental units are currently going
through the development approvals process. The policy has been especially effective at encouraging new market
rental units in the downtown area.
The planning department recognized that there is also need to balance market rental with non-market rental
housing. The city is currently undertaking research related to other initiatives that could create more affordable
rental housing.
Communities in the Fraser Valley
The City of Abbotsford, the City of Chiliwack and the District of Mission all have Affordable Housing Strategies,
prepared in 2011, 2008 and 2010, respectively.
The City of Abbotsford defines affordable housing within their Affordable Housing Strategy:
•“Affordable housing is when housing costs (rent or mortgage and property taxes, plus heating and electricity
costs) do not exceed 30% of gross household income”.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 14
The City of Chilliwack defines affordable housing within their Affordable Housing Strategy:
•“Affordable housing is defined as housing that should not cost more than 30% of a household’s gross income
regardless of whether they are living in market or non-market housing”.
The District of Mission defines affordable housing as:
•“Housing that is appropriate to household needs and whose cost, without compromising basic survival
needs, is within reach of household incomes”.
All three of these municipal strategies identify inclusionary zoning as a key action to leverage development
opportunities to deliver affordable housing units in exchange for increased density; however, they are all in
various stages of implementation. The City of Abbotsford is currently exploring the implementation of their
inclusionary zoning, including undertaking land economic analysis to inform the City’s ability to secure
voluntary built and cash contributions for affordable housing projects.
The District of Mission currently has policy to secure affordable housing units in new development projects, but
do not prioritize unit types, and do not specify term or cash-in-lieu options.
•Another idea for consideration is supporting a non-profit
driven approach to affordable housing initiatives. An
initiative that is in early formation in Chilliwack, for example,
is a “Housing Hub”. This is a non-profit led initiative, the
purpose of which is to connect residents to existing rental
housing in the private market, and to support the retention
of housing. The idea of the Hub is to recognize resources
that already exists in the community and connect people to
the housing or services they need. For example, the Hub
intends to cultivate a number of landlords or existing
private market rental units and match them with potential tenants. The Hub concept is still in early stages and
has not yet fully developed a structure, operation model, or approach to tenant selection.
•At this time, the Housing Hub does not have direct City funding, but was started through a federal grant for
a Housing Development Coordinator position. The application for funding was made by the City, Fraser
Health, and the Pacific Community Resources Society.
•A brief interview with the City of Chilliwack planning department noted that the City intends to provide in-
kind support to the Housing Development Coordinator position, such as providing a workspace at
municipal hall. There are no specific bylaws, policies, or City funds tied to this position or initiative. The Hub
will also require more funding from multiple levels of government to operate.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 15
‣While a typical municipal approach
focuses on generating and
administering new affordable rental
units through development projects,
the Housing Hub initiative is non-
profit led and focuses on utilizing
existing rental units in the private
market.
•While a municipal approach focuses on new affordable rental units through development projects, the
Housing Hub initiative is non-profit led and focuses on existing rental units in the private market.
As indicated in the Chilliwack Homelessness Action Plan (2016), the City views its role as primarily an advocate
for increased housing options and funding through other levels of government and local partnership
collaborations such as the Chilliwack Healthier Community network.
Summary of Comparable Municipalities
Below is a high-level summary of policies to secure residential units in new development projects in other
communities, and compared to the City of Maple Ridge
Table 5: Summary of Comparable Municipalities
City of North
Vancouver
City of
Richmond
City of New
Westminster City of Maple Ridge
Definition of
affordable
housing
Households pay
no more than 30%
of gross income
on housing costs;
and in relation to
average CMHC
rents
Based on BC
Housing HILs
calculations, and
average CMHC
rents
Households
pay no more
than 30% of
gross income
on housing
costs
Housing that is
adequate in standard
and does not cost so
much that individuals
and families have
trouble paying for
other necessities
such as food, health
and transportation on
an ongoing basis
Approach Required Required Voluntary Voluntary
Zoning or
Policy
Policy and Zoning Policy and Zoning Policy Policy
Types of
units
secured
Mid-market rental
units (same as
low-end market
rental units) and
non-market units
Low end market
rental units and
non-market units
Market rental
units
Market rental units
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 16
Term Min 10 years for
mid-market units
In perpetuity for
non-market units
In perpetuity 60 years or life
of building; or
39-50 years,
with less
incentives; or
10 years, with
minimal
incentives
None / currently
determined on a
case-by-case basis
Cash-in-lieu
option
Council discretion
for mid-market
units
None for non-
market units
For projects less
than 60 units
None None/ currently
determined on a
case-by-case basis
Required
family-
friendly
housing
units
Min 10% three or
more bdrms for
new multi-unit
projects, both
purpose-built
rental and condos
30% of increment/
bonus amount is
required for non-
market units
Min 15% two-
bdrm units and
5% three-bdrm
units for LEMR
units secured in
new
developments
Min 25% two
and three
bdrm and min
5% three or
more bdrms
for purpose-
built rental
projects
Min 30% two
and three
bdrm and min
10% three or
more bdrms
for ownership/
condominium
projects
None
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 17
Key Considerations for the City of Maple Ridge
Research from comparable municipalities indicate that there are a range of options to secure rental units through
new residential development projects or as part of a commercial development, often tailored to the community
context. Based on this research, preliminary considerations for the City of Maple Ridge are outlined as follows:
#1 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Market Rental Units
•For the purpose of secured market rental units, consider defining market rental housing as purpose-built
market rental units delivered by the private market. This does not include units delivered through the
secondary rental market such as secondary suites, market rental condominium units, or other investor-
owned houses/units.
•In all new multi-unit development projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 10% of units
be secured as market rental.
•For secured market rental units, consider determining rent ranges by the market or the average CMHC
average market rents for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”), without subsidy.
•Consider incentives for projects that meet or exceed the minimum levels of secured market rental housing
units as outlined in policy and/or zoning. These incentives should also be allocated according the the City’s
overall rental housing program, with the highest and best incentives oriented towards the most affordable
forms of rental housing and by length of the secured term. Some examples include: fast-tracking
applications, reduce/waive development cost charges, reduce/waive rezoning fees, reduce/waive
development permit fees, reduce/waive building permit fees, and payment of fees for legal documents.
With the exception of fast-tracking applications, consider applying these incentives only to the portion of
the building dedicated to the secured market rental units.
Table 6: Proposed Terms and Incentives for Secured Market Rental Housing Units
Long-term
(secured 60 years or life
of building - whichever is
greater)
Medium-term
(secured 30 to
59 years)
Short-term
(secured
minimum of 10
years)
Fast-tracking applications ✓
Reduce / waive development cost
charges ✓
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 18
•Recognizing that the City of Maple Ridge has a range of new rental housing projects in terms of size and
scale, considering providing options for smaller development projects that may be financially challenged
to incorporate built units. As such, consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built
market rental units for projects with fewer than 30 units, or at the discretion of the City, including all single-
detached, townhouse and multi-unit residential rezoning projects as well as commercial projects.
•Consider undertaking a financial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment
between the cash-in-lieu contribution rate and the value of the built units. Establishing an Affordable
Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated.
•Consider monitoring absorption rates and adjust policy if/when required over time.
#2 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Low-End Market Rental Units
•Should the City consider securing low-end market rental units, consider defining low-end market rental
housing as purpose-built market rental units delivered by the private market (not including units delivered
through the secondary rental market such as secondary suites, rental condominium units, or other investor-
owned houses/units), rented at slightly below (10% below) CMHC average market rents for Maple Ridge.
•In 100% purpose-built rental projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 10% of units be
secured as low-end market rental units, registered on title for the duration of that term.
•Consider calculating low-end market rental units as maximum rents based on 10% below CMHC’s average
market rents reported for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”). 6
Reduce / waive rezoning fees ✓
Reduce / waive development
permit fees ✓ ✓
Reduce / waive building permit
fees ✓ ✓
Payment of fees for legal
documents ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 7 calculations based on CMHC Rental Market Report, 2016. Calculations for LEMR units secured through private sector development 6
would need to be updated annually as CMHC market reports are issued.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 19
Table 7: Recommended Maximum Rents and Household Income for Securing Low-End Market Rental
Units in Maple Ridge
•Consider providing additional incentives for all projects that secure 10% of units as low-end market rental
which should include, at minimum, the same incentives provided for projects with secured market rental
housing plus additional incentives to make low-end of market rental more viable.
•Consider directly correlating the level of incentives by the length of the secured term, registered on title for
the duration of that term. There is opportunity to consider additional incentives, upon review and direction
from Council.
•Consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built low-end market units for projects that
generate less than 5 low-end market rental units, or at the discretion of the City. Consider undertaking a
financial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment to the value of the built units.
Establishing an Affordable Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated.
•The minimum requirements to secure low-end market rental units outlined above are conservative, and it is
recommended that they be monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of
Maple Ridge desire higher requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive
financial analysis and test sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable.
Comprehensive financial analysis were undertaken by the City of North Vancouver (for density bonus in
exchange for mid-market units), City of Richmond (for density bonus in exchange for low-end market rental
units and non-market units, by location and construction methods), and by the City of New Westminster
LEMR UNITS - Secured through private sector development
Unit Type CMHC Average Market Rents
(Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows)6
LEMR Unit Rent (10%
below)
Maximum Eligible
Household Income
Bachelor $624 $562 $22,480
1 bdrm $762 $686 $27,432
2 bdrm $953 $858 $34,308
3 bdrm $1,070 $963 $38,520
4 bdrm ---
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 20
(for the family-friendly housing requirement). At minimum, the City should monitor absorption rates and
adjust policy if/when required over time.
#3 - Minimum Requirement for Securing Non-Market Rental Units
•For the purpose of secured non-market market rental units, the City may consider defining non-market
rental housing as units owned or subsidized by government, a non-profit society, or a housing co-
operative. Non-market housing units can be generated from purpose-built private market development
projects (not including units delivered through the secondary rental market such as secondary suites, rental
condominium units, or other investor-owned houses/units), rented at below (25% below) CMHC average
market rents for Maple Ridge.
•In 100% purpose-built rental projects, consider requiring or encouraging a minimum of 5% of units to be
secured as non-market rental units, registered on title for the duration of that term.
•Consider calculating non-market rental units as maximum rents based on 25% below CMHC’s average
market rents reported for the City of Maple Ridge (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows “Zone”). 7
Table 8: Recommended Maximum Rents and Household Income for Securing Non-Market Rental Units in
Maple Ridge
NON-MARKET UNITS - Secured through private sector development
Unit Type CMHC Average Market Rents
(Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows)7
LEMR Unit Rent (25%
below)
Maximum Eligible
Household Income
Bachelor $624 $468 $18,720
1 bdrm $762 $572 $22,860
2 bdrm $953 $715 $28,590
3 bdrm $1,070 $814 $32,550
4 bdrm ---
Table 8 calculations based on CMHC Rental Market Report, 2016. Calculations for LEMR units secured through private sector development 7
would need to be updated annually as CMHC market reports are issued.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 21
•Consider providing further incentives for all projects that secure 5% of units as non-market rental which
should include, at minimum, the same incentives provided for projects with secured market rental housing
and low-end market rental housing plus additional incentives to make non-market rental more viable.
•Consider directly correlating the level of incentives by the length of the secured term, registered on title for
the duration of that term. There is opportunity to consider additional incentives, upon review and direction
from Council.
•Consider accepting cash-in-lieu contributions as a substitute for built non-market units for projects that
generate less than 5 non-market rental units, or at the discretion of the City. Consider undertaking a
financial analysis to determine $/square foot rate to ensure a fair alignment to built units. Establishing an
Affordable Housing Reserve Fund could be considered for the funds to be allocated.
•The minimum requirements to secure non-market rental units outlined above are conservative, and it is
recommended that they be monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of
Maple Ridge desire higher requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive
financial analysis and test sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable. As
noted above, comprehensive financial analysis were undertaken by the City of North Vancouver, City of
Richmond, and by the City of New Westminster. At minimum, the City may wish to monitor absorption rates
and adjust policy if/when required over time.
#4 - Family-friendly Housing Policy
•As the City evolves its discussion on rental housing policy and/or zoning, consider requiring a minimum
number of family-friendly housing units in all new multi-unit development projects, with an option to also
extend towards both market condominium and purpose-built market rental units. This policy could
facilitate the creation of more housing choices for low and moderate income family households in Maple
Ridge.
Table 9: Recommended Minimum Requirements for Family-Friendly Units in New Multi-unit Development
Projects
•The minimum requirements to require family-friendly units outlined above are conservative, and should be
monitored closely if implemented and adjusted as needed. Should the City of Maple Ridge desire higher
requirements, it is suggested that the City undertake a more comprehensive financial analysis and test
sample pro formas to determine if higher requirements would be viable. Comprehensive financial analysis
New Multi-unit Market Condominium
Projects
New Multi-unit Market Rental
Projects
3+ bedroom units Minimum 5%Minimum 5%
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 22
were undertaken by the City of New Westminster (for the family-friendly housing requirement) to identify
their requirement. At minimum, the City should monitor absorption rates and adjust policy if/when
required over time.
#5 - Facilitate Partnerships between Developers and the Non-Profit Housing Sector
•For secured low-end market rental units and secured non-market rental units, the City may wish to consider
strategies to identify organizations to administer and monitor the units secured through new development
projects. Typically, non-profit housing societies acquire these secured units in partnership, such as the
Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, and are ideally introduced to the project concept in early stages of
the development process.
•It is recommended that the City research and outline strategies to facilitate partnerships between the non-
profit housing sector and private developers to ensure appropriate and sustainable management of
secured low-end market rental units and secured non-market rental units.
•For secured market rental units, these units are typically managed by the private sector either by the
developer or by a property management company engaged by the developer. Non-profit housing
societies typically do not manage market rental units secured through private market development
projects, unless there is a low-end market rental or non-market rental component. However, more non-
profit housing societies are becoming increasingly open to acquiring market rental units as part of their
portfolio, especially housing societies that have tenants who are no longer eligible for their subsidized
units (i.e. tenant household income has improved/increased). Having market rental units as part of a non-
profit housing society’s portfolio provides the housing society with flexibility to relocate tenants if needed.
There are a limited number of housing societies whose mandates support this approach.
•It is recommended that the City research and outline strategies to engage with non-profit housing societies
that have a market rental housing component within their mandate, and facilitate partnerships between
these select non-profit housing societies and private developers to administer secured market rental units
in cases where the developer does not intend or have the ability to manage the secured market rental
units.
RESEARCH BRIEF | Housing Action Plan Implementation: Residential Unit Requirements | City of Maple Ridge | January 31st, 2018 23
585 – 1111 West Hastings Street, Vancouver BC V6E 2J3 | 604.687.2281
101-848 Courtney Street, Victoria BC V8W 1C4 | 250.383.0304
www.cityspaces.ca
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 6, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Community Amenity Contribution Allocations to Affordable Housing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The creation of affordable, rental and special needs housing options in Maple Ridge is a key policy
interest, as set out in our Official Community Plan and the City’s Housing Action Plan. Based on a
February 6, 2018 Council Workshop discussion that explored options to further utilise the City’s
existing Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) program to help foster affordable housing in the City,
this report presents for Council’s approval amendments to Council Policy No. 6.31 entitled
Community Amenity Contribution Program. The proposed amendments reflect Council’s direction to
allocate community amenity contributions received from the previously exempted Town Centre area
towards future affordable housing, up to a maximum of 20% of all CACs collected City-wide.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council Policy No. 6.31 entitled “Community Amenity Contribution Program”, as amended to
allocate all CAC funds collected from the previously exempted Town Centre area to affordable
housing until funding reaches a maximum of 20% of total CAC’s collected City-wide, be adopted.
BACKGROUND:
On September 14, 2015 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan (HAP) Implementation
Framework. The HAP Implementation Framework builds from the key strategies recommended in the
Housing Action Plan. Strategy #11 of the HAP encourages the use of community amenity contribution
funding for affordable housing.
On December 12, 2017 following a discussion related to Community Amenity Contribution and
affordable housing, Council expressed interest in receiving a report outlining options to facilitate the
development of rental housing in the Maple Ridge.
On February 6, 2018, Council moved that, as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program,
staff should bring forward an additional report outlining a Density Bonus approach that would
optionally require, in exchange for bonus density, the provision of secured rental units, secured
affordable rental units, and/or a cash-in-lieu contribution.
4.3.1
2
On February 6, 2018, Council also directed staff to amend Council Policy #6.31 - Community Amenity
Contribution Program - in order to ensure that all CAC funds collected from the Town Centre area be
allocated to affordable housing until such funding reaches a maximum of 20% of the total CAC’s
collected City-wide.
Specifically, R/2018-084 reads:
That, as a component of developing a Rental Housing Program, staff bring forward a report
outlining a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) approach that would maintain existing CAC
contribution rates and allocate all CAC funds collected from the previously exempted Town
Centre area to affordable housing until funding reaches a maximum of 20% of total CAC’s
collected city-wide.
DISCUSSION:
Based on Council’s direction stemming from their February 6, 2018 workshop discussion, staff from
the Planning and Finance Departments have prepared an amended Community Amenity Contribution
Program Policy No. 6.31 to clarify how the City-Wide CAC program will support the creation of
affordable, rental and special needs housing in the community.
Specifically, the policy as amended now requires that all CACs collected from rezonings in the Town
Centre area be allocated towards the creation of future affordable housing. The extent to which such
Town Centre generated CACs would be allocated to this goal is fixed; not to exceed 20% of the total
of all CAC’s collected. It is acknowledged that this resulting threshold figure, being derived from a
percentage of all CACs collected, will increase with each new development application and its
ensuing amenity contribution. To compensate for this variability, staff suggests that the contributions
reserved for affordable housing be calculated annually, based on both the total contributions
received City-wide and those specifically from the Town Centre area.
In summary, the proposed approach becomes a variable but continuing method to utilise CAC
funding to support the future creation of affordable housing in the community. Going forward,
constant affordable housing allocations will be dependent on both there being capacity within the
maximum 20% threshold and that a portion of the total CAC collected is generated from the Town
Centre.
An amended version of the Community Amenity Contribution Program Policy No. 6.31, establishing
the above described arrangements, is attached in Appendix A.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
Noting the Council discussion of February 6, 2018, staff also present two optional recommendations
for Council’s consideration should it wish to revisit previous recommendations proposed or offered
as alternatives.
In assessing how the above described use of CAC funding for affordable housing would be
implemented, staff has identified that such an approach is dependant on Town Centre
redevelopment activity. Directly relating the allocation of affordable housing funding to development
in the Town Centre will be beneficial as it is anticipated that the majority of future affordable, rental
and special needs housing will be constructed in the Town Centre area.
3
Staff notes though that the Town Centre Area Plan also identifies the need for future investments in
civic facilities, parks and open space, and other amenities beyond affordable housing units. Staff
also acknowledges that development in the Town Centre is increasing in scale and number of new
dwelling units, and that the ensuing future residents from such development could raise the need for
additional amenities in the Town Centre that would not otherwise be attainable through
Development Cost Charges, and would need to rely on municipal taxes in lieu of amenity program
funding.
As a result, alternative recommendation #1 is presented as an option whereby 20% of all CAC funds
collected would be allocated towards affordable housing, without requiring that such contributions
be limited to only those collected from Town Centre rezonings.
Alternative recommendation #2 is raised as staff also recall from the December 12th, 2017 Council
discussion an interest in moving away from establishing a fixed percentage of CAC funds that would
be allocated to affordable housing and instead directing that CAC contribution rates be increased to
create additional contributions for future affordable housing.
1. That Council Policy No. 6.31 entitled “Community Amenity Contribution Program” be amended to
maintain existing CAC contribution rates, but allocate 20% of all CAC funds received towards
affordable housing.
OR
2. That staff be directed to report back on amendments to Council Policy No. 6.31 entitled
“Community Amenity Contribution Program”, to increase existing Community Amenity
Contribution (CAC) rates in order to create a new Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing
CAC.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Local Government Act requires a Reserve Fund to be established for con tributions from amenity
zoning or community amenity contributions. Through the past CAC and Albion Density Bonus work,
Council established a City-Wide CAC Reserve Fund and an Albion Area Reserve Fund.
To ensure that the CAC funding and its allocations to affordable housing is appropriately tracked,
Finance staff suggest maintaining the City’s existing City-Wide CAC Reserve Fund, without requiring
the creation of a new Reserve Funds or the amendment to the existing Reserve Fund Bylaw.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Planning and Finance Department collaborated in the development and assessment of the
above described approaches to allocate CAC collected funds towards affordable housing. Going
forward, and if the proposed amendments to Council Policy No. 6.31 are approved, Finance
Department staff will monitor the City-wide CAC Reserve Fund and calculate the 20% allocation to be
specifically reserved for future investments in affordable, rental or special needs housing.
Interdepartmental discussions on future affordable, rental or special needs housing opportunities
will be ongoing with future Council direction required prior to the spending of any such allocated
affordable housing funds.
4
CONCLUSION:
As a further step towards the implementation of the City’s Housing Action Plan, and based on Council
direction from February 2018, staff has outlined amendments to the City’s Community Amenity
Contribution Policy No. 6.31 to allocate a portion of those amenity contributions raised through
rezonings in the Town Centre directly towards an affordable, rental and special needs housing. Such
allocations would provide the City with future funding that may foster additional investments in
affordable housing in our community. Should Council wish to revisit its previous direction, alternative
recommendations are also outlined.
“Original signed by Brent Elliott”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Brent Elliott, MCIP, RPP,
Manager of Community Planning
“Original signed by Trevor Thompson”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Trevor Thompson, CPA, CGA
Director of Finance - Interim
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, MPL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng.
General Manager, Public Works and
Development Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn” for
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment:
Appendix A: Amended Council Policy No. 6.31 – Community Amenity Contribution Program
Page 1 of 3 Policy 6.31
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Community Amenity Contribution Program
Policy No: 6.31
Supersedes:
AMENDED
March 6, 2018
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date:
TBD
Review Date:
TBD
Policy Statement:
The City of Maple Ridge is committed to providing a variety of amenities throughout the
municipality, including the provision of affordable and special needs housing, in a financially
sustainable manner.
The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is comprised of the following
components:
1.The CAC Program will apply city-wide.
2.Each CAC will be based on a contribution rate as follows:
a)$5100 per single family lot created;
b)$4100 per townhouse or other attached ground-oriented dwelling unit;
c)$3100 per apartment dwelling unit.
3.The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings, including those
that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with
the following exceptions:
a)Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing
Agreement as established in Section 483 of the Local Government Act;
b)Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established
under Section 483 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant
enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act;
c)Single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots – only the original
lot is exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional lot;
d)Accessory dwelling units, such as a secondary suite or detached garden suite;
e)Duplex, triplex and fourplex dwelling units, where only one building is being
constructed - only the first dwelling unit is exempt, after which the CAC program
applies to each additional dwelling unit;
APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 3 Policy 6.31
f) Courtyard dwelling units, located on a single property – only the first dwelling unit is
exempt, after which the CAC program applies to each additional dwelling unit.
4. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in
addition to the city-wide CAC Program.
a) For developments that take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in
the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area Plan, the amenity contribution
rate will be:
i) $5100 per single family lot created;
ii) $4100 per townhouse or other attached ground-oriented dwelling unit;
iii) $3100 per apartment dwelling unit;
in addition to the $3100 density bonus rate.
b) For developments that do not take advantage of the density bonus provisions
included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, the CAC rate will be the rate established
in Section 2 of this policy.
5. The Official Community Plan may also establish additional or alternative community
amenity contribution policies, guidelines and density bonus provisions for each Area Plan.
6. Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of the
CAC Program Council Policy, will:
a) be subject to the provisions of this Policy unless the applicable Official Community
Plan or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw has received Third Reading; OR
b) be subject to the provisions of this Policy if a condition for the Policy to apply was
included in the first or second reading report of the applicable Official Community
Plan or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw.
7. All development applications that are seeking an extension under Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 (as amended), may be subject to the city-wide
community amenity contribution program at the discretion of Council.
8. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may
benefit from the community amenity contributions.
9. Community Amenity Contribution funds received will contribute to any of the following
eligible amenities:
a) Civic facility;
b) Public art;
c) Acquisition of land for the provision of:
o Affordable or special needs housing;
o Parks
o Trails
o Significant ecological features
d) Park or trail construction and/or maintenance;
e) Affordable, rental or special needs housing;
f) Heritage conservation; or
g) Conservation of significant ecological features.
Page 3 of 3 Policy 6.31
10. Notwithstanding Section 9 above, Community Amenity Contribution funds collected from
those properties within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries will be contributed only to
affordable, rental, or special needs housing until such funding reaches a maximum of 20%
of the total Community Amenity Contribution funds collected City-wide.
11. The provision of a specific amenity, rather than a cash-in-lieu contribution may also be
considered by Maple Ridge Council. If Council determines that the provision of an amenity
is more desirable, the following list is to be used as a general guide for determining the
type of community amenity:
a) Public art;
b) Heritage conservation;
c) Land for the provision of:
o Affordable or special needs housing;
o Parks
o Trails
o Significant ecological features
d) Affordable or special needs housing units; or
e) Park or trail construction or improvements.
Purpose:
To provide direction on the implementation of a city-wide community amenity contribution (CAC)
program, including the process to determine the contribution amount.
Definitions:
“Community Amenity” means any public amenity that provides a benefit to the residents of the city
or a specific neighbourhood as the result of increased residential density.
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: June 5, 2018
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Regional Context Statement Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City’s Regional Context Statement identifies the relationship between Maple Ridge’s Official
Community Plan (OCP) and Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. Under Local Government
Act requirements, the Regional Context Statement must be reviewed every five years to ensure it
continues to support the Regional Growth Strategy. Maple Ridge’s current Regional Context
Statement forms part of the OCP and a copy is included in this report as Appendix A.
The current Regional Context Statement was accepted by Metro Vancouver on September 23, 2013
and followed the approval of the Regional Growth Strategy. City staff and Council worked closely
with Metro Vancouver staff in the preparation of the Regional Growth Strategy, and issues raised
during the 2009 review process were reflected in the adopted Regional Growth Strategy. As a result,
the subsequent Regional Context Statement contained no inconsistencies with the Regional Growth
Strategy.
This year marks the trigger date by which the City must review its Regional Context Statement and
advise Metro Vancouver if there are any proposed changes. In light of the pending deadline, staff
have undertaken a review of the current Regional Context Statement, and have determined that the
Regional Context Statement continues to accurately identify the relationship between Maple Ridge’s
OCP and Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. As a result, no Regional Context Statement
updates are considered necessary at this five year interval. This report outlines the City’s Regional
Context Statement background and legislative framework, and recommends that at this time Council
request re-acceptance of the Regional Context Statement by Metro Vancouver.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Regional Context Statement be submitted for re-acceptance by the Metro Vancouver
Regional District Board.
BACKGROUND:
Legislative Requirements
The Local Government Act outlines the requirements for Regional Growth Strategies and a
municipality’s requirement to include a Regional Context Statement in their OCP (Part 25, Sec. 446).
After a new Regional Context Statement has been accepted by the Metro Vancouver Board there are
three instances in which municipalities are required to submit a revised or new Regional Context
Statement:
1.when a new OCP is being developed;
2.when amendments to an existing OCP are proposed that are not consistent with the
accepted Regional Context Statement; or
4.4
2
3. within five years of the Board’s latest acceptance of the Regional Context Statement.
Preparing a new or amended Regional Context Statement is an amendment to the OCP and as such,
must follow the requirements outlined in the Local Government Act respecting consultation during
the development or amendment of an OCP. In accordance with the Local Government Act, once a
municipal Regional Context Statement has been accepted by Metro Vancouver, it must be reviewed
at least every five years by the respective Council, and if there are no changes, resubmitted to the
Board for continued acceptance.
Consideration of Existing Regional Context Statement
The City last underwent a Regional Context Statement review process in 2012-2013, following the
adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy. The following resolution referring the draft Regional
Context Statement to Metro Vancouver was made on July 23, 2013:
That Bylaw No. 7002-2013 be given first reading; and
That Bylaw No. 7002-2013 be referred to Metro Vancouver as part of the formal referral process for
acceptance by the Metro Vancouver Regional Board.
Subsequent to Metro Vancouver’s review of the draft Regional Context Statement, the Metro
Vancouver Regional Board formally accepted the City’s Regional Context Statement on September
23, 2013. This acceptance allowed consideration of further readings of the Regional Context
Statement bylaw, resulting in final reading on November 26, 2013.
Consideration of Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future Review
In September 2016, Metro Vancouver provided written communication to Council seeking comments
on the need for, and scope of, a review of the Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future Regional
Growth Strategy. In response, Council provided the following resolution on October 24, 2016:
That staff advise Metro Vancouver that Maple Ridge Council recommends no full review of Metro
2040 – Regional Growth Strategy at this time, indicating, however, that concerns related to climate
change issues were raised.
The City’s position that no full review be conducted in 2016 was consistent with communication from
six other member municipalities; while no position was taken by remaining member municipalities.
Based on the responses Metro Vancouver received, no full review process was undertaken at that
time.
DISCUSSION:
The Regional Growth Strategy was adopted in 2011 following an involved review process between
Council and Metro Vancouver. In 2009, the City submitted formal comments and resolutions to
Metro Vancouver, and this feedback was reflected in the final Regional Growth Strategy. Because of
that detailed work, the Regional Growth Strategy and OCP were clearly aligned. The subsequent
preparation of the Regional Context Statement reflected the alignment between the Regional Growth
Strategy and OCP; and was favorably reviewed and accepted by Metro Vancouver staff and the Metro
Vancouver Board. Due to this earlier Regional Growth Strategy work, no inconsistencies are
identified in the Regional Context Statement.
Through the preparation of this report, the current Regional Context Statement was reviewed and no
necessary changes were identified. Staff does note that since the adoption of the current Regional
Context Statement, the City has completed a number of significant studies including the Strategic
3
Transportation Plan, the Housing Action Plan, and the Environmental Management Study. However,
as these policy initiative were undertaken as part of the implementation of the City’s OCP, and to
further support Metro’s Regional Growth Strategy as anticipated by our existing Regional Context
Statement, staff have confirmed that both the current Regional Context Statement and the City’s
OCP remain in line with the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. While some housekeeping
amendments to the Regional Context Statement are anticipated later this year to reflect the
endorsed plans and strategies completed by the City during the 2013-2018 period, it is felt that such
amendments will not alter the alignment currently in place between the Regional Context Statement
and the Regional Growth Strategy.
There is no requirement to update the Regional Context Statement if Council determines the
document still aligns with the OCP and Regional Growth Strategy. As there are no significant
amendments anticipated, staff recommend that Council adopt a resolution stating that consideration
was given to the existing Regional Context Statement, and that it should be forwarded to the Metro
Board for re-acceptance. In doing so, this approach will satisfy and achieve the City’s five year review
timeline.
NEXT STEPS:
In regards to updating Maple Ridge’s Regional Context Statement, staff recommend that
communication be sent to Metro Vancouver requesting re-acceptance of the current Regional
Context Statement. Such as timeline will be in keeping with our 2018 deadline and will facilitate a
September review by Metro Vancouver.
CONCLUSION:
The Local Government Act stipulates the conditions under which a municipality must submit a
revised Regional Context Statement. As Maple Ridge’s Regional Context Statement will be five years
old this year, staff have reviewed the Regional Context Statement and confirm that it continues to
accurately identify an aligned and supportive relationship between Maple Ridge’s OCP and Metro
Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. It is recommended that Council give consideration to the
existing Regional Context Statement and request re-acceptance of the Regional Context Statement
by the Metro Vancouver Board.
“Original signed by Amelia Bowden”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPP
Planner 1
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Paul Gill”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A – Regional Context Statement
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 13
1.4 REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENT
On July 29, 2011, The Metro Vancouver Board of Directors approved the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional
Growth Strategy Bylaw, pursuant to SecƟon 863(1) of the Local Government Act.
Part 25 of the Local Government Act requires that an Official Community Plan must include a Regional
Context Statement that is accepted in accordance with SecƟon 866 of the Local Government Act by the Board
of the Regional Government, in this case Metro Vancouver. The Regional Context Statement must idenƟfy
the relaƟonship between the municipal Official Community Plan and the Regional Growth Strategy and if
applicable, how the OCP will be made consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy over Ɵme.
The Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy is organized into five main goals:
Goal 1: Create a Compact Urban Area
Goal 2: Support a Sustainable Economy
Goal 3: Protect the Environment and Respond to Climate Change Impacts
Goal 4: Develop Complete CommuniƟes
Goal 5: Support Sustainable TransportaƟon Choices
The RGS also includes Regional Land Use DesignaƟons that are aimed at achieving the five goal areas of the
Plan and include:
xGeneral Urban
xIndustrial
xMixed Employment
xRural
xAgricultural
xConservaƟon and RecreaƟon
In addiƟon a Regional Urban Containment Boundary has been established as a long-term area for urban
development across the Region, within which nine urban centres have been idenƟfied, including the Maple
Ridge Town Centre.
APPENDIX A
Chapter 1, Page 14 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN – STUDIES CURRENTLY UNDERWAY (JULY 2013)
The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking a number of significant studies that are anƟcipated to
result in policy amendments to the Official Community Plan (as of July 2013). These studies include:
xCommercial and Industrial Strategy – that will provide updated employment projecƟons and policy
recommendaƟons that strengthen the employment base (commercial, industrial and other employment
opportuniƟes) within the District.
xStrategic TransportaƟon Plan – that will provide long-term direcƟon for transportaƟon network
development and improvements, and may include revisions to the Major Corridor Network (OCP Figure
4), as well as other policy-related recommendaƟons.
xEnvironmental Management Strategy – that will strive to connect the exisƟng policy basis contained
within the Official Community Plan with environmental and watercourse development permit guidelines
and other Official Community Plan policies.
xHousing AcƟon Plan – as a requirement of the Regional Growth Strategy, that will follow Maple Ridge
Council’s consideraƟon of potenƟal bylaw amendments (e.g. Zoning Bylaw, Parking Bylaw) related to
Secondary Suites and Temporary ResidenƟal Uses.
xAlbion Flats Area Plan- preparaƟon of an area plan for the Albion Flats area of Maple Ridge, currently
designated as a Special Study Area within the Regional Growth Strategy.
xPopulaƟon and Dwelling Unit ProjecƟons – will be undertaken by the District to align with the Regional
Growth Strategy projecƟons prior to 2018.
Each of the above projects is expected to contain policy recommendaƟons that will be evaluated by District
staff and within the context of the Regional Growth Strategy. It is anƟcipated that these studies will
contribute to Maple Ridge working toward consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 15
GOAL 1: CREATE A COMPACT URBAN
AREA
“Metro Vancouver’s growth is concentrated in compact communiƟes with access to a range of
housing choices, and close to employment, ameniƟes and services. Compact transit-oriented
development paƩerns help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and polluƟon, and support both the
efficient use of land and an efficient transportaƟon network.”
STRATEGY 1.1: CONTAIN URBAN DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE URBAN CONTAINMENT BOUNDARY
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
Strategy 1.1.3a) Depict the Urban Containment Boundary
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies the Urban Area Boundary. This
boundary is generally consistent with the Urban Containment Boundary idenƟfied on the Maple Ridge
Regional Context Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map.
1.1.3b) Provide municipal populaƟon, dwelling unit and employment projecƟons
xThe 2041 RGS includes esƟmated projecƟons for the District of Maple Ridge that are intended to provide
guidance to assist in regional and local planning. The esƟmated projecƟons for Maple Ridge are:
xPopulaƟon = 132 000
xDwelling Units = 50 900
xEmployment = 48 000
xThe District’s esƟmated projecƟons are a guide for long-range planning purposes only and are the result
of a comprehensive demographic analysis completed as part of the 2006 Official Community Plan update.
The projecƟons are generally consistent with the 2041 RGS as follows:
xPopulaƟon = 118,000*
xDwelling Units = 45,000*
xEmployment = 42 500**
Chapter 1, Page 16 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
*The populaƟon and dwelling unit projecƟons are taken from the proposed updates to the RGS projecƟons
idenƟfied by Metro Vancouver that are reflecƟve of the 2011 Census. The targets included are the low range
for both populaƟon and dwelling units, as idenƟfied by Metro Vancouver
**Employment projecƟons have been taken from The Commercial & Industrial Strategy: 2012 – 2041
prepared by G.P. Rollo & Associates, as received by Maple Ridge Council on November 26, 2012.
STRATEGY 1.2: FOCUS GROWTH IN URBAN CENTRES AND FREQUENT TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Strategy 1.2.6a) Provide dwelling unit and employment projecƟons that indicate the municipal
share of planned growth and that contribute to achieving the regional share of growth for Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 1.3 AssumpƟons and Targets idenƟfies the populaƟon,
density, housing and commercial projecƟons for the Regional Town Centre to 2021 as follows:
xPopulaƟon = 21,750 (approximately 24% of the total populaƟon)
xDensity = 70 to 100 persons per hectare
xHousing = 11,065 dwelling units (approximately 32.5% of total housing)
xCommercial goal to create between 0.25 to 0.75 new jobs for every new dwelling unit in the
Town Centre.
xThe District of Maple Ridge will work toward undertaking a review of the populaƟon, density, housing
and commercial goals within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries, which forms the extent of the
Regional City Centre. This review will be to beƩer align the projecƟons for the Regional City Centre with
the overall populaƟon, dwelling units and employment projecƟons for the enƟre District.
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas in Maple Ridge.
The Official Community Plan is consistent with the RGS.
1.2.6b) Include policies for Urban Centres which:
i) IdenƟfy the general locaƟon, boundaries and types of Urban Centres on a map
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan idenƟfies the boundaries of the Town Centre Area Plan,
which aligns with the locaƟon of the Regional Town Centre idenƟfied on Map 2: Regional Land Use
DesignaƟons of the RGS.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 17
ii) Focus growth and development in Urban Centres
xChapter 2 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 – Compact & Unique Community.
x10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟons 1.2.1 Goals and ObjecƟves; 1.3 AssumpƟons and Targets; 3.2
General Land-Use Requirements, policies 3-1 and 3-3.
iii) Encourage office development through policies and/or other financial incenƟves, such as zoning that
reserves capacity for office uses and density bonus provisions;
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.3.1 Commercial Strategy, policy 6-20.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, Chapter 3.2 General Land Use Requirements, policies 3-1 and 3-2
iv) In coordinaƟon with the provision of transit service, establish or maintain reduced residenƟal and
commercial parking requirements in Urban Centres, where appropriate
x10.4 Town Centre Area Plan parking standard; SecƟon 5.0 MulƟ-Modal TransportaƟon Network, policies
5-4, 5-5 and 5-6.
1.2.6c) Include policies for Frequent Transit Development Areas which:
i) IdenƟfy on a map, in consultaƟon with TransLink, the general locaƟon and boundaries of Frequent Transit
Development Areas
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas in Maple Ridge.
ii) Focus growth and development in Frequent Transit Development Areas
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas in Maple Ridge.
iii) In coordinaƟon with the provision of transit service, establish or maintain reduced residenƟal and
commercial parking requirements in Urban Centres, where appropriate
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas in Maple Ridge.
1.2.6d) Include policies for General Urban areas which:
i) IdenƟfy the General Urban areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent with the Regional Land
Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2).
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies lands designated Urban
ResidenƟal; Commercial, Industrial, InsƟtuƟonal, Parks and ConservaƟon and Urban Reserve that are
located within the Urban Area Boundary. These land uses are generally consistent with the Regional Land
Use DesignaƟons of “General Urban”, “Industrial” and “ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon” idenƟfied on the
Maple Ridge Regional Context Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map.
Chapter 1, Page 18 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
ii) Ensure development in General Urban areas outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development
Areas are generally lower density that development in General Urban areas within Urban Centres and
Frequent Transit Development Areas
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policy 2-3.
xSecƟon 10.1 Area Planning of the Official Community Plan establishes the area planning program for the
District. In addiƟon, SecƟons 10.2 – Albion Area Plan; 10.3 Silver Valley Area Plan; and 10.4 Town Centre
Area Plan establish policies and guidelines for development within each of the area plan boundaries.
xSecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons, Urban ResidenƟal policies 3-18 1) Neighbourhood ResidenƟal and
3-18 2) Major Corridor ResidenƟal.
xSecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria, policies 3-19, 3-20 and 3-21.
iii) where appropriate, idenƟfy small scale Local Centres in the General Urban areas that provide a mix of
housing types, local-serving commercial acƟviƟes and good access to transit.
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Local Centres in the District of Maple Ridge.
However, the following OCP policies reflect the spirit and intent of a ‘local centre’ as idenƟfied in the
RGS:
xSecƟon 6.3.5 Community Commercial Node, policies 6-26, 6-27, 6-28 and 6-29.
xSecƟon 6.3.6 Neighbourhood Commercial Centres, policies 6-30, 6-31, 6-32 and 6-33.
xSecƟon 6.3.8 Historic Commercial, policies 6-37, 6-38 and 6-39.
xChapter 10.3 Silver Valley Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 River Village and 5.2.3 Main Street Commercial
Areas.
iv) exclude non-residenƟal major trip-generaƟng uses, as defined in the Regional Context Statement, from
those porƟons of General Urban areas outside of Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policy 7-11.
v) encourage infill development by direcƟng growth to established areas, where possible;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policy 2-3.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, SecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria, policies 3-19, 3-20 and
3-21.
1.2.6e) Include policies that, for Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas that
overlay Industrial, Mixed Employment, or ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon areas, the Industrial,
Mixed Employment, and ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon intent and policies prevail, except in the
Mixed Employment areas contained within the overlay area;
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 2.2.1 ProtecƟon of Natural Features, policies 2-1, 2-2, 2-13,
2-14 and 2-15.
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Frequent Transit Development Areas or Mixed
Employment lands within the District of Maple Ridge.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 19
1.2.6f) for Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas and General Urban areas, include
policies which:
i) support conƟnued industrial uses by minimizing the impacts of urban uses on industrial acƟviƟes;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, policy 2-1.
xSecƟon 6.4.1 Industrial Lands, policies 6-40, 6-41 and 6-42.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments for the
support, protecƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial land uses.
ii) encourage safe and efficient transit, cycling and walking;
xChapter 7.3 Transit
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 Defining the TransportaƟon Network.
iii) implement transit priority measures, where appropriate;
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-3, 7-4 and 7-5.
xChapter 7.3 Transit, policies 7-16 through 7-24.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 Defining the TransportaƟon Network, policies 5-12 and
5-13.
iv) support district energy systems and renewable energy generaƟon, where appropriate.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 2.2 IntegraƟng Green Infrastructure, policy 2-19.
xChapter 5.5 Air Quality, policies 5-39 & 5-40.
xChapter 5.6 Preparing for Climate Change.
STRATEGY 1.3: PROTECT RURAL AREAS FROM URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Strategy 1.3.3a) idenƟfy the Rural areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent with
the Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2);
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies land uses outside of the Urban
Area Boundary that include Agricultural, Park, Parks Within the ALR, Forest, Rural ResidenƟal, Suburban
ResidenƟal, Estate Suburban ResidenƟal and ConservaƟon. These land uses are generally consistent with
the Regional Land Use DesignaƟons of “Rural” and “ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon” idenƟfied on the
Maple Ridge Regional Context Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map.
Chapter 1, Page 20 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
1.3.3b) limit development to a scale, form, and density consistent with the intent for the Rural
land use designaƟon, and that is compaƟble with on-site sewer servicing;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policies 2-4 and 2-6.
xChapter 2.2 .2.2 Land Use DesignaƟons, Agricultural, Rural ResidenƟal, Suburban ResidenƟal, Estate
Suburban ResidenƟal.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, SecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons, Rural ResidenƟal policies 3-6 through 3-9,
Suburban ResidenƟal policies 3-10 through 3-13 and Estate Suburban ResidenƟal policies 3-14 through
3-17.
xChapter 9.1 Municipal Services, SecƟon 9.1.2 SepƟc Systems, policies 9-5 and 9-6.
1.3.3 c) include policies which:
i) specify the allowable density and form, consistent with AcƟon 1.3.1, for land uses within the Rural land use
designaƟon;
xSecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons policies 3-6 through 3-17.
ii) support agricultural uses within the Agricultural Land Reserve, and where appropriate, outside of the
Agricultural Land Reserve.
xSecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community policy 2-6.
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟons 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy and 6.2.2
Sustainable Agriculture.
IMAGE
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 21
GOAL 2: SUPPOR T A SUS TAIN ABLE
ECONOMY
“The land base and transportaƟon systems required to nurture a healthy business sector are
protected and supported. This includes supporƟng regional employment and economic growth.
Industrial and agricultural land is protected and commerce flourishes in Urban Centres throughout
the region.”
STRATEGY 2.1: PROMOTE LAND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT SUPPORT A DIVERSE REGIONAL
ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT CLOSE TO WHERE PEOPLE LIVE
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
2.1.4 a) include policies that support appropriate economic development in Urban Centres,
Frequent Transit Development Areas, Industrial and Mixed Employment areas;
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policies 6-1, 6-2, 6-3 and 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments for the
support, protecƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial land uses.
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, policies 6-18, 6-20 and 6-21.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 1.2 – 8 Guiding Sustainability Principles, SecƟon 1.2.1 Goals
and ObjecƟves, Principles: 1 Each Neighbourhood is Complete 6 Jobs are close to home; and 7 The Centre
is disƟncƟve, aƩracƟve and vibrant.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements policies 3-1, 3-2, 3-3,
3-5, 3-6, 3-9, 3-14 and 3-15.
2.1.4 b) support the development of office space in Urban Centres, through policies such as zoning
that reserves land for office uses, density bonus provisions to encourage office development,
variable development cost charges, and/or other financial incenƟves;
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.31 Commercial Strategy policies 6-17, 6-18 and 6-21.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements, policies 3-2 and 3-6.
Chapter 1, Page 22 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
2.1.4 c) include policies that discourage major commercial and insƟtuƟonal development outside
of Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas;
The Maple Ridge Regional City Centre is intended to serve as the main commercial area within the District
and provides a number of significant municipal services and faciliƟes. It is also intended to be the primary
locaƟon for any future post-secondary or technical insƟtuƟonal uses that do not require special site
characterisƟcs found elsewhere in the District.
xChapter 4.2 InsƟtuƟonal, policies 4-31 through 4-37.
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.3.1 Commercial Strategy, policy 6-22.
2.1.4 d) show how the economic development role of Special Employment Areas, post secondary
insƟtuƟons and hospitals are supported through land use and transportaƟon policies.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.5 Post Secondary EducaƟonal
InsƟtuƟons.
STRATEGY 2.2: PROTECT THE SUPPLY OF INDUSTRIAL LAND
2.2.4 a) idenƟfy the Industrial areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent with the
Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2);
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies land designated as Industrial
and Rural Resource. These lands are generally consistent with the Regional Land Use DesignaƟon of
“Industrial” idenƟfied on Maple Ridge Regional Context Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons
map.
2.2.4 b) include policies for Industrial areas which:
i) support and protect industrial areas;
xChapter 6.4 Industrial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.4.1 Industrial Lands, policies 6-40 through 6-46.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments for the
support, protecƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial land uses.
ii) support appropriate accessory uses, including commercial space and caretaker units;
xSecƟon 6.4.2 Business Parks, policy 6-47.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 23
iii) exclude uses which are inconsistent with the intent of industrial areas, such as medium and large format
retail, residenƟal uses (other than industrial caretaker units where necessary), and stand-alone office uses
that are not supporƟve of industrial acƟviƟes;
xWithin the District, ‘business parks’ are intended to provide a range of light industrial uses and supporƟng
industries. They are not considered to be the primary locaƟons for office uses (restricted to a maximum
of 25% of the total floor area of the development) or for professional and/or personal services.
xSecƟon 6.4.2 Business Parks, policy 6-49.
xSecƟon 6.5.3 Large Format Retail.
iv) encourage beƩer uƟlizaƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial areas for industrial acƟviƟes;
xSecƟon 6.4.1 Industrial Lands, policies 6-41, 6-42 and 6-44.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments for the
support, protecƟon and intensificaƟon of industrial land uses.
2.2.4 c) idenƟfy the Mixed Employment areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent
with the Regional Land Use DesignaƟon map (Map 2);
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
2.2.4 d )include policies for Mixed Employment areas which:
i) support a mix of industrial, commercial, office and other related employment uses, while maintaining
support for established industrial areas, including potenƟal intensificaƟon policies for industrial acƟviƟes,
where appropriate;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policy 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
ii) allow large and medium format retail, where appropriate, provided that such development will not
undermine the broad objecƟves of the Regional Growth Strategy;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policy 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
Chapter 1, Page 24 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
iii) support the regional objecƟve of concentraƟng commercial and other major trip-generaƟng uses in Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policies 6-1 through 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
iv) where Mixed Employment areas are located within Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas,
support higher density commercial development and allow employment and service acƟviƟes consistent with
the intent of Urban Centres or Frequent Transit Development Areas;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xChapter 6.1 Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, policies 6-1 through 6-4.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
v) allow low density infill / expansion based on currently accepted local plans and policies in Mixed
Employment areas and support increases in density only where the Mixed Employment area has transit
service or where an expansion of transit service has been idenƟfied in TransLink’s strategic transportaƟon
plans for the planned densiƟes;
xThe Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Mixed Employment lands within the District of Maple
Ridge.
xNote: The District of Maple Ridge is currently undertaking the preparaƟon of a Commercial and Industrial
Land Use Strategy that is anƟcipated to result in Official Community Plan policy amendments that may
support a greater mix of employment-based land uses within the municipality.
2.2.4 e) include policies which help reduce environmental impacts and promote energy efficiency.
xChapter 5.5 Air Quality, policies 5-39 through 5-42.
xNote: The District is currently undertaking an Environment Management Strategy that may recommend
Official Community Plan amendments to include addiƟonal policies that promote energy efficiency.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 25
STRATEGY 2.3: PROTECT THE SUPPLY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PROMOTE AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY
WITH AN EMPHASIS ON FOOD PRODUCTION
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
2.3.6 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) specify the Agricultural areas and their boundaries on a map generally consistent with the
Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2);
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies lands designated Agricultural
and Parks within the ALR. These land uses are generally consistent with the Regional Land Use
DesignaƟon of “Agriculture” idenƟfied on the Maple Ridge Regional Context Statement - Regional Land
Use DesignaƟons map.
2.3.6 b) include policies to support agricultural viability including those which:
i) assign appropriate regional land use designaƟons that support agricultural viability and discourage non-
farm uses that do not complement agriculture;
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policies 6-9 through 6-14.
ii) discourage subdivision of agricultural land leading to farm fragmentaƟon;
xSecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policies 6-12 and 6-13.
iii) where feasible, and appropriate with other governments and agencies, maintain and improve
transportaƟon, drainage and irrigaƟon infrastructure to support agricultural acƟviƟes;
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policy 7-9.
iv) manage the agricultural-urban interface to protect the integrity and viability of agricultural operaƟons
(e.g. buffers between agricultural and urban areas or edge planning);
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policies 2-2, 2-4 and
2-6.
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy, policy 6-6. (Note:
Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan endorsed by Council ResoluƟon R/09-516 in December 2009).
xSecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policies 6-10, 6-12 and 6-13.
Chapter 1, Page 26 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
v) demonstrate support for economic development opportuniƟes for agricultural operaƟons (e.g. processing,
agri-tourism, farmers’ markets and urban agriculture);
xSecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy, policies 6-5 through 6-8.
xSecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policies 6-9 through 6-14.
vi) encourage the use of agricultural land, with an emphasis on food producƟon;
xSecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy, policies 6-7and 6-8.
vii) support educaƟonal programs that provide informaƟon on agriculture and its importance for the regional
economy and local food systems.
xSecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy, policies 6-6 and 6-8. (Note: Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan
endorsed by Council ResoluƟon R/09-516 in December 2009).
IMAGE
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 27
GOAL 3: PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
AND RESPOND TO CLIMATE
CHANGE IMPACT S
“Metro Vancouver’s vital ecosystems conƟnue to provide the essenƟals of life – clean air, water
and food. A connected network of habitats is maintained for a wide variety of wildlife and plant
species. Protected natural areas provide residents and visitors with diverse recreaƟonal
opportuniƟes. Strategies also help Metro Vancouver and member municipaliƟes meet their
greenhouse gas emission targets, and prepare for, and miƟgate risks from climate change and
natural hazards.”
STRATEGY 3.1: PROTECT CONSERVATION AND RECREATION LANDS
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
3.1.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) idenƟfy the ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon areas and their boundaries on a map generally
consistent with the Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map (Map 2);
xSchedule “B” of the Official Community Plan (Bylaw 6425-2006) idenƟfies lands designated ConservaƟon,
Forest, Park and Parks within the ALR. These land uses are generally consistent with the Regional Land
Use DesignaƟon of “ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon” idenƟfied on the Maple Ridge Regional Context
Statement - Regional Land Use DesignaƟons map.
3.1.4 b) include land use policies to support the protecƟon of ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon areas
that are generally consistent with the following:
i) public service infrastructure, including the supply of high quality drinking water;
xChapter 4.3 Heritage, SecƟon 4.3.1 Heritage RecogniƟon, policy 4-40, and SecƟon 4.3.2 Heritage
Management, policy 4-45.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policies 5-32 through 5-38.
ii) environmental conservaƟon;
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policies 5-1 through 5-8.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-9 through 5-16.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policies 5-28 through 5-32.
Chapter 1, Page 28 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
iii) recreaƟon, primarily outdoor;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, policies 4-7, 4-9 and 4-10.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-15 and 5-16.
xChapter 10.3 Silver Valley Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2.7 River Village Parks, SecƟon 5.3.8 Blaney, Forest and
Horse Hamlets Parks and Schools and 5.4.5 Eco-Clusters Parks.
iv) educaƟon, research and training faciliƟes and uses that serve conservaƟon and/or recreaƟon users;
xSecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, policies 4-5, 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.1 Tourism.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.4 Forest.
v) commercial uses, tourism acƟviƟes, and public cultural or community ameniƟes that are appropriately
located, scaled and consistent with the intent of the designaƟon;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, policies 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-10 through
4-13.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.1 Tourism, policies 6-54, 6-55
and 6-56.
3.1.4 c) include policies, where appropriate, that effecƟvely buffer ConservaƟon and RecreaƟon
areas from acƟviƟes in adjacent areas.
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policy 5-8.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-10 through 5-13 and 5-17.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, SecƟon 5.3.1 Hillside Development, policies 5-20 through 5-24.
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policy 6-12(b).
STRATEGY 3.2: PROTECT AND ENHANCE NATURAL FEATURES AND THEIR CONNECTIVITY
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
3.2.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements which include policies and/or maps that indicate how
ecologically important areas and natural features will be managed (as conceptually shown on
Map 10) (e.g. steep slopes and ravines, interƟdal areas and other natural features not addressed
in Strategy 3.1).
xSchedule “C” of the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan (Bylaw No. 6425-2006) idenƟfies Natural
Features including conservaƟon lands, forests and major parks; Fraser River 200 Year Floodplain, Kanaka
Creek Floodplain (interpreted) and AloueƩe River Floodplain, Canadian Wildlife Service Wetlands and the
Fraser River Escarpment.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 29
3.2.5 In collaboraƟon with other agencies, develop and manage municipal components of the
Metro Vancouver Regional RecreaƟon Greenway Network and connect community trails,
bikeways and greenways to the Regional RecreaƟon Greenway Network where appropriate.
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, policies 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10.
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policies 5-3, 5-7and 5-8.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-15 and 5-16.
xChapter 7.6 MulƟ-Use Equestrian Trails, policies 7-42 and 7-43.
3.2.6 IdenƟfy where appropriate measures to protect, enhance and restore ecologically
important systems, features, corridors and establish buffers along watercourses, coastlines,
agricultural lands, and other ecologically important features (e.g. conservaƟon covenants, land
trusts, tax exempƟons and ecogiŌing).
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policy 5-8.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policy 5-30.
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture, policy 6-12(b).
xChapter 8 Development Permit Guidelines, Watercourse ProtecƟon Development Permit Area Guidelines.
3.2.7 Consider watershed and ecosystem planning and/or Integrated Stormwater Management
Plans in the development of municipal plans.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policies 5-28, 5-29, 5-32 and 5-33.
STRATEGY 3.3: ENCOURAGE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE THAT REDUCE ENERGY
CONSUMPTION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
3.3.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) idenƟfy how municipaliƟes will use their land development and transportaƟon strategies to
meet their greenhouse gas reducƟon targets and consider how these targets will contribute to the
regional targets;
xChapter 5.6 Preparing for Climate Change, policies 5-43 through 5-45.
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1, 7-3 and 7-4.
Chapter 1, Page 30 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
3.3.4 b) idenƟfy policies and/or programs that reduce energy consumpƟon and greenhouse gas
emissions, and improve air quality from land use and transportaƟon infrastructure, such as:
xexisƟng building retrofits and construcƟon of new buildings to green performance guidelines or
standards, district energy systems, and energy recovery and renewable energy generaƟon
technologies, such as solar panels and geoexchange systems, and electric vehicle charging
infrastructure;
xcommunity design and facility provisions that encourages transit, cycling and walking (e.g. direct
and safe pedestrian and cycling linkages to the transit system);
xChapter 5.5 Air Quality, policies 5-39 through 5-42.
xChapter 5.6 Preparing for Climate Change, policies 5-43, 5-44 and 5-45.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 2.2 IntegraƟng Green Infrastructure, policies 2-21 through
2-24.
3.3.4 c) focus infrastructure and amenity investments in Urban Centres and Frequent Transit
Development Areas, and at appropriate locaƟons along TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network;
xChapter 9.1 Municipal Services, SecƟon 9.1.1 Municipal Infrastructure, policies 9-1, 9-2 and 9-3.
3.3.4 d) implement land use policies and development control strategies which support integrated
storm water management and water conservaƟon objecƟves.
xChapter 5.4 Water Resources, policies 5-28, 5-30, 5-32 through 5-38.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 2.2.1 ProtecƟon of Natural Features.
image
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 31
STRATEGY 3.4: ENCOURAGE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND NATURAL HAZARD RISKS
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
3.4.4 Adopt Regional Context Statements that include policies to encourage seƩlement paƩerns
that minimize risks associated with climate change and natural hazards (e.g. earthquake, flooding,
erosion, subsidence, mudslides, interface fires).
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-10 through 5-14, 5-18 and 5-19.
xSecƟon 5.3.1 Hillside Development, policies 5-20 through 5-24.
3.4.5 Consider incorporaƟng climate change and natural hazard risk assessments into the
planning and locaƟon of municipal uƟliƟes, assets and operaƟons.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policy 5-9.
xChapter 5.6 Preparing for Climate Change, policy 5-43.
xChapter 9.1 Municipal Services, SecƟon 9.1.1 Municipal Infrastructure, policy 9-4
xSecƟon 9.1.2 SepƟc Systems, policies 9-5 and 9-6.
xSecƟon 9.1.3 Waste ReducƟon and Recycling, policies 9-7, 9-8 and 9-9.
image
Chapter 1, Page 32 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
GOAL 4: DEVELOP COMPLETE
COMMUNITIES
“Metro Vancouver is a region of communiƟes with a diverse range of housing choices suitable for
residents at any stage of their lives. The distribuƟon of employment and access to services and
ameniƟes builds complete communiƟes throughout the region. Complete communiƟes are
designed to support walking, cycling and transit, and to foster healthy lifestyles.”
STRATEGY 4.1: PROVIDE DIVERSE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING CHOICES
Role of Municipalities:
4.1.7 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) include policies or strategies that indicate how municipaliƟes will work towards meeƟng the
esƟmate future housing demand as set out in Appendix Table A.4, which:
i) ensure the need for diverse housing opƟons is arƟculated in municipal plans and policies, including
neighbourhood and area plans;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policies 2-1, 2-2, 2-3,
2-5 and 2-6.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, secƟon 3.1.1 Housing and Land Requirements, policy 3-1.
xSecƟon 3.1.2 Community Character and Sense of Place, policies 3-2, 3-3 and 3-5.
xSecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons policies 3-8, 3-12, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18 (1) and (2).
xSecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria, policies 3-19 (1) and (2), 3-20 and 3-21.
xSecƟon 3.1.5 Urban Reserve.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements, policy 3-1.
ii) increase the supply and diversity of the housing stock through infill developments, more compact housing
forms and increased density;
xSecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria
iii) in collaboraƟon with the federal government and the province, assist in increasing the supply of affordable
rental units for households with low or low to moderate incomes through policies, such as density bonus
provisions, inclusionary zoning or other mechanisms, parƟcularly in areas that are well served by transit;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing, policies 3-27 through 3-33.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 33
iv) encourage and facilitate affordable housing development through measures such as reduced parking
requirements, streamlined and prioriƟzed approval processes, below market leases of publicly owned
property, and fiscal measures.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements, policies 3-1, 3-7 and
3-8.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.0 MulƟ-Modal TransportaƟon Network, SecƟon 5.1
Offering TransportaƟon Choices, policy 5-4.
x*Note: SecƟon 10.0 of the Off-Street parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 (as amended), outlines
provisions for reduced parking standards for mulƟ-family non-market housing, Seniors Independent
Living, Assisted Living, SupporƟve Housing and Congregate Care faciliƟes.
4.1.8 Prepare and implement Housing AcƟon Plans which:
a) assesses local housing market condiƟons, by tenure, including assessing housing supply,
demand and affordability;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing, policies 3-27, 3-28, 3-29 and 3-31.
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 b) idenƟfy housing prioriƟes, based on the assessment of local housing market condiƟons,
and consideraƟon of changing household demographics, characterisƟcs and needs;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and special Needs Housing, policies 3-27, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31 and 3-32.
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 c) idenƟfy implementaƟon measures within the jurisdicƟon and financial capabiliƟes of
municipaliƟes, including acƟons set out in AcƟon 4.1.7;
xThe Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 d) encourage the supply of new rental housing and where appropriate miƟgate or limit the
loss of exisƟng rental housing stock;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and special Needs Housing, policies 3-30 through 3-33.
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 e) idenƟfy opportuniƟes to parƟcipate in programs with other levels of government to
secure addiƟonal affordable housing units to meet housing needs across the conƟnuum;
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and special Needs Housing, policy 3-28.
Chapter 1, Page 34 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
4.1.8 f) cooperate with and facilitate the acƟviƟes of the Metro Vancouver Housing CorporaƟon
under AcƟon 4.1.5.
xChapter 3.2 Affordable, Rental and special Needs Housing, policy 3-28.
xNote: The Maple Ridge Housing AcƟon Plan is currently in preparaƟon with an anƟcipated Council
endorsement/adopƟon date in 2014.
STRATEGY 4.2: DEVELOP HEALTHY AND COMPLETE COMMUNITIES WITH ACCESS TO
A RANGE OF SERVICES AND AMENITIES
4.2.4 Include policies within municipal plans or strategies, that may be referenced in the
Regional Context Statements which:
a) support compact, mixed use, transit, cycling and walking oriented communiƟes;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, SecƟon 3.1.2 Community Character and Sense of Place.
xSecƟon 3.1.3 ResidenƟal DesignaƟons, policies 3-18 (1) and (2).
xSecƟon 3.1.4 ResidenƟal Infill and CompaƟbility Criteria.
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness Community & Cultural Services,
policies 4-2, 4-5, 4-7 through 4-11 and 4-13.
xChapter 7.3 Transit.
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists.
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians.
xChapter 7.6 MulƟ-Use and Equestrian Trails.
xChapter 10.2 Albion Area Plan, SecƟon 10.2.6 Village Centre.
xChapter 10.3 Silver Valley Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 River Village and SecƟon 5.3 Hamlets.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 1.2 8 Guiding Sustainability Principles, SecƟon 1.2.1 Goals
and ObjecƟves, SecƟon 3.2 General Land-Use Requirements, SecƟon 4.0 Park and ConservaƟon, SecƟon
5.1 Offering TransportaƟon Choices and SecƟon 5.2 Defining the TransportaƟon Network.
4.2.4 b) locate community, arts, cultural, recreaƟonal, insƟtuƟonal, medical/health, social service,
educaƟon faciliƟes and affordable housing development in Urban Centres or areas with good
access to transit;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, Community & Cultural Services.
xSecƟon 4.1.4 Diverse PopulaƟon.
xChapter 4.2 InsƟtuƟonal.
xChapter 4.3 Heritage, SecƟon 4.3.2 Heritage Management.
xChapter 6.5 AddiƟonal Employment GeneraƟng OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.5.5 Post Secondary EducaƟonal
InsƟtuƟons.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 35
4.2.4 c) provide public spaces and other place-making ameniƟes for increased social interacƟon
and community engagement;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness Community & Cultural Services.
xSecƟon 4.1.4 Diverse PopulaƟon, policies 4-18 and 4-19.
4.2.4 d) support acƟve living through the provision of recreaƟon faciliƟes, parks, trails, and safe
and inviƟng pedestrian and cycling environments;
xChapter 4.1 Social Sustainability, SecƟon 4.1.2 Community Wellness, Community & Cultural Services,
policies 4-5, 4-7 through 4-13.
xChapter 5.2 Environmental Management Model, policies 5-7 and 5-8.
xChapter 5.3 Land Resources, policies 5-14, 5-15 and 5-16.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-10, 7-11, 7-13 and 7-15.
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists.
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians.
xChapter 7.6 MulƟ-Use and Equestrian Trails.
4.2.4 e) support food producƟon and distribuƟon throughout the region, including in urban areas,
roof top gardens, green roofs and community gardens on private and municipally-owned lands
and healthy food retailers, such as grocery stores and farmers’ markets near housing and transit
services;
xChapter 6.2 Agricultural OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy.
xSecƟon 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture.
4.2.4 f) assess overall health implicaƟons of proposed new communiƟes, infrastructure and
transportaƟon services, including air quality and noise, with input from public health authoriƟes;
xChapter 2.1 Growth Management, SecƟon 2.1.2 A Compact and Unique Community, policy 2-5.
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, SecƟon 3.1.2 Community Character and Sense of Place, policy 3-5.
xChapter 5.5 Air Quality, policies 5-39 through 5-42.
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1 and 7-4.
xChapter 10.1 Area Planning, policy 10-3.
4.2.4 g) support universally accessible community design;
xChapter 3.1 ResidenƟal, policy 3-1.
xSecƟon 3.1.2 Community Character and Sense of Place, policy 3-5.
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians, policy 7-38.
Chapter 1, Page 36 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
4.2.4 h) where appropriate, idenƟfy small scale Local Centres in General Urban areas that provide
a mix of housing types, local-servicing commercial acƟviƟes and good access to transit. Local
Centres are not intended to compete with or compromise the role of Urban Centres and should
preferably be located within Frequent Transit Development areas;
xChapter 6.3 Commercial OpportuniƟes, SecƟon 6.3.6 Neighbourhood Commercial Centres, policies 6-30,
6-32 and 6-33.
xSecƟon 6.3.8 Historic Commercial, policies 6-37 through 6-39.
4.2.4 i) recognize the Special Employment Areas as shown on the Local Centres, Hospitals and Post
-Secondary InsƟtuƟons map (Map 11). Special Employment Areas are located outside of Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, and are region-serving, special purpose
faciliƟes that have a high level of related transportaƟon acƟvity due to employee, student or
passenger trips.
xMap 11 of the Regional Growth Strategy does not idenƟfy any Special Employment Areas in the District
of Maple Ridge.
image
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 37
GOAL 5: SUPPOR T SUS TAIN ABLE
TRANSPOR TATION CHOICES
“Metro Vancouver’s compact, transit-oriented urban form supports a range of sustainable
transportaƟon choices. This paƩern of development expands the opportuniƟes for transit,
mulƟple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking, encourages acƟve lifestyles, and reduces energy
use, greenhouse gas emissions, household expenditure on transportaƟon, and improves air
quality. The region’s road, transit, rail and waterway networks play a vital role in serving and
shaping regional development, providing linkages among the region’s communiƟes and providing
vital goods movement networks.”
STRATEGY 5.1: COORDINATE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION TO ENCOURAGE
TRANSIT, MULTIPLE-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES, CYCLING AND WALKING
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
5.1.6 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) idenƟfy land use and transportaƟon policies and acƟons, and describe how they are
coordinated, to encourage a greater share of trips made by transit, mulƟple-occupancy vehicles,
cycling and walking, and to support TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network;
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1 through 7-5.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-9, 7-10, 7-11 and 7-15.
xChapter 7.3 Transit, policies 7-16 through 7-24.
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists, policies 7-25 through 7-33.
xChapter 7.5 Pedestrians, policies 7-34 through 7-41.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2 Defining the TransportaƟon Network.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, Figure 3 Future Rapid Transit Route idenƟfies the potenƟal future
locaƟon of a rapid transit route along the Lougheed Highway in the Regional City Centre.
xThe District will work towards consistency between the OCP and RGS over Ɵme through the compleƟon
of the Maple Ridge TransportaƟon Plan. (Note: The TransportaƟon Plan is currently under preparaƟon
with an anƟcipated compleƟon in 2013.)
Chapter 1, Page 38 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
5.1.6 b) idenƟfy policies and acƟons that support the development and implementaƟon of
municipal and regional transportaƟon system and demand management strategies, such as
parking pricing and supply measures, transit priority measures, ridesharing, and car-sharing
programs;
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.1 Offering TransportaƟon Choices, policies 5-4, 5-5 and
5-6.
xThe District will work towards consistency between the OCP and RGS over Ɵme through the compleƟon
of the Maple Ridge TransportaƟon Plan. (Note: The TransportaƟon Plan is currently under preparaƟon
with an anƟcipated compleƟon in 2013.)
5.1.6 c) idenƟfy policies and acƟons to manage and enhance municipal infrastructure to support
transit, mulƟple-occupancy vehicles, cycling and walking.
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1, 7-4 and 7-5.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network, policies 7-10, 7-11 and 7-14.
xChapter 7.3 Transit, policies 7-16, 7-17, 7-19, 7-20, 7-23 and 7-24.
xChapter 7.4 Cyclists, policies 7-25, 7-26 and 7-29 through 7-33.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.1 Offering TransportaƟon Choices, policies 5-1 and 5-2.
xThe District will work towards consistency between the OCP and RGS over Ɵme through the compleƟon
of the Maple Ridge TransportaƟon Plan. (Note: The TransportaƟon Plan is currently under preparaƟon
with an anƟcipated compleƟon in 2013.)
STRATEGY 5.2: COORDINATE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION TO SUPPORT THE SAFE
AND EFFICIENT MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES FOR PASSENGERS, GOODS AND SERVICES
Role of MunicipaliƟes:
5.2.3 Adopt Regional Context Statements which:
a) idenƟfy routes on a map for the safe and efficient movement of goods and service vehicles to,
from, and within Urban Centres, Frequent Transit Development Areas, Industrial, Mixed
Employment and Agricultural areas, Special Employment Area, ports, airports and internaƟonal
border crossings;
xFigure 4 – Proposed Major Corridor Network Plan (2005 – 2031) idenƟfies the current (Nov. 14, 2006)
and proposed major transportaƟon routes within the District.
xNote: The District is currently preparing a TransportaƟon Plan which may include proposed changes to
Figure 4 – Proposed Major Corridor Network Plan (2005 – 2031).
5.2.3 b) idenƟfy land use and related policies and acƟons that support opƟmizing the efficient
movement of vehicles for passengers, Special Employment Areas, goods and services on the
Major Road Network, provincial highways, and federal transportaƟon faciliƟes;
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policies 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 39
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, 7-12 and 7-14.
xNote: The District is currently preparing a TransportaƟon Plan that may include addiƟonal policies and
acƟons that further address this Strategy.
5.2.3 c) support the development of local and regional transportaƟon system management
strategies, such as the provision of informaƟon to operators of goods and service vehicles for
efficient travel decisions, management of traffic flow using transit priority measures, coordinated
traffic signalizaƟon, and lane management;
xChapter 7.1 TransportaƟon, policy 7-1.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-6 through 7-11.
xChapter 7.3 Transit, policy 7-18.
xNote: The District is currently preparing a TransportaƟon Plan that may include addiƟonal policies and
acƟons that further address this Strategy.
5.2.3 d) idenƟfy policies and acƟons which support the protecƟon of rail rights-of-way and access
points to navigable waterways in order to reserve the potenƟal for goods movement, in
consideraƟon of the potenƟal impacts on air quality, habitat and communiƟes.
xChapter 7.2 Road Network Plan, policies 7-12 and 7-13.
xChapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, SecƟon 5.2.2 Enhancing the MulƟ-Modal Network, policy 5-13.
xThe District will work towards consistency between the OCP and RGS over Ɵme through the compleƟon
of the Maple Ridge TransportaƟon Plan. (Note: The TransportaƟon Plan is currently under preparaƟon
with an anƟcipated compleƟon in 2013.)
REGION AL GROW TH S TRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
6.2 REGIONAL CONTEXT STATEMENTS: PROVIDING FOR APPROPRIATE MUNICIPAL FLEXIBILITY
6.2.7 A municipality may include language in its Regional Context Statement that permits
amendments to the municipality’s Official Community Plan to adjust the boundaries of regional
land use designaƟons (or their equivalent Official Community Plan designaƟon) within the Urban
Containment Boundary, provided that:
a) the municipality may re-designate land from one regional land use designaƟon to another
regional land use designaƟon, only if the aggregate area of all proximate sites so re-designated
does not exceed one hectare;
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
Chapter 1, Page 40 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
6.2.7 b) notwithstanding secƟon 6.2.7(a), for sites that are three hectares or less, the municipality
may re-designate land:
xfrom Mixed Employment or Industrial to General Urban land use designaƟon, if the site is
located on the edge of an Industrial or Mixed Employment area and the developable porƟon
of the site will be predominantly within 150 metres of an exisƟng or approved rapid transit
staƟon on TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network; or
xfrom Industrial to Mixed Employment land use designaƟon if the developable porƟon of the
site will be predominantly within 250 metres of an exisƟng or approved rapid transit staƟon
on TransLink’s Frequent Transit Network;
provided that:
xthe re-designaƟon does not impede direct rail, waterway, road or highway access for
industrial uses; and
xthe aggregate area of all proximate sites that area re-designated does not exceed three
hectares;
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
6.2.7 c) the aggregate area of land affected by all re-designaƟons under secƟon 6.2.7(a) and (b)
together cannot exceed two percent of the municipality’s total lands within each applicable
regional land use designaƟon.
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
6.2.8 A municipality may include language in its Regional Context Statement that permits
amendments to the municipality’s Official Community Plan to adjust the boundaries of the
municipality’s Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, provided such boundary
adjustments meet the guidelines set out in Table 3 (Guidelines for Urban Centres and Frequent
Transit Development Areas) of the Regional Growth Strategy.
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
6.2.9 MunicipaliƟes will noƟfy Metro Vancouver of all adjustments, as permiƩed by secƟons 6.2.7
and 6.2.8, as soon as pracƟcable aŌer the municipality has adopted its Official Community Plan
amendment bylaw.
xThe District of Maple Ridge will implement policy 6.2.9 of the Regional Growth Strategy.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 Chapter 1, Page 41
6.2.10 If a municipality includes language in its Regional Context Statement that permits
amendments to the municipality’s Official Community Plan to adjust the boundaries of regional
land use designaƟons within the Urban Containment Boundary or the boundaries of Urban
Centres and Frequent Transit Development Areas, as permiƩed by secƟons 6.2.7 and 6.2.8
respecƟvely, the prescribe adjustments do not require and amendment to the municipality’s
Regional Context Statement. All other adjustments to regional land use designaƟon boundaries
will require and amendment to the municipality’s Regional Context Statement, which must be
submiƩed to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance in accordance with the requirements of
the Local Government Act.
xThe Maple Ridge Official Community Plan hereby permits such amendments.
image
Chapter 1, Page 42 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014