planning and development committee agenda

Transcription

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
April 9, 2015
SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
9:30 a.m.
AGENDA
Adoption of the Agenda
1.
PART 1 – ANNEX A to ANNEX F (pages 1 – 96)
DELEGATIONS
Ruth Simons, Future of Howe Sound Society
2.
Regarding Howe Sound Progress Report
(Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)
REPORTS
District of Sechelt Referral – 3370-20 and 2015-01 “SSC Properties”
3.
(Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)
ANNEX A
pp 1 - 7
ANNEX B
pp 8 - 13
4.
Eelgrass Protection
(Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX C
pp 14 - 16
5.
Official Community Plan Bylaw 675.2 and Zoning Bylaw 310.160 (Lindsey) – Area B
Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX D
pp 17 - 41
6.
Development Permit Application No. 310.190 (Braithwaite)
Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX E
pp 42 - 53
7.
Development Permit with a Variance Application No. B-67 (Drugmand for Herberts)
ANNEX F
pp 54 - 96
PART 2 – ANNEX G to ANNEX P (pages 97 – 181)
8.
Development Permit with a Variance Application No. F-83 (Pederson for Jordan) Area F
Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
9.
Planning and Development Division Monthly Report – March 2015
(Regional/Rural Planning Services) (Voting – All Directors)
ANNEX G
pp 97 - 136
ANNEX H
pp 137 - 144
MINUTES
10. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of March 25, 2015
Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX I
p 145
11.
Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of March 24, 2015
ANNEX J
pp 146 - 148
12.
Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of March 30, 2015
Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX K
pp 149 - 154
Planning and Development Committee Agenda – April 9, 2015
Page 2 of 2
13.
Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of March 25, 2015
Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX L
pp 155 - 157
14.
West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of March 24, 2015
Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)
ANNEX M
pp 158 - 160
COMMUNICATIONS
15.
Mike Clay, Mayor, City of Port Moody, dated March 9, 2015
Regarding Proposed Closure of Burrard Thermal Plant – Resolution for
Consideration at LMLGA and UBCM Conventions.
16.
Megan Molnar and Norm Blair, Co-Chair, Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council, dated
March 14, 2015
Regarding Update to the Formation of the Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council
17.
Samuel Sugita, Project Manager, Municipal Affairs (BC), Wireless Network
Implementation, Rogers Communications Inc., dated March 27, 2015
Regarding Invitation to Comment on Proposed Telecommunications Tower at 700
Payne Road, Gibsons.
ANNEX N
pp 161 - 166
ANNEX O
p 167
ANNEX P
pp 168 - 181
IN CAMERA
That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) (a) of the
Community Charter – “personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for
a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality..”
ADJOURNMENT
ANNEX G
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
March 20, 2015
SCRD Planning and Development Committee – April 9, 2015
Stina Hanson, Planning Technician
Development Permit with a Variance F-83 (Pedersen for Jordan) (Area F)
RECOMMENDATION(S)
1.
THAT the Planning and Development Committee receives the report titled
“Development Permit with a Variance F-83 (Pedersen for Jordan) (Area F)” and
dated March 20, 2015;
2.
AND THAT Development Permit with a Variance F-83 (Pedersen for Jordan) be
issued:
a. to relax the setback to the natural boundary of the ocean as required by
Section 507(1) of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310,
1987 from 7.5 metres to 2.7 metres:
b. to relax the setback to a rear parcel line as required by Section 601.4(3) of
Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw 310, 1987 from 2 metres to 0
metres;
c. to relax the setback to an interior side parcel line as required by Section
601.4(3) of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw 310, 1987 from
1.5 metres to 1.29 metres;
d. to vary Section 509(1) to reduce the number of required off-street parking
spaces from 2 to 1;
in order to legalize the siting of an existing dwelling on Lot E Block C District Lot
1400 Plan VAP20842, subject to:
a. Addendum letter from a qualified professional to address land alteration for
the creation of one off-street parking space;
b. Modification of existing deck to remove the portion encroaching onto Crown
Land.
BACKGROUND
The Regional District is in receipt of an Development Permit with a variance application to
permit the construction of a new septic system and to relax the minimum structural setback to
the natural boundary of the ocean, the side and rear parcel line and to reduce the parking
requirements to permit the location of an existing single family dwelling constructed without
building permits or approved septic system in the mid 1980s.
APPLICANT:
Ken Pedersen for registered owners Michael Jordan, Kelly Carter and Richard
Jordan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot E Block C District Lot 1400 Plan VAP20842 PID: 004-140-532
ELECTORAL AREA:
F
LOCATION:
1498 Tideview Road, West Howe Sound
ZONE:
R1
PROPOSED VARIANCE: To vary the minimum required structural setback to the natural boundary of the
ocean from 7.5 metres to 2.7 metres and to vary the minimum required setback
to a rear parcel line from 2 metres to 0 metres, to vary the setback to a side
parcel line from 1.5 metres to 1.29 metres and to reduce the on-site parking
97
N:\Land Administration\3060 Development Permits\3060-20 DP Area F\F-83 (V) (Jordan)\DP(V) F-83 - PDC Report.doc
Staff Report to SCRD Planning and Development Committee – April 9, 2015
Regarding DPV Application No. F-83 (Pedersen for Jordan) (Area F) Page 2 of 5
PARCEL AREA:
requirements from 2 spaces to 1 space to legalize the siting of an existing single
family dwelling originally constructed without building permits.
371.9 square metres
DISCUSSION
The subject property is very small
property located on the waterfront side of
Tideview Road. The property was
originally subdivided in 1914, prior to any
modern
requirements
for
sewage
disposal, parcel size or road frontage.
The
parcel
boundaries
were
reestablished in 1986 when the reference
plan BCP20842 was filed with the Land
Title Authority. This confirmed the parcel
size of 371.9 square metres and the
parcel frontage of 3.44 metres. This
survey did not reestablish the natural
boundary and instead used the natural
boundary as indicated on the original
1914 plan. There has been significant
changes to the natural boundary and the
Figure 1 – Location Map
foreshore
ecosystem
fronting
this
property between the original survey of 1914 and Building Location Certificate dated September
5, 2014 (see Appendix A) that was included as documentation with the variance application.
This plan shows that two retaining walls (an older concrete retaining wall, which stretches
across the front of the dwelling and a newer log retaining wall, which extends onto the southern
portion of the property from neighbouring lot) have been constructed along the foreshore and
presumably backfilled. Since the land between the retaining walls and the original natural
boundary was not created by a natural process of accretion, the property owner is unable to
apply to the province to adjust the rear parcel line of the property to add this land. This area
technically remains Crown Land, the same as the natural foreshore found below the natural
boundary. This means that the setback to the ocean will be calculated from the present natural
boundary (the retaining wall/limit of fill indicated on Appendix A) and requires a setback
reduction from 7.5 metres to 2.7 metres. The applicants also require a setback variance to the
rear parcel line (which is identified as the “Natural Boundary from Plan 20842 on Appendix A)
from 2 metres to 0 metres to permit the attached deck. Therefore there are two setback
relaxations required. Since a portion of the deck extends beyond the property line and now
requires provincial approval, planning staff and the Squamish Nation have requested the deck
be modified at the south east corner so that it is completely located on the subject property.
In addition to the setback variance, the property also does not comply with the parking
requirements of Bylaw 310, which require two off-street parking spaces for each single family
dwelling in the R1 zone. Given the limited road frontage (~10 feet) and the extreme slope of the
property vehicle access is difficult, however there is a slightly flat bench at the western portion of
the property, right off of the road allowance that could accommodate one parking space. The
planning department is aware of parking conflicts on Tideview Road due to the steepness of the
surrounding terrain, the small lot sizes and the concentration of residential development in the
area. Letters received from neighbouring property owners are both in support of and against
additional off-street parking, for a range of reasons, including the recognition of current parking
98
conflicts and a desire to maintain mature vegetation in the area (see Consultation section below
and Attachment 4). Planning staff feel that requesting the addition of one parking spot is a
reasonable compromise that improves the overall parking situation on Tideview Road, while
acknowledging the various constraints on the property and preserving as much of the existing
hillside vegetation as possible. The geotechnical report submitted as part of the development
permit application does not mention land alteration for any purpose other than the construction
of the septic system and thus an addendum letter will be required to address land alteration for
the purpose of off-street parking.
The main issue on the property is the construction of the original home without an approved
septic system or building permits. The SCRD first became aware of the cabin in 1989 when it
was notified of new construction proceeding without building permits. A stop work order was
posted on the property in 1989 and the owner was advised to apply for a building permit. In
order to obtain a building permit, the owner first required approval from Vancouver Coastal
Health (VCH) for a septic system. Due to its size and soil characteristics the property could not
support a conventional Type 1 septic system and obtain VCH approval for a septic system. This
prevented them from obtaining a building permit, as the building bylaw requires all single family
dwellings be connected to an approved septic system.
Due to concerns around environmental health and public health and safety that stemmed from
the dwelling being occupied without either a building permit or an approved septic system the
SCRD pursued legal action to have the building removed. The final ruling favoured the owner
and permitted the building to remain, albeit not to be occupied until the sewage disposal issues
are resolved. At that time there were no practical solutions for installing a functional septic
system. The SCRD placed notice on title and continued communication with the owners
regarding their progress in securing septic system approval. It appears the SCRD did not
receive responses to these letters, but no further bylaw enforcement action was taken around
either the septic system approval or the clause in the final ruling prohibiting the building from
being occupied.
The SCRD received a new bylaw complaint in April 2014 regarding the use of the dwelling.
Given the changes to septic regulations and the advances in technology, the SCRD believed
the owner would now be able to obtain a registered wastewater professional or engineer to
design either a Type 2 or Type 3 septic system that could be filed with Vancouver Coastal
Health and allow the owners to finally apply for a building permit. The SCRD followed up on the
April 2014 bylaw complaint with letters advising the applicant to apply for a development permit
as the property is located in Development Permit Area #2 – Slope Stability and Development
Permit area #5 – Shoreline Protection Management. The SCRD also verbally gave another “Do
Not Occupy” warning to the applicant; however no notice was posted on the dwelling. The need
for the variance application was determined once the applicant submitted a site plan showing
the location of the existing home. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report (see
Appendix 2) that indicates the subject property is safe for its intended use (both the existing
dwelling and the proposed septic system).
In terms of the variance request, planning staff acknowledge the constraints of the lot (size and
topography) and geotechnical issues (rockfall risk) combine to create a strong rational for
reducing the setback to the natural boundary of the ocean and by extension the rear property
line, to enable the existing dwelling to remain in place. The main issue is ensuring the property
has an adequate and approved septic system and does not pose a public or environmental
health risk and since the SCRD is not involved in regulating septic systems, the application was
referred to VCH (see consultation section below).
99
CONSULTATION
Referral Agencies:
The development permit with a variance application has been referred to the following agencies
for comment:
Referral
Comments
SCRD Building
Department
Any building issues will be dealt with during the building permit
process.
Squamish Nation
No concerns with the application as the deck encroaching onto
crown land will be removed. If excavation is required an
archaeological monitor must be present.
Vancouver Coastal
Health
No concerns with the application: Septic filing will be required,
which must meet the “Sewerage System Regulation” (see
Attachment 4).
Area F APC
At the February 24, 2015 APC meeting the following motion was
made:
MOTION (FG): That the APC supports the application for a
variance. Carried
Owner/Occupiers
Three letters were received (See Attachment 4). See note below.
Two of the letters received fundamentally supported the variance application, provided that the
applicants go through all required steps to legalize the dwelling (including the septic system and
the building permit). One of the letters does not support issuing the variance as they believe it
sets the wrong precedent regarding building without permits and building without regard to
existing rules and regulations. Planning staff note that there are a number of issues related to
the site that support, in principle, a variance to the siting of a home on this property and that the
SCRD has previously taken a strong stance against the applicants by requesting removal of the
building. Given the court order’s emphasis on the septic system, it is unlikely that a petition to
remove the building based on the siting of the building alone would be successful. It should also
be pointed out that the do not occupy order is still in effect until building permit has been
completed and the issuance of the variance only legitimizes the siting of the building.
Neighbour comments regarding the variance to off-street parking are split as one respondent
requests that no additional parking on Tideview Road be permitted, while another believes that
the seasonal use natural of the cabin and the potential need for tree removal to create a parking
space means that no additional parking on the lot should be created. Planning staff have
addressed these issues above and believe that one space is an acceptable compromise.
Additionally an addendum letter from a geotechnical engineer will be required to confirm the
western portion of the lot will be safe for parking.
SUMMARY
The SCRD has previously taken bylaw enforcement action against this property, which though
unsuccessful in getting the building removed, did not allow the owner to occupy the building.
The SCRD now has an opportunity to ensure the development on the property does not present
a hazard to public health and safety or to the environment. The constraints of the lot and the
available building sites would have provided strong support for some type of setback variance
100
had the applicants been able to go through the approval process in the mid 1980s. The
construction of one parking space will also potentially improve the parking conflicts on Tideview
Road and the construction of the approved septic system will address previous bylaw complaint
issues. Additionally prior to the issuance of the variance the applicants will remove the portion of
the existing deck that extends onto crown land. The small lot size, topography and geotechnical
hazards provide a strong rational to support the variance request for the siting of the home and
the reduction of the parking requirements. The issuance of this permit will allow for land
alteration related to the septic system to start, which will enable the applicants to obtain a
building permit and resolve the ongoing issues on the property. SCRD planning staff support
this application.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Plan showing location of existing home
2. Geotechnical Report
3. Referral Response Vancouver Coastal Health
4. Owner/Occupier Letters
5. Draft Development Permit
101
102
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
Attachment 3
125
126
127
128
Attachment 4
Stina Hanson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Laura Wannop <[email protected]>
Monday, March 09, 2015 8:15 AM
Stina Hanson
Development Permit With a Variance - 1498 Tideview Rd
Hello Stina,
We are in receipt of your notice regarding the Development Permit with a Variance - DPV F-83 for 1498 Tideview Road,
Langdale, B.C.
We are the neighbours at 1500 Tideview Road, having been here and maintaining a seasonal residence since 1951.
The SCRD staff report covers the history of this area well. The concrete retaining wall at 1498 Tideview was built in
1969 and the retaining wall at 1500 Tideview was built in 1986. The log retaining wall built in the last few years.
The foreshore at 1498 Tideview has been changed substantially in recent years.
As stated in the staff report, the building was built without permits and was "Red Carded" by the district.
The owners were aware that no further work was to be done without permits, but, over 25 years later work was
started again. Are there any consequences for this, ie: penalties/fines?
We are glad the correct/proper applications are now in process.
If the variance is granted, who will monitor the compliance of the conditions set forth? Are there any precedents
for this, in the district, ie set backs on foreshore/natural boundaries, side yards etc.? What inspections with respect
to the existing building will be done, ie structural, electrical etc.? Do the present building codes apply or the "old" codes
when the construction began?
Are there any comments back from the other "Referral Agencies"?
Can the "dwelling" be used before the conditions outlined by the district are met?
We do not object to this application as long as ALL conditions are met and we ALL "play" by the same rules.
Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and please remove my e-mail address if this e-mail is to be copied or shared.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Laura Wannop
1
129
1490 Smith Road,
Gibsons, B.C. V0N 1V6
February 6, 2015
Sunshine Coast Regional District,
Attention: Stina Hanson.
Re:DPV F-83
We are in receipt of your notice of a request for a variance on the property
involved with this file.
This variance has our approval. It is to be expected that a new septic system
will be installed.
We do not approve of any further parking on Tideview. Parking is already
extremely limited for the recently developed properties. With only +/-10ft. of
property line on Tideview it is to be expected that a parking pad will be
constructed on the property itself.
Yours truly.
Joan and Bruce Irvine
130
To The Sunshine Coast Regional District Planning and Development Committee
Regarding DPV F-83 for Property at 1498 Tideview Rd, Langdale
Regarding this application, we have two concerns. First, the septic variance. It is our
understanding that variances are considered when circumstances beyond the property owner’s
control make compliance difficult. Our understanding in this case is that this individual has made
no effort at all to comply with the district's bylaws. Also, the application is not to allow a small
exemption but a massive one. He is not asking for a variance for a few centimetres or even a
metre. He is asking to be allowed to cut 4.8m off of 7.5m for his own ease and convenience, for a
house that shouldn't be there in the first place. This would be a variance of 64%.
If this variance was granted, the septic field would simply be too close to the water. We and
many others in this neighbourhood, including many children, swim frequently in this water. And
the environmental consequences are also cause for concern. Given this individual’s history of
ignoring by-laws (please see below), we have no doubt a septic permitted to exist so very close
to the water will end up being in contravention even with the variance.
Regarding the setbacks, while they are less extreme an alteration than the proposed ocean
setback variance, they represent the entrenchment of a dwelling that should not be there. It is
surprising that the SCRD would even entertain a variance on such a property. In our opinion, the
illegal dwelling should be removed.
As nearby residents, we have observed only a flagrant disregard by this property owner, not only
for the SCRD's bylaws and regulations but also for his neighbours and for the natural
environment. He has a history not only of violating this community's agreed-upon bylaws but of
total refusal to comply when confronted. There have been ongoing confrontations with this
individual regarding his garbage. He routinely, and for many years, has left his garbage out,
unsecured, days before pick-up. He is a repeat offender in this regard. (Note: He does not live
here, only visits.) The garbage predictably attracts wild and domestic animals, endangering the
animals and his neighbours. Neighbours have spoken to him on a number of occasions, and he
has been visited by the SCRD bear aware officer and contacted by a conservation officer. His
garbage bin has been decorated with yellow bear tape by the conservation officer. He refused to
stop, or even to take responsibility, claiming that someone else was placing the garbage into his
bin. He has also shown disregard by abandoning items on the beach and has built a retaining wall
without permission, further altering and impacting the waterfront.
This person has consistently demonstrated his refusal to comply with local bylaws and
regulations and to take responsibility for his actions. He has routinely exhibited a disregard for
his neighbours, his community, and the natural environment. He has exhibited an assumption of
entitlement that does nothing to allay our concerns. This is clearly an individual who believes,
and has stated, that because his family has owned property on the coast for many years, the rules
don't apply to him.
We are at a loss to understand why the SCRD's time is being wasted considering two variances
so extreme and so unnecessary for a structure which should not be there. We have been witness
to other neighbours working at great pains and lengths to ensure that the work they do on their
131
primary residences comply with all regulations. To approve this variance would indicate to
everyone that compliance is completely optional and that all one has to do is break the rules and
then wait out the SCRD to get one's way.
Thank you.
E. Carpentier,
M. Dombowsky
Langdale, BC
132
Stina Hanson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mark Dombowsky <[email protected]>
Monday, March 16, 2015 11:31 AM
Stina Hanson
Comments - File No: DPV F-83
Comments File No DPV F-83.doc; P1020711.JPG; P1020739.JPG
Hi Stina, Attached are our comments regarding the consideration of a variance for 1498 Tideview Road. I have attached a photo taken on one of the numerous occasions when this resident left his garbage days before pick up. It is also our understanding that this individual will seek permission to create more permanent parking areas for his property. This individual has regularly parked numerous vehicles in the parking area already created, and has also routinely used the large area of Tideview across from his property. To add yet another parking area would "require," we suspect, the cutting of at least one very large mature cedar. Given that the primary house there is a secondary residence, and that the other house in question is illegal, we believe the addition of more parking space is is completely unnecessary. Photo attached showing space already accommodating two cars. Sincerely, Mark Dombowsky 1508 Tideview Road Langdale, BC 1
133
Attachment 5
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT with VARIANCE
F-83
TO:
Michael Jordan
ADDRESS:
1-257 East 6th Street
North Vancouver, BC
This Development Permit with a Variance is issued subject to compliance with all of the Bylaws of
the Sunshine Coast Regional District applicable thereto, except those specifically varied or
supplemented by this Permit.
Development Permit Area #2 (Slope Stability) and #5 (Shoreline Protection Management) within
the West Howe Sound Official Community Plan Bylaw 640 apply to those lands within the Sunshine
Coast Regional District described below:
Legal Description:
P.I.D.:
Civic Description:
Lot E Block C District Lot 1400 Plan VAP20842
004-140-532
1498 Tideview Road, West Howe Sound, BC
The lands described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions
and provisions of this Permit and any plans and specifications attached to this Permit which shall
form a part thereof.
Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is varied or supplemented, and
conditions and requirements pursuant to Section 920 of the Local Government Act are imposed in
accordance with the guidelines specified in the West Howe Sound Official Community Plan.
Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is specifically varied as follows:
To vary Section 507 of SCRD Bylaw No. 310 to relax the minimum required
setback to the natural boundary of the ocean from 7.5 metres to 2.7 metres and
to vary Section 601.2(2) of SCRD Bylaw No. 310 from 2 metres to 0 metres, to
vary Section 601.4(3) of SCRD Bylaw No. 310 from 1.5 metres to 1.29 metres and
to vary Section 509(1) to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces
from 2 to 1 for the purpose of legalizing an existing single family dwelling;
This Development Permit with a Variance for the purpose of constructing a septic system, an offstreet parking space and legalizing the siting of an existing single family dwelling and is issued
subject to compliance with the following terms and conditions:
134
Development Permit with Variance No. F-83
Conditions Achieved Prior to Issuance:
(1) Registration of a Section 219 Restrictive Covenant to the satisfaction of the
SCRD, to save harmless the SCRD;
(2) Receipt of addendum letter from a qualified professional regarding land
alteration as part of the construction of an off-street parking space;
(3) Removal of a portion of the existing deck that encroaches onto Crown Land as
shown on Appendix B to this permit;
General Conditions:
(1)
Adhere to the guidelines and recommendations in the geotechnical report prepared by
Western Geotechnical Consultants and dated November 21, 2014 and attached to and
forming part of this permit as Appendix A;
(2)
The development shall substantially conform with the site plan prepared by Peter
Gordon and dated September 5, 2014 and attached to and forming part of this permit
as Appendix B;
(3)
The owner is responsible for ensuring that all construction and works carried out under
this permit are on the owner’s land subject to this permit;
(4)
The Geotechnical Engineer provides a final letter to confirm that all construction is
consistent with standard engineering practice and with the attached geotechnical
report and this letter must be received to the satisfaction of the SCRD prior to SCRD
approval of the final inspection for the development, which is the subject of this
Development Permit;
(5)
Post a waterproof copy of the Development Permit (8.5" x 11" minimum) on the
development site for the duration of construction.
(6)
If the Permittee does not commence the development permitted by this Permit within
two years of the date of this permit, this Development Permit shall lapse.
(7)
The development is to be completed within four years from issuance of the date of this
Development Permit.
Except as specifically provided above, this Development Permit, with setback variance, in no way
relieves the owner or occupier of the responsibility of adhering to all other legislation of
responsible authorities, which may apply to the land.
135
Development Permit with Variance No. F-83
This Permit is not a building permit.
AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION No. xxx/xx PASSED BY THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
BOARD THIS xx DAY OF Month, 2015.
ISSUED THIS
xx DAY OF Month, 2015
_____________________________________
Ms. Angie Legault, Corporate Officer
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
136
ANNEX H
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT
MARCH 2015
1.
Development Control
Please refer to the attached tables titled SCRD Bylaw Amendment and Permit Activity and SCRD
Subdivision and Development Activity and for a summary of development activities.
A.
Zoning Bylaw Amendments and Official Community Plan Amendment
No new applications were received in March.
Ongoing Applications:
Electoral Areas D and E
Bylaws 641.3, 310.156 (Area D) and Bylaws 600.4, 310.159 (Area E) - Staff drafted proposals for
form and character DPA. OCP amendments (641.3 and 600.4) had First Reading at the January 8,
2015 Board meeting. A Public Information Meeting was held on February 24, 2015 at the Roberts
Creek Community Hall. A report is scheduled to go to the May PDC.
Electoral Area D
Zoning Bylaw Amendment 310.158 (Goldmoss Gallery) –The revised application was referred to
both the Roberts Creek OCPC and APC in the month of March. Planning staff attended both
meetings to explain the changes to the proposal. Both meetings were also attended by several
members of the community. There is a large amount of interest in this application and significant
amount of discussion as to whether it is consistent with the OCP and the character of Roberts Creek.
B.
Development Permits and Development Permits with a Variance
2 new applications were received in March:
Electoral Area A
DP(V) A-37 (Cook for Malinousky) located on Sakinaw Lake in DPA 1 (Stream Riparian
Assessment Area) the variance request is for a set of stairs, deck and additions to a single family
dwelling originally constructed without permits. Staff are preparing a report for a future Area A
APC Meeting.
Electoral Area D
DP D-134 (Tara) located along the Sunshine Coast Highway in DPA 1 (Stream Riparian
Assessment Area) to allow for upgrades to an existing micro-hydro project on Flume Creek. Staff
have received project documentation and are awaiting the provincial review of the RAR report.
137
Page 2 of 6
Electoral Area A
DP A-35 (Dion) located on Sakinaw Lake in DPA 1 (Stream Riparian Assessment Area) to allow
the construction of a seasonal use cabin and studio. Staff have received RAR assessment and are
waiting on provincial review of the report.
Electoral Area B
DP B-62 (Shallard for Sova/Moore) located on Walker Road in Development Permit Area 1B
(Coastal Slopes) for an addition to an existing single family dwelling. Application is on hold
pending the receipt of final drawings and site plan.
DP(V) B-66 (Spani for Reed) – Development Permit with a Variance application to reduce the
setback to a rear and side parcel line to allow for a new single family dwelling on Chikuainuk Drive
within DPA 1A (Coastal Flooding). Application was approved at the March PDC meeting subject to
receipt of comments from the shíshálh Nation (still waiting on comments).
DP(V) B-67 (Drugmand for Herberts) – Development Permit with a Variance application to reduce
the setback to the natural boundary of the ocean to allow for an addition to an existing single family
dwelling on 5504 Hydaway Place in DPA 1B (Coastal Slopes). Application will be considered at
PDC in April.
Electoral Area F
DP(V) F-80 (Treuheit for Cole) located at 1358 Burns Road in DPA 5 (Shoreline Protection and
Management) to allow for the construction of a new residence and addition to existing shoreline
revetment. Applicant received site alteration permit, permit was issued in March.
DP F-82 (Altus Group for Eneveldson/Telus) - Altus Group Ltd. and TM Mobile Inc. (“Telus”) to
erect a new 45-metre telecommunications tower, proposed to be located on an industrial-zoned lot
located on Stewart Road within Development Permit No. 7 (Stewart Road Light Industrial). The DP
application is combined with an application made under the SCRD’s Telecommunication Facility
Review Procedure. A letter of concurrence with conditions was sent to Industry Canada in March.
Staff continue communicating with Telus staff to finalize the Permit.
DP(V) F-83 (Pederson for Jordan) – Development Permit with a Variance application in DPA #2
(slope stability) for 1498 Tideview Road to legalize an existing dwelling and cover land alteration
related to the construction of a septic field. Application will be considered at PDC in April.
C.
Development Variance Permits
Electoral Area A
DVP 337.141 (Flood) to relax the minimum size of a portion of a hooked parcel in the B subdivision
district to allow for a two lot subdivision on Oyster Bay Road and a relaxation of the front setback
for proposed lot B. Applicant registered the required covenants and the permit was issued in March.
138
Page 3 of 6
DVP 337.142 (Maldonado) to vary the setback to the front parcel line from 5 metres to 2.83 metres
to allow a carport as part of a single family dwelling. The application was approved in July;
however staff are still awaiting confirmation from the shíshálh Nation before issuing the permit.
DVP 337.144 (Woznow) to relax the minimum parking requirements from 2 spaces per residential
property to 0 to allow for a 2 lot subdivision on Hardy Island. The application was considered at the
February PDC meeting and will be brought back to a future PDC.
DVP 337.145 (Powell for Reid and Nelson) to vary the setback to an exterior side parcel line from
4.5 metres to 1.5 metres to allow for the construction of a new single family dwelling on Sinclair
Bay Road in Pender Harbour. The application was approved at the March PDC meeting subject to
comments from the shíshálh Nation (still awaiting comments).
Electoral Area B
DVP 310.175 (Rutherford) to vary the required setback to waterbody (ocean) in order to permit a
retaining wall located at 5603 Mintie Road. Staff are awaiting an updated site survey in order to
prepare a report for an upcoming Area B APC meeting.
DVP 310.187 (Boulding/Cranston) to vary the setback to the natural boundary of the ocean in three
places to permit an existing single family dwelling on Mercer Road in Halfmoon Bay. The SCRD
received the PFR in March and is not waiting for covenant registration.
Electoral Area E
DVP 310.190 (Braithwaite) to vary the setback to a front parcel line from 5 metres to 2.56 metres to
allow for an addition (2nd storey) to an existing auxiliary building on Quinn Place. The application
will be considered April’s PDC.
D.
Board of Variance
E.
Building Permits
Staff reviewed 27 building permit applications in March to confirm Zoning Bylaw and Official
Community Plan compliance.
F.
Crown Land/Foreshore, Water Licence Application Referrals, Pesticide Use Application
Referrals, UREP referrals.
1 new Crown notification was received in March:
Electoral Area A
2411099 – Log Handling Barge Facility by BC Timber Sales, located in Lena Bay, Hotham Sound.
This is a re-application for an existing log handling foreshore licence for 10 years. Staff are
preparing comments to submit to the Crown.
139
Page 4 of 6
Electoral Area A
0163133 – Bowsprit Community Wharf Renewal Application – As directed by the Board, staff have
submitted the application form for re-assigning the tenure of the dock to the Bowsprit Community
Wharf Association. Staff are awaiting for provincial approval before completing the final steps.
2411037 – Private Moorage by Kay & Associates, located in Middle Point, Area A. The application
was re-referred to the Area A APC in February and an update on this application was considered at
the March 12 PDC. Staff sent in the Board’s comments via e-mail on March 13, 2015.
Electoral Area F
105986 – Application Pursuant to the Environmental Management Act by Interfor Corporation – An
application for a temporary burning permit (16-18 months) at a property within the Twin Creeks
Area OCP near the Avalon dry log sort. Comments opposing the burn application were forwarded to
both the Ministry of Environment and Interfor in March. Ministry of Environment staff indicate that
the temporary permit was not issued due to SCRD concerns and that Interfor plans to contact the
SCRD for further discussions.
G.
Governmental Referrals (District of Sechelt / Town of Gibsons / Islands Trust)
A referral was received from the District of Sechelt for an OCP amendment in Porpoise Bay, north
of the Provincial Park. The property known as Sustainable Sechelt Community Properties (SSC) is
located on the site was subject to the ‘Silverback’ development. The referral, at this time pertains to
an OCP amendment which is a general proposal. A more detailed development plan will be
required in the future to determine specifics of water supply and transit service.
H.
Subdivision Activity
1 new subdivision application was received in March.
Electoral Area B
MoTI #2015-00938 – Green for 375703 BC Ltd. (Anderson) for a two lot subdivision of an ocean
front property along the Sunshine Coast Highway. The application was sent to the March APC
meeting for review and comments will be forwarded to MOTI at the beginning of April.
I.
Agricultural Land Commission Applications
1 new application was received in March:
Area D
ALR D-59 – Green for 1312 Lands Inc. - for an eight lot subdivision for farm use in the ALR,
located in Roberts Creek. Staff are commencing a preliminary review of the application and a report
will be prepared for the April AAC and Area D APC meetings for comment.
J.
Tree Cutting Permits
1 new application was received in March.
140
Page 5 of 6
Electoral Area B
B-25 (Branch Management for Rowa) to permit the cutting of two alder trees in “Tree Cutting
Permit Area A” along Redrooffs Road in Halfmoon Bay.
K.
Strata Conversion Applications
1 new application was received in March.
Electoral Area E
SC E-2 (Boon) to create a two-unit strata on Rosamond Road. Application has been referred to the
Building and Infrastructure Departments for comment.
2.
Long Range Planning and Major Projects
A.
Agricultural zoning (Areas B-F) – Staff presented to the PDC a report and draft zoning amendment
bylaw to replace the ‘RU3 Zone’ with a new ‘AG Zone’ within Zoning Bylaw No. 310. Staff began
referring the draft bylaw to various advisory groups and agencies for comment.
B.
Agricultural Area Plan –Staff presented the Agricultural Area Plan to the District of Sechelt on
March 18th.
C.
Staff continued to meet and correspond with other active participants of the Food Policy Council
working group with a view towards formalizing the FPC, and collaborating to implement the
Agricultural Area Plan and begin developing a region-wide food sustainability strategy.
D.
The OCP review committee for Egmont/Pender Harbour was appointed in March and the first
meeting will occur in April.
E.
Staff have contacted representatives of the Invasive Species Technical Working Group and the first
quarterly meeting will be held on April 27th in the Cedar room. The draft Terms of Reference (TOR)
will be reviewed by the Invasive Species Technical Working Group.
F.
Environmental Assessments for Eagle Mountain/Woodfibre Gas Pipeline and Woodfibre LNG
applications: Staff attending meetings of the working group for each EA, by phone from March 2 to
March 5. SCRD staff informed the EAO that due to SCRD meeting schedules and the recently
announced March 21 public meeting attended by the proponent on Gambier Island, SCRD Board
comments will be provided on March 27. Report was considered at March 26 CASS and adopted
with amendments at Board on March 26. Comments forwarded to EAO on March 27. An article,
including a brief summary of the public meeting on Gambier and Board comments, was submitted
for the April edition of the SCRD’s Coast Current Newsletter.
G.
Staff continued to correspond with District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons and shíshálh Nation staff
concerning the potential for developing a region-wide protocol for considering siting of
telecommunication towers and antennae. Staff will coordinate a working group meeting in April.
3.
Other
A.
Heritage Protocol Advisory Committee met on March 23.
141
B.
Page 6 of 6
SCRD executed an agreement with Vancouver Coastal Health titled “VCH - SCRD Healthy
Communities Collaboration Agreement”. In February staff met with colleagues from VCH, Town
of Gibsons and District of Sechelt to discuss the agreements that VCH have with each. In March a
press release from VCH was agreed.
142
SCRD Bylaw Amendment and Permit Activity
BYLAW AMENDMENTS RECEIVED
Bylaw Amended
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Zoning Amendments
310
337
OCP Amendments
West Howe Sound
Elphinstone
Roberts Creek
Halfmoon Bay
Egmont/Pender Hrbr
Hillside
Twin Creeks
Totals
6
1
7
2
2
2
3
1
4
2
6
4
4
3
0
0
0
4
2
0
1
14
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
16
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
9
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS RECEIVED
Official Community Plan 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
West Howe Sound
Elphinstone
Roberts Creek
Halfmoon Bay
Egmont/Pender Hrbr
Totals
7
6
12
3
5
33
6
5
5
8
2
26
2
4
10
10
5
31
8
2
10
6
5
29
3
3
7
5
3
21
0
1
11
4
4
20
5
1
7
5
4
22
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
4
DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMITS AND BOARD OF VARIANCE ORDERS RECEIVED
Zoning Bylaw
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
Bylaw 310
13 14 10
6
10
6
10
2
2
Bylaw 337
7
7
9
1
2
6
4
1
1
Totals
20 21 19
7
12
12
14
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
Official Community Plan 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
West Howe Sound
Elphinstone
Roberts Creek
Halfmoon Bay
Egmont-Pender Hrbr
Totals
29 45 37
44 45 49
59 54 71
61 62 70
93 117 105
286 323 332
35
44
56
64
70
269
33
39
51
56
74
253
24
54
33
41
62
214
18
21
61
42
58
200
CROWN LAND PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Electoral Area
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
West Howe Sound
Elphinstone
Roberts Creek
Halfmoon Bay
Egmont-Pender Hrbr
All Electoral Areas
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
6
8
16
3
0
0
3
9
0
15
0
0
0
4
6
1
10
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec YTD
3
3
2
2
2
6
2
4
8
14
3
3
5
11
3
7
12
22
10
19
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec YTD
1
1
1
2
3
143
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
SCRD Subdivision and Development Activity
Electoral
Area
A
B
D
E
F
Totals
Subdivision Applications Received By Area*
2011
2012
2013
2014
2010
March
4
4
8
3
3
22
8
1
5
8
0
22
4
7
4
5
3
23
2
1
0
1
2
6
Electoral
Area
A
B
D
E
F
Totals
2015
5
2
6
2
3
18
YTD
1
1
1
1
Subdivision Application Fees Collected
Year
Amount Collected
2010
$22,165.00
$19,947.00
2011
$14,335.00
2012
2013
$5,175.00
2014
$22,825.00
March
$865.00
2015 YTD
$865.00
Subdivisions Receiving Final SCRD Approval
2011
2012
2013
2014
Electoral
Area
A
B
D
E
F
Totals
Fees Received For Money In Lieu Of Park Dedication
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
March
$16,875
$29,250
2010
3
1
3
4
3
14
$16,875
$0
Electoral
Area
A
B
D
E
F
Totals
Electoral
Area
A
B
D
E
F
Totals
Development Cost Charges Collected From Subdivision*
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
March
YTD
$2,000
$8,000
$2,000
$6,000
$6,000
$3,000
$24,000
$3,000
$2,450
$12,250 $12,250
$2,450
$2,450
$7,350
$2,450
$7,350
$34,300
$2,450 $39,300
$2,450
$42,750
$30,050 $65,000
$26,450
$15,250
$0
$2,000
Electoral
Area
A
B
D
E
F
Totals
$0
$0
$0
$29,250
$0
2010
2
1
6
4
2
15
0
YTD
Subdivision
1
4
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
144
0.0852
0
2015
0
$4,900
$4,900
$0
$0
2015
March
YTD
1
1
1
Exclusion
0
YTD
0
$0
Strata Conversion Applications Reviewed
2011
2012
2013
2014
1
Inclusion
Non-Farm
1
2
1
3
0
$2,450
$2,450
$2,450
2015
March
1
1
2
7
Development Cost Charges Collected From Building Permits*
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
March
YTD
Electoral
Area
A
B
D
E
F
Totals
2014
2
1
0.0852
0
District of Sechelt
Development Cost Charges
2010
$56,100
2011
$82,500
2012
$223,300
2013
$94,600
2014
$57,750
March
2015 YTD
2013
YTD
2
2
March
* Does not include District of Sechelt.
2012
2
3
5
1
0
11
Lands Received as Park Dedication (Hectares)
2011
2012
2013
2014
2010
$2,450
* Does not include District of Sechelt .
ALR Applications Reviewed
Electoral
2010
2011
Area
A
B
D
2
E
1
F
Totals
3
2015
March
Electoral
Area
A
B
D
E
F
Totals
YTD
Proposed # of Parcels Through Subdivision Application Reviewed
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
March
YTD
8
16
8
3
14
13
2
13
6
5
2
2
24
12
8
0
16
8
15
4
2
8
2
5
0
6
4
20
58
45
39
15
63
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
$0
ANNEX I
AREA 'A' MINUTES
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT REFERRALS ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
LIBRARY ROOM, PENDER HARBOUR SECONDARY SCHOOL, MADEIRA PARK
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2015 AT 7:00PM
Present:
G. Craig (Chair), D. Burnham, J. Dickin, A. Thomson, A. Skelley, F. Mauro (Area A
Director) and C. Patterson (Secretary).
Regrets:
J. McOuat, C. McEachern, G. McBain, G. Park, L. Falk and J. Hall.
CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 P.M.
MINUTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of February 25, 2015
Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of February 24, 2015
Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of February 23, 2015
West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of February 24, 2015
Agricultural Advisory Committee Notes of February 24, 2015
Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes of March 4, 2015
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of February 12, 2015
Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council / Regional Food Sustainability Strategy
Motion: To adopt the Minutes of February 25, 2015 for Area 'A' and to accept the balance
of the minutes with thanks.
Carried Unanimously
NEW BUSINESS
Review of the Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council / Regional Food Sustainability Strategy
Discussion began with a brief review of the Agricultural Area Plan put into effect
approximately eight months ago and a background on the local Food Policy Council
already in place. Cooperation by the SCRD with Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s studies
was reviewed favourably but limited to a minor cost commitment of planning staff hours.
Recommendation: This APC favours Category 4 as the appropriate level of support for
the Food Policy Council which includes some staff resources but no direct funding.
Carried Unanimously
DIRECTORS REPORT:
• The budget is now complete. Discussion of the budget and what it will mean for Area A
was presented.
• The SCRD Strategic Plan for the next four years is about to commence.
NEXT MEETING:
7:00 P.M. April 29, 2015 at the P.H. Secondary School Library, Madeira
Park
ADJOURNMENT:
motion to adjourn at 8:06 P.M.
145
ANNEX J
Halfmoon Bay APC Advisory Group
Coopers Green, Halfmoon Bay, BC
MINUTES OF TUESDAY, March 24, 2015
Chair
Ex Officio member
Recording Secretary
PRESENT
Ray Moscrip
Eleanor Lenz
Bruce Thorpe
Walter Powell
Frank Belfry
Barbara Boulding
Alda Grames
Wendy Pearson
Joan Harvey
Garry Nohr
Katrina Walters
REGRETS
Joan Harvey
Elise Rudland
Len Pakulak
Lorne Campbell
SCRD STAFF
GUESTS
Keith Anderson
Carey Herberts
Lynn Herberts
Lynn Smith
John Smith
1. Call to Order
Eleanor Lenz, interim chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM.
2. Agenda
Motion: That the agenda be accepted as printed.
Carried Unanimously
3. Minutes
Minutes from the following meetings were received for information:
3.1 Area B- Halfmoon Bay APC Minutes of Feb 24, 2015.
3.2 Area A- Egmont/Pender Harbour APC Minutes of Feb 25, 2015.
3.3 Area D- Roberts Creek APC Minutes of Feb 23, 2015.
3.4 Area E- Elphinstone APC Minutes none.
3.5 Area F- West Howe Sound APC Minutes of Feb 24, 2015.
3.6 Natural Resource Advisory Committee Minutes of March 4, 2015.
3.7 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of Feb 24, 2015.
3.8 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of Feb 12, 2015.
Motion: That the above Area B minutes be accepted as printed and other as information
only.
Carried Unanimously
4. Business Arising from Minutes and Unfinished Business
None.
146
5. New Business
5.1 Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council / Regional Sustainability Strategy
APC Comments/Concerns:
-Read the document but had difficulty understanding it.
-There is no urgency to go out and buy local organic, so don’t see much developing
quickly.
-If we wait for the Federal or Provincial governments to act, it will be too late.
-This initiative should hopefully raise awareness for the community.
-Think that our agricultural plan should be supporting our local needs and that we should
be supporting small enterprises rather than having large scale commercial occupations.
-We should start a ‘school of farming’ here on the Sunshine Coast.
Motion:
That the APC requests that Greg Gebka attend an Area B APC meeting to
discuss the Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council/Regional Sustainability
Strategy report and how the Halfmoon Bay community could be involved in
developing this protocol.
Carried Unanimously
5.2 Development Permit with a Variance Application No. B-67
-One concern is that the front deck not be closed in in the future.
-Glad that a referral has been made to the Sechelt Indian Ban; we should wait until
their comments come in before we make our comments; we shouldn’t be awaiting
comments from SIB when we are asked to comment.
-Would support the application provided that the no disturbance covenant is registered.
-Support the variance as per the requirements proposed by the Regional District draft
variance.
-There is an error in the geotechnical report page 72 @ no. 4.5: it is Coastal Douglas
Fir zone not Coastal Western Hemlock.
Motion:
That the APC support Application No. B-67 as per the requirements proposed by
the SCRD draft variance permit and providing the registration of the ‘no
disturbance’ covenant.
Carried by Majority
5.3 Subdivision Application MoTI #2015-00938
-Understand that the application meets all requirements and is just a standard
application.
Motion:
That the APC supports Application MoTI #2015-00938.
Carried Unanimously
147
Directors Report:
Director Garry Nohr was unable to attend the meeting, but send out the director’s report
electronically.
6. APC Committee Discussions/Requests:
1. It would be very good to have the Sechelt Nation reports before we are asked to
comment on applications.
2. Request that Bill Elsner come to discuss emergency preparedness.
7. Next Meeting
Tuesday, April 28 2015, 7 PM.
8. Adjournment
8:05 PM
________________________
Joan Harvey
HMB APC Chair
____________________
Date
148
ANNEX K
SunshineCoastRegionalDistrict
RobertsCreek(AreaD)AdvisoryPlanningCommission
MinutesofMarch30,2015
RobertsCreekLibrary,1044RobertsCreekRoad,RobertsCreek
APC:
BrockO’Bryne,HeatherConn,DanaGregory,MarionJolicoeur,Barry
Morrow,BillPage(Chair),GeraldRainville,andDeniseWoodley
(AlternateChair).
ExOfficio:MarkLebbell(AreaDDirector),PeggyMartin(RecordingSecretary)
Guests:
LeeRoberts,BonRoberts,AndrewAllen(Sr.SCRDPlanner),andDianne
Sanford(OCPCChair)
Membersofthepublic:JillConway,BrendaSopel/Petreny,ErikaVanderbrinten,
BillDornan,StevePorter,DonSinclair,CarolBrown,DickBrown,Scott
Macleod,ShaunaPorter,MonicaPetreny,BrendaMcKenzie,Jacquie
Shelemey,MikeAllen,TimHoward,JaneGriffiths,RobertStuder,Rolef
Ohlroggen,JohnShelemey,DebbyOslin,JamieLercove,andLoriLeveque
Regrets: JeffreyAbbott
Absent:
ChrisHergesheimer(AlternateAreaDDirector)
CALLTOORDER:7:00p.m.
The Chair welcomed all and explained to the crowd the purpose of the Advisory
Planning Commission. The APC does not make final decisions on applications, but
advisestheSCRDPlanningDepartmentandourAreaDirectorastothedirectionthe
APC believes the matters before it would be appropriate for our community.
Applicationsareprofessionallyprepared,withthehelpofSCRD,butatthispointthey
are a work in progress, with the final decision made by the SCRD Board. Our
representative on the Board is our Area Director, Mark Lebbell. The Chair then
introducedthemembersoftheAPC.
Priortothemeeting,onlytwopeoplefromthepublichadindicatedtheywantedto
attend.Themeetingwasadvisedthatthiswasacommitteemeetingandanyguest
whowantedtospeakmustberecognizedbytheChairandstayontopic.
1.AGENDA:Theagendawasadopted.
2. MINUTES: The Roberts Creek (Area D) minutes of February 23, 2015 were
approvedascirculated.(BM/DW).M/S/Carried.
3.NEWBUSINESS:SunshineCoastFoodPolicyCouncil/RegionalFood
SustainabilityStrategy.
MOTIONtosupporttheamendmentofthedraftareaplantoincludetheactionitem
withrationaleforcollaboratingwithKwantlenPolytechUniversityInstitutefor
SustainableFoodSystems.Motionpassedtoacceptthememoforinformation.
MOTION:(GR/DG)M/S/Carried.
149
4.NEWBUSINESS:ZoningBylawAmendmentNo.310.158,2014(Goldmoss
Gallery).
TheChairacknowledgedthiswasoneofthemostimportantissueswehavelooked
thisyear.
TheChairinstructedthegatheringthattheapplicationwouldbepresentedwithout
questionsorcommentsfromthepublic.GeneraldiscussionbytheAPCwouldfollow,
thenfurtherdiscussionwouldincludethepublic.Discussionwouldberecordedin
pointform(i.e.notatranscriptofthecommentsmade).Withthenumberofpeople
inthissmallvenue,itwasnotpossibletogetnamesofthespeakers,butwedidtryto
makesurethosewantingtospeakhadtheopportunity.
•TheGoldmossArtGalleryhasbeenoperatingforabout4to5yearsintheR1zone,
somewhat like a home occupation without complaints. A bylaw complaint was
received and Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 310.158 Residential Art Gallery (RAG
zone)wasdrafted,becauseOCPSection7supports‘modestsmall‐scalecommercial
activity … to provide employment opportunities and economic activity within
RobertsCreek’.Part7dsupports ‘enhanced home occupation within and near the
village core’ and section 7.4 specifically mentions an ‘auxiliary art gallery for the
displayandsaleofworksofart’.NozonesareexcludedinOCPsection7.4.
• After first reading, public information session and letters from the public, the
applicationhasbeenrevisedtoremovethekeepingofhensfromthediscussion,and
toconsiderputtingtheartgalleryinanancillarybuilding.Themainresidence,which
currently houses the art gallery, is to become the artist’s studio, with no public
functions, no sales or shows. The separate gallery would have teaching facilities,
showandsellartwork.Additionalparkingonthesitewasadded.
• The ancillary building was necessary because retrofitting the main residence to
meetBCBuildingCoderequirementsforanArtGallerywascostprohibitive.
•Asaresultofsignificantchangestotheapplication,anddivergentopinionsinthe
community,theapplicationwasre‐circulatedtoOCPCandAPC.
• Lots of concern was voiced about the noise and the traffic around the gallery,
generatedbytheArtsCrawlandtheRobertsCreekArtFestival.
• Planner stated that as the festivals continue to grow, it is possible that special
permitsmayberequiredbytheSCRD.
•R1zonepre‐existsBylaw310(adoptedin1989)andhasnotchangedfrombeing
primarily residential with only home office use (B&B and Horticulture Sales also
possibleonlargerparcels).
•Anartgalleryexceedsthedefinitionofhomeoccupation.It’sthebringinginofother
artist’sworkthatmakesitdifferent.
•TheChairstatedthatthereisalotofcommunitysupportfortheGoldmossArt
Gallery.Weareproudofourartisticheritage–withmanyartistsoperatingona
smallscaleinthiscommunity.Thisisseenasanimportantpartofthecreativevibe
ofRobertsCreek.Goldmosshasbeenoperatingasanartgalleryforquitesometime
150
2
intheR1zone,thatwasinitiallytolerated,butasthescalehasgrownwithfestivals
andcommunityevents,itisnolongerapeacefulcohabitantwiththeneighbours.Is
thistherightlocationforalargegallery?
•DefinitionofArtStudioallowsarttobecreatedinone’shome,withoutdesignation
asahomeofficeorhomeoccupation.However,excludingartdisplayandsaleonly
appliestoRAGzoneandshouldbeaddedtodefinition.
•Havingastand‐aloneartgalleryismorelikeacommercialuseofproperty,and
accordingtotheOCPpart7a,‘developmentrequiringcommercialzoninginareas
outsidethevillagecoreisnotpermitted’.
•Anartistsaidartgalleriesareaveryspecificnichemarket.Hesaidthatart
galleriesareattheverybottomendofretailactivity.It’snotaschoolthathasa
constantflowoftrafficandfloorareaisnotusedlikeastore.Intheconceptof
commercialformultipleuses,thatcouldbeanissueandaconcern,butifitwas
zonedasaspecificuseasagallery,itwouldonlybereallybusyduringthefestivals.
Weneedtodevelopandencouragemoretolerance.
•Theapplicantsaidthecurrenteventsinthegalleryinclude,painting,sculpting,
anddisplayingfriends’art.Theyneverintendedtoconverttheirhomeintoanart
gallery,itjusthappenedbeforethefirstArtCrawltheyattended–theydecidedto
sharethespace.Thereseemedtobeaneedforsuchaspaceinthecommunityand
thegallerygreworganically.There’sbeennocommercialactivity,theydonot
chargecommissionsonotherpeople’sart.Itisaplacetoshowoffart,collaborate
andlearn.Assoonasyoustartmakingrules&regulations,youkillthecreativity.
•Homeoccupation,commercialandB&Bdevelopmentshaverequirementsfor
parking.Commercialdevelopmenthasgreatersetbacksforbuildings(5meters)
andsetbackparkingareasfrompropertylines,ifadjacenttoresidential.Itlooks
liketheparkingshownonthesiteisinadequateforowners,4employees,B&B
functionsandguests.Theformulausedtodeterminethenumberofparkingspaces
onthesiteneedstobestatedandshownonthelanduseplan.
•Publiccommentedthatevenduringthefestivals,thereisnoparkingontheart
galleryproperty.Notenoughroomforpeopleandmovingcarsoninternal
driveways.
•Onepersonsuggestedthatbussingoptionsshouldbeexploredforfestivals.
•APCpointedoutthatitislegaltoparkontheLowerRoadshoulder,asthebike
laneisjustanaugmentedshoulder,andnotadesignateduselane.
•Aneighbourwhoisacyclistsaidperiodicallypeopleparkinthebikelane,forcing
ridersandpedestriansintoontotheroad.Butwithoutparkinginthebikelane,this
wouldmeannoRemembranceDayactivities,noshowsattheHall,astheonly
availableparkingmaybeinthebikelane.Ifyouwantanactivecommunity,there
willbemoreeventsrequiringtemporaryparkingontheshoulder.
151
3
•InsistingthatGoldmosshastoprovideparkingonsiteforallitsguestsisasevere
penaltythatothervenuesdonothavetohaveprovidewhentheyparticipateinthe
sameevents(likeArtCrawlandRobertsCreekArtFestival).
•Itwassuggestedthatifyouwanttoliveinaplacethatcaterstoartists,theparking
issueisanartificialone.Theframingoflimitsonthenumberofspecialeventsatthe
galleryiskey.Thishelpsleadtoapeacefulco‐existence.Itisimportanttomaintain
thebalance.Theartcommunityissomethingtobenurturedratherthansquashed.
•Thereneedstobefurtherclarityaroundthenumberofemployees.Applicantsaid
‐someoneworkingatthegate,someoneatthedoor–thereneverwouldbe4
employees.
•Onepersonstatedthatthisplacewasoperatingwithoutalicense–Planner
pointedouttherearenobusinesslicensesissuedbytheSCRD.
•TheGoldmossGallerywasoperatingwithoutanyproblemsuntilacomplaintwas
made.ApparentlytheSCRDdoesnotenforceunlesstherearecomplaints.Because
we’regoingretroactivelytogetanapproval,therewasneverapossibilityfora
discussionwithneighbours.
•TheOCPisalittlegeneralbutsection7.4containsaveryspecificcommentabout
100%SunshineCoastartistswork.Howcanthatbemonitoredorenforced?
•Aneighbourwhohaslivedherefor20yearscommentedthatthenewRAGzoneis
commercial.TheoriginaldesignationResidentialAssemblyCommercialhasbeen
changedtoRAG.Howcommonissite‐specificzoning?Therehasneverbeensuch
anapplication.Rightnowthepredominantbuildingiscommercial.
•ApplicantsaidthattheyhadbeenreportedtoBCAssessmentforoperatinga
commercialartgallery.Basedonthatfive‐weekinvestigation,itwasdetermined
theywerepredominatelyresidential,notcommercial.
•No‐oneinthecommunityisagainstart,nooneisagainstGoldmoss,whycan’tthey
operateinazonethatdoesn’thavetodisturbtheresidentsaroundit?Themain
pointsofconcernareparkingandloudmusic.It’sanR1Zone–R1isasacredzone.
Ifyou’regoingtomakeachangeitcouldbeforever.
•Furtherdiscussionensuedregardingthelackofinformationprovidedtothepublic
inthismatter.ThepublicclaimedtheywerenotinformedofthefirstAPCmeeting
in2014,whichiswhynooneotherthantheapplicantandplannerattended.Itwas
pointedoutthatthereisalwaysnoticeofthemeetingspublishedintheCoast
ReporterbytheSCRDandontheirwebsite.
•DirectorpromisedtokeeppublicinformedthroughBootTalesorhiswebsite.
Thereisalinktheretothecurrentapplicationanditcanalsobeaccessedonthe
SCRDwebsite.
•Whatisgoingtohappenontheproperty–whatisgoingtogooninthegallery?
LeeRobertssaidthecurrenteventsinthegalleryinclude,painting,sculpting,and
displayoffriends’art.BonRobertssaidthatiftherezoningisallowed,shewouldbe
teachingmorechildren’sartclasses.Sincetheydonotchargecommissionsonother
152
4
artist’swork,teachingprovidesasourceofrevenue.Leewouldstartteachingadult
artclassesandspendmoretimeonsculpture.Therewouldbeartonthewalls,
sculpturesonthefloor.
•Rumoursofatearoom,salesofjamsjelliesandsauces–thereisnothinglikethat
inthecurrentproposal.
•Someonecommentedthatitappearedthatthecommitteehasalreadymadeup
theirminds.Anytimeyouchangethezone,there’sthepotentialfortherippleeffect.
Whywasthisnon‐compliantpropertygettingsuchafreeride?
•APCandplannersurprisedthatthisprocesswouldberegardedasafreeride.No
matterhowyoulookatit,it’sstillresidentialwithauxiliary.Animportantpointwas
thatitisnotjustagroup(theAPC)playingfavourites,BCAssessmentsaidthey’re
finewiththeartgalleryhavingresidentialassessment.
•TwoneighbourssupportGoldmoss,twodonot.Thenewestauxiliarybuildingwill
beonlyonelevel(tryingtokeeptheneighbourshappy).Theparkinglotwouldbe
besideoneneighbours’kitchenwindowandoneneighbourhasahottubthatwill
notbeprivateanylonger.
•OnegentlemansaidheendedupbuyinginRobertsCreekbecauseitwasa
residentialonlyarea.HepurchasedlotsinGibsonszonedcommercialforhis
businessandwouldnotwanttolivebesideacommerciallyzonedlot.
•Therewasconcernfromthepublicthatthisisabylawthatwillbeinplaceforever,
whatwouldhappenifthepropertywassoldandthenewownerswantedtodo
somethingdifferentintheartgallery.
•Thedistinctionbetweencommercialandresidentialisprettyclear.Arealestate
agent,saidshecannotsellaresidentialhomeifitisbesideacommercial
development.Commercialdoesnotbelonginresidentialneighbourhoods.Shefeels
therehasn’tbeenenoughstudy.ItisnotinkeepingwiththespiritofRobertsCreek.
Artgalleriesshouldnotbenextdoortoresidentialhousing.Shestatedthatthistype
ofrezoningwouldaffectallareasofthesunshinecoast.Shewouldliketocallfora
coast‐widereferendum.
•Atthispointthesomemembersofthepublicwasgettingveryloudandnot
listeningtotheAPCortheChair.TheylikelydidnotheartheChair’sconversation
withtheplanner,thattherewerealreadyexamplesofwhereactivitiesandzoning
acceptedinRobertsCreek(likekeepinghens,roostercontrolandsmallmarijuana
grow‐ops)werenotforcedonotherareasoftheSCRD.
Seeingnofurtherrequestsfromspeakers,thefollowingmotionwaspassed:
MOTION:Wewouldendthepublicinputonthisissueandforwardourcollective
commentstotheSCRDPlanningCommitteefortheirconsideration.(GR/DG)
M/S/Carried(2opposed).
5.DIRECTORSREPORT:TheDirectorsreportwasreceived.Adiscussionensued
regardingtransportation–theDepartmentofTransportationhasputafreezeon
153
5
anynewspendingfor3yearssotherewillbenoenhancementtothetransit
services.SeeMark’swebsiteforfurtherinfo.Therewillbetimeforpublicinput.He
urgedpeopletocheckouthiswebsite,theSCRDwebsiteandBootTalesforfurther
information.
6.NEXTMEETING:7:00pmMonday,April27,2015,RobertsCreekLibrary,1044
RobertsCreekRoad.
7.ADJOURNMENT:MOTIONtoadjourn(BM/DW)M/S/Carried.Themeetingwas
adjournedat8:50pm.
154
6
ANNEX L
Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of the meeting held at Frank West Hall, Elphinstone, BC March 25, 2015 Present: Lynda Chamberlin, Vice Chair Mary Degan, Chair Elect Bob Morris Brenda Thomas Dougald Macdonald Director: Lorne Lewis Alt.Director: Laurella Hay Delegation: Melissa Braithwaite, DVP 310.190 Secretary: Diane Corbett Absent: Regrets: Jim Gurney Jenny Groves Raquel Kolof Rod Moorcroft Rob Bone Patrick Fitzsimons Call to Order 7:02 p.m. Vice Chair Lynda Chamberlin announced that Chair Alison Sawyer had resigned. Nominations for Chair as per SCRD Bylaw No. 453, Section 8 (i) (ii) Mary Degan was nominated Chair. Lynda Chamberlin was nominated Vice Chair. Mary Degan assumed the Chair. Agenda The amended agenda was adopted as circulated. Minutes 1. Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2015 MOTION (LC/BM): THAT the January 28, 2015 minutes be adopted as amended: • Add to the list of minutes in item 2: “West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, November 25, 2014”. Carried 2. Received for information: • Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, February 25, 2015 • Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, February 24, 2015 • Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, February 23, 2015 • West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, February 24, 2015 • Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, February 24, 2015 • Natural Resources Committee Minutes, January 21, 2015 • Ocean Beach Esplanade Stewardship Advisory Committee Minutes, February 21, 2015 155
Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 25, 2015 2 New Business 3. Development Variance Permit 310.190 (Braithwaite, 857 & 863 Quinn Place, Gibsons) Applicant Melissa Braithwaite described her request to vary the required structural setback from an exterior side parcel line from 4.5 metres to 2.56 metres to permit the addition of a section storey to an existing auxiliary building, for the purpose of storage, adding 20.3 square metres to the total floor area. • She hoped to use the space for storage during the renovation of an adjacent dwelling where she intended to create a space to transition with her parents. • It is a small square building with a peaked roof, built without a permit 30 years ago. There is a steep bank behind it; it couldn’t have moved further back. There are steep drop-‐offs, and the rest of land is not that usable. • The variance does not affect the neighbours. • Neighbours had no objections. The original owner, who lives on the property, has no concerns. It does not impact the other neighbor across the street who is much lower in elevation. Comment from member: • It is (Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure) that is impacted by it. I read through what the Planner wrote, and don’t have anything to add. MOTION (BM/MD): That the APC accepts the application as presented. Carried One abstained 4. Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council / Regional Food Sustainability Strategy The staff report dated March 11, 2015 regarding Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council / Regional Food Sustainability Strategy was received. Mary Degan discussed her involvement with the Food Policy Council and responded to inquiries of members about the Council. The FPC is looking at food security on a bioregional level; it is a huge field, beyond just agriculture. The group, which has been operating under One Straw Society and currently does not have projects or funding, has been looking at options for organization and moving forward. Points from discussion included: • Farmers Institute would see the training of workers and the opportunity for farmers to act collectively. • Shortage of farm work force on the coast is a “weak point”. • Appreciation for the work of people increasing the awareness of growing food 156
Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 25, 2015 •
•
•
•
3 Focus on organics is fueling interest in growing food. How will the Farmers Institute fit in? Are we getting different groups? …. Sometimes things get watered down when there are too many fish in the pond. People in their 30s and 40s seem more in tune with food growing and preservation (than the previous generation). Educational opportunities on the Sunshine Coast in growing and preserving food are available through One Straw Society, Sunshine Coast Botanical Garden, and the various garden clubs. 5. Director's Report Director Lewis commented on the following topics: • Port Mellon pulp mill smell SCRD Directors from Areas E and F and Gibsons are doing a survey to track the flow of emissions from Port Mellon. Send Director an email if/when you notice the smell of the mill. • Woodfibre LNG proposal • Budget • Lack of snowpack; dry conditions; emergency preparedness • Sechelt Hospital re-‐naming ceremony March 28 Next Meeting Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 p.m. Adjournment 8:12 p.m. 157
ANNEX M
West Howe Sound (Area F) Advisory Planning Commission March 24, 2015 Minutes of the meeting at Eric Cardinall Hall, Shirley Macey Park, West Howe Sound, BC PRESENT: 1.
2.
3.
4.
DIRECTOR: STAFF: SECRETARY: Fred Gazeley, Chair Mike Comerford Judith Kenly Leonie Croy Wayne Taylor Bruce Wallis Ian Winn Stina Hanson, Planner Diane Corbett REGRETS: Michele March Kate-‐Louise Stamford Call to Order 7:00 p.m. Agenda The agenda was adopted as circulated. Minutes 3.1 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, February 24, 2015 3.2 Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, February 25, 2015 3.3 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, February 24, 2015 3.4 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, February 23, 2015 3.5 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, February 24, 2015 3.6 Natural Resources Committee Minutes, January 21, 2015 3.7 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, February 12, 2015 MOTION (BW/LC): That the minutes noted above be received for information purposes. Carried MOTION (LC/BW): That the West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes of February 24, 2015 be approved as circulated. Carried Unfinished Business and Business Arising from Minutes 4.1
West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, February 24, 2015 There was discussion about questions noted in the February 24 Area F APC minutes pertaining to the Woodfibre proposal, and that these were not answered in the current APC agenda. 158
West Howe Sound (Area F) Advisory Planning Commission – March 24, 2015 Meeting Minutes 2 5.
The Area F APC request that the questions as noted in the February 24, 2015 Area F APC minutes in section 5.1 are forwarded to the appropriate people and that they get answered. MOTION (FG/MC): That the APC request the staff report of March 11, 2015 to Corporate and Administrative Services March 26, 2015 from David Rafael regarding “Woodfibre LNG and Eagle Mountain-‐Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessments – SCRD Board Comments”. Carried 4.2
Planning and Development Committee Minutes, February 12, 2015 It was noted the February 12 Planning and Development Committee Recommendation No. 8 referral of the staff report on “BC Hydro Herbicide Treatments on SCRD Property – Port Mellon” had not been received by the APC. New Business 5.1
Transition Houses – Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.163 Planner Stina Hanson responded to member inquiries and concerns and described potential applications of the zoning amendment bylaw for Transition House, Assisted Living, and Community Care Facility uses. • The Planner advised that the draft bylaw had not yet received a reading by the SCRD Board, and that feedback from some referral agencies was awaited. • The Chair requested that the draft bylaw be referred back to the APC once it receives a reading. • There was a general consensus that the proposed descriptions in the draft bylaw were acceptable to the group. • Members recommended that, if a facility is protecting women and children, it should be located in R1, close to services and transit. The Chair thanked the Planner for the discussion about the draft bylaw. 5.2
Sunshine Food Policy Council / Regional Food Sustainability Strategy The staff report dated March 11, 2015 regarding Sunshine Food Policy Council / Regional Food Sustainability Strategy was received for information. Comments from discussion included: • A number of the Food Policy Council examples described in the staff report apply to large population centres as compared to rural areas. 159
West Howe Sound (Area F) Advisory Planning Commission – March 24, 2015 Meeting Minutes 3 •
6.
7.
8.
In the SCRD Bulletin Board in the newspaper, say “Buy local”. Encourage people to buy local as much as they can. • Our food is becoming more expensive, with the California drought. We don’t have things like dairy, meat production except chickens. Part of the Ag Plan implementation committee would be to revamp farming positions to be able to harvest crops. It is more of a collective, people coming together, acting to make it possible, to have more collectively in the community. Bottom line: produce more food. It is a huge issue. • All the farms, ranches in BC are on flat land. Sunshine Coast isn’t flat; it is the opposite. You can’t do this on mountainsides. Farming is very cost prohibitive; that is why we are losing our farms. • It won’t work if you have to pay an arm and a leg (for local food). • There was discussion about local governments working together, and current collaborative initiatives that include: Strategic Plan for Sunshine Coast; We Envision; comprehensive water management plan; Sustainability Roundtable. Directors Report Director Winn reported on the following items: • Woodfibre LNG public meeting on Gambier • Granthams Hall closure and upcoming community meeting. Consultant: $400,000 to bring it up to snuff and recommendation that it is not worth it. • Bikeway/pathway Phase 2 Marine Drive • Hillside business plan • Strategic plan • Grant-‐In-‐Aid and Area F Grant In Aid advisory committee • Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities Conference/ AVICC in April • Budget / tax increases Next Meeting The next scheduled Area F Advisory Planning Commission meeting is on April 28, 2015 at 7:00 pm at Eric Cardinall Hall, Shirley Macey Park, 930 Chamberlin Road, West Howe Sound, BC. Adjournment 8:50 p.m. 160
ANNEX N
161
162
163
164
165
166
Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council
ANNEX O
Mr Ian Winn, Chair
SCRD Planning & Development Committee
1975 Field Road
Sechelt, BC V0N 3A1
March 14, 2015
Re: Update to the Formation of the Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council
As an update to the last correspondence delivered to your office a date is now in place for
the establishment of the Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council. It will take place on April
22 at 7pm in the board room of the Sunshine Coast Regional District building. A number
of individuals that have participated in the discussions have put their names forward to be
part of this inauguration.
This event has an objective to communicate to the public that the steering committee has
conducted its work and now feels it is time to move the discussion into a more formal
environment. A number of speakers are being invited to address the audience with a focus
on the importance of a Food Policy Council. We would like to include your office on the
agenda. Invitations are being delivered to community leaders, business owners and
organizations involved in our local food system. As the steering committee has identified
a wide range of talent required around the table to be an effective council the event also
has an objective of informing the public that opportunity is still open for other to step
forward to participate.
After the evening of celebrating this auspicious occasion the new council will prepare for
a day of facilitation that will be divided into two sessions as previously outlined. During
the morning session time will be given to establish a structure for the council to function
under, although for its first year it will remain as a committee under One Straw but will
be given a fair level of autonomy. In the afternoon a large audience of community
members involved in our local food system will be invited to engage with the new
council to assist them in gaining further insight into the present issues of growing our
local food. Your support and participation will be greatly appreciated.
Yours Truly,
Meghan Molnar
Norm Blair, Co-Chair
5125 Sunshine Coast Highway ‫ ׀‬Sechelt ‫ ׀‬British Columbia ‫ ׀‬V0N 3A2
Email: [email protected]
167
ANNEX P
o
ROGERS
rVE1
272015
March 27, 2015
/
Dear Area Residents and Businesses:
Like so many communities, the community of Gibsons is experiencing a growing demand for
wireless services as more and more people come to rely on smart phones, tablet computers
and laptops as part of their everyday life. In response to this and in order to ensure dependable
high speed wireless service is available to the community, Rogers is proposing the construction
of a telecommunications tower at 700 Payne Road.
As part of the public consultation process, you are invited to comment on the Rogers proposal
before April 29, 2015. Following Industry Canada’s Default Public Consultation Process, all
residents and businesses within 105 metres of the proposed tower location will receive this
Public Consultation Information Package.
This package contains detailed information about the proposed structure, the consultation and
approval process, as well as contact information available to you during the consultation
process.
Your questions and comments are an important part of the consultation process. Please know
you may provide your comments by contacting Rogers at [email protected], or
by completing the Questionnaire & Input Form on the other side of this letter by April 29, 2015.
We appreciate your time and attention in considering the proposed telecommunications tower
and look forward to your comments.
Rogers Communications Inc.
Samuel Sugita
Project Manager, Municipal Affairs (BC), Wireless Network Implementation
168
o
ROGERS
QUESTIONNAIRE & INPUT FORM
We welcome your comments regarding the proposed Rogers telecommunications structure at 700
Payne Road in Gibsons, BC. We would appreciate your time in completing this questionnaire.
Rogers will respond to any questions or issues, and the correspondence will be shared with the Town
of Gibsons and Industry Canada as part of the consultation process. This information will not be used
for marketing purposes.
1.
Are you currently happy with the quality of wireless service in your community?
Yes
2.
LI
No If no, what areas require improved service?
Do you feel this is an appropriate location for a tower?
LIYes
LINo
If not, what change(s) do you suggest:_________________________________________________
3.
Are you satisfied with the proposed appearance I design of the proposed tower?
LlYes
LINo
If not, what change(s) do you suggest:
4.
Other Comments:
Tower Location
Name:_____________________
—
Address:
-
G,bsons Area
Cocnmun.ty CenTer
/
Telephone:____________________
Londoer D’uqs r.
,
Mrrk.TInr GA
snmoun’ Way
Email:_________________________________
4*y
TrmHo’lons .
-
GibsonsW.I
CvrsRd
Thank you.
169
o
ERS
M
TG
RO
Public Consultation Information Package
Wireless Communications Installation
Location:
Gibsons, British Columbia
Rogers Site:
W2531
Contact
1600—4710 Kingsway,
Burnaby, British Columbia V5H 4W4
Contact name:
Matthew McDonagh, Municipal Affairs
do Standard Land Company Inc.
Agents to Rogers Communications Inc.
Tel: 1 (877)687-1102
Email: [email protected]
March 27, 2015
170
What is being proposed?
Rogers is proposing to build a new 35.0 metre monopole tower structure. To ensure continued
reliable service, Rogers is proposing to enhance and restore a high quality network signal for the
wireless network in the area by adding equipment on a proposed structure.
Initial monopole loading details include six (6) initial flush mount panel antennas with one (1) initial
microwave antenna with future allowances, depending on growth in demand for wireless services in
the area. The design will consist of flush mounted antennas, helping minimize visual impact.
When a network weakness is identified, Rogers’ radiofrequency engineers’ first steps are to explore
any and all opportunities to add additional equipment on nearby towers or mount antennas on existing
buildings. Only when every alternative has been exhausted, does Rogers consider constructing a
new wireless structure. Rogers’ engineers have determined that in this case there are no suitable
existing structures in the area to support coverage objectives. As a result, a single structure of 35.0
metres is being proposed to meet Rogers’ network requirements.
Initially, Rogers identified Gibsons Firehall at 790 North Road as being appropriate for a tower
location, however, Rogers was unable to finalize a land agreement with the property owner. Rogers
investigated the option of locating on an existing TELUS tower at 692 North Road but the height
available on the tower did not meet Rogers’ technical requirements and coverage objectives.
During public consultations for both sites, community feedback was for Rogers to explore locating the
tower on industrial lands on the western side of Upper Gibsons. As a result of community input,
Rogers is now proposing to locate a 35.0 metre monopole tower on industrial lands at 700 Payne
Road.
Where is the proposed tower site?
The proposed location is on l-L (Light Industrial Zone) land and is surrounded by industrial lands to
the east and south, commercial land to the west and rural land to the north. Rogers is proposing to
locate the tower at the eastern side of the property. This location is based on Rogers’ technical
requirements to provide improved service as well as preliminary feedback from the Town of Gibsons.
The tower will be visible from some of the surrounding lands as there is sporadic tree coverage but
will be well setback from main throughways (e.g. Gibsons Way) and designed to be a monopole with
antennas flush mounted, helping mitigate visual impact on adjacent properties. Of note, there are two
(2) existing industrial silos on the property measuring approximately 15 metres in height as well as an
existing yagi antenna on a building measuring approximately 20 metres in height. Trees in the area
are approximately 25 metres in height.
For a visual of the site, please see the following page.
171
Tower Site Location
I
1*::::
I...’.
.
Why is this new structure required?
A new structure is required to host telecommunications equipment that will provide improved wireless
service to the community. Rogers is constantly working to improve coverage and network quality to its
customers. Rogers is responding to the growing demand for wireless voice and data services,
particularly within existing service areas.
The customers using smartphones like iPhones and Blackberries, portable devices like iPads and
tablets, computers and wireless laptops are demanding fast, reliable service. These “smart devices”
place an increased demand on the wireless network which, in turn, requires ongoing investment and
expansion in order to maintain service quality.
With the introduction of smartphones, tablets and other forms of mobile computing devices, customer
demand for higher data speeds has become increasingly important. The amount of data that can be
processed and/or the number of calls that can occur at the same time is limited by two key factors: the
number of users at any one time and the distance between the device and the cell site. As network
demand increases, denser radio networks (more sites that are closer together) are required. It is also
the case that the amount of coverage provided by a single site is inversely proportional to the number
of voice calls and/or data transactions that occur at a given time. This becomes important as cell sites
begin to function at or above capacity and gaps in coverage develop during periods of overcapacity.
While this is represented by slowed transactions times for internet use, applications, and e-mail, it is
much more problematic for voice calls, which either cannot be made or are constantly dropped.
172
___
Where once excellent coverage and high quality calls were the norm, as capacity is reached, calls can
no longer be processed even though the device may show strong coverage.
The table below illustrates how devices that transmit and receive data information need much more
network capacity than standard mobile phones. For example, one Smartphone uses a wireless
network up to 35 times more than a standard mobile phone.
Data
dditional sites and net’.ork capacity are required to meet the
expiosi’e demand for wireless data accessed by smartphones,
tablets and other de’,ices, For example:
One srnartphone creates as much data
traffic as 35 basic-feature phones,
Smartphone
X35*
E-reader/ tablet
Laptop
=E
X 121*
=
X488*
‘MorthI S:,c
Surc
c
Ter’
aa
How do wireless networks work?
Wireless networks work by dividing geographic areas into “cells”. Each cell is served by a base
station (in this case, a tower supporting telecommunications equipment).
Mobile devices
communicate with each other by exchanging radio signals with base stations.
173
_____
As more mobile phones and devices use the network, the “footprint” of service offered by a base
station, like the proposed tower site, shrinks. This result is reduced coverage and gaps in service.
Gaps in coverage can result in dropped calls and unreliable service. The drawings below illustrate
how gaps in service develop as well as how additional equipment (or the addition of base stations) will
enhance service.
A network is a series of interconnected cells each
containing a base station (antennas and radio
A high quality network offers
equipment).
continuous wireless service by placing base
stations in specific geographical locations that allow
us to use wireless devices.
n,,.a.ed Uset, Crr,tes
When a base station reaches maximum capacity,
the coverage footprint shrinks in order to handle
volume.
Gp fl Sfl.U
—
a-
—
a-
—
Cfl,,trnflo,,, Cflua, Mwo,k
Rson.d by U.’q Gaps
New base stations must be built to fill in the void
areas and restore continuous wireless seivice.
j LLLL
174
What will the site look like?
Below is a photo simulation where the proposed tower design has been transposed on a picture taken
from the parking lot at Gibsons Park Plaza, looking northeast towards the tower site.
Before Construction
After Construction
From the parking lot at Gibsons Park Plaza, looking northeast towards the tower site.
Photo Simulation is a close representation and is for conceptual purposes only.
Best efforts have been made to represent the antenna accurately.
Please know that Transport Canada and NAV Canada do not have special lighting or painting requirements.
175
Below is a photo simulation where the proposed tower design has been transposed on a picture taken
from Venture Way, looking northwest towards the tower site.
Before Construction
After Construction
From Venture Way, looking northwest towards the tower site.
Photo Simulation iso close representation and is for conceptual purposes Only.
Best efforts have been made to represent the antenna accurately.
Please know that Transport Canada and NAV Canada do not have special lighting or painting requirements.
176
_
The radio equipment cabinets at the base of the towers have not been included in the photo
simulations where they would not be visible. The proposed designs are subject to review and
amendment by the appropriate authorities.
What will the area look like when it is finished?
Rogers is proposing the construction of a 35.0 metre tower. Rogers is seeking comment from the
community and Town of Gibsons on the monopole colour. Please know that we have submitted
referral packages to Transport Canada and NAV Canada for comment and both agencies have
indicated that no special tower lighting or painting is required.
The site are has been designed to accommodate the tower structure and radio equipment cabinets.
The dimensions of the compound area are approximately 10 metres x 10 metres.
Access to the site will be by existing road access off Venture Way. The secure site area will not be
visible to the public. The property is already fenced and the Rogers compound will include an
additional security fence that will be approximately 1.8 metres in height. There will be a locked single
access point and a silent alarm system. The shelter will contain radio equipment, back-up battery
power, maintenance tools, manuals and a first aid kit. Specific dimensions and access to the site
equipment will be determined following consultation, project review and potential approvals.
Site Plan
:iv.1t L -.T —I F
:-E
L-
-I:i:
-
r
Iv1U
C7T1-.
Fr-Er
••‘
LI-E.
-
\\
-.
:.E..
-EFE
-
-LU.1
-i—-i F
I
C-I 1\
/
-E’ftTI-,:
IFC-E r
‘I
7
D14-..LI’
—
C- .TI._ .ILl\:
I
----7.
I
,1
——
-----.-----
vENTLRE WAY
Note: not to scale.
177
•11
___.i
2TI
r
0
-J
0
C
E
0
C-)
C/)
—
UI
-:
-
:J;
—1
:--.
-
-.
-
-
-
-.
--
-
-
:-:-
:-
-
—--
—
I
—
ai
Co
C.)
0
Co
0
C
IC)
0
z
178
What is the consultation and approval process and who is involved?
ommunications Act.
Industry Canada has the final authority to approve towers under the Radioc
follow a community
,
However, Industry Canada requires the proponent, in this case Rogers to
site.
consultation process inviting the community to comment on the proposed tower
community is invited
This notification package is part of the required consultation process, where the
unity, including
comm
the
to comment within a minimum of 30 days. Rogers is seeking input from
ted parties. During this
residents, businesses, community groups, elected officials and other interes
process, Rogers will work to answer your questions.
ents received with the
At the conclusion of this consultation process, Rogers will be sharing the comm
s. Rogers will also
Gibson
of
land use authority and all regulatory authorities, including the Town
able adjustments to the
consider and respond to all comments gathered and to make any reason
proposal.
How safe is this tower?
oversee acceptable levels.
Rogers relies on the health experts to set radio frequency standards and
ng licence. As a wireless
In fact, adherence to national health standards is a condition of our operati
are met and maintained.
provider, Rogers is responsible for ensuring that all of these safety standards
6, which establishes the safe
In Canada, Industry Canada has adopted Health Canada’s Safety Code
The consensus among
limit for all devices that emit radio frequency waves and ensures public safety.
s antennas are safe. Here
Canadian health organizations and the scientific community is that wireles
and supported the safety of
in BC, the BC Centre for Disease Control has reviewed the scientific data
uver Coastal Health has
Vanco
r
wireless structures. Similarly, the Chief Medical Health Office for
below).
determined that installations such as this one are appropriate (see web links
maximum power density
Base stations, like this tower site, operate at a very low power. Typically, the
(1%) of Health Canada’s
levels from tower structures over 30 metres are less than one per cent
red at ground level, the
Safety Code 6 government safety standard at ground level. When measu
old.
power would be similar to that of a computer monitor operating in a househ
In addition, Rogers adheres to a number of Canadian safety standards:
Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Compliance
at all times comply
Rogers attests that the radio antenna system described in this package will
with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 limits.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
will comply with the
Rogers attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
179
Engineenng Practices
Rogers attests that the radio antenna system proposed for this
site will be constructed in
compliance with all applicable safety and building standa
rds and comply with good
engineering practices including structural adequacy. Preliminary
tower profile and equipment
layout plans have been included in this notification package.
Transport Canada’s Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements
Rogers attests that the radio antenna system described in this notific
ation package will comply
with Transport Canada I NAV CANADA aeronautical safety require
ments. Rogers made all
necessary applications to Transport Canada and NAV CANADA
whom have confirmed that no
special lighting or markings are required.
Where can I go for more information?
The following web links are provided for your information.
questions you may have.
We are also happy to answer any
Industry Canada Facts about Towers
www. ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc. nsf/eng/07422 .html
—
Industry Canada Safety Code 6
www.ic.gc.ca/eiclsitelsmt-gst. nsfleng/sf08792. html
-
Vancouver Coastal Health
www.vch .calabout_uslnews/archive/20 11news/concerns_about_ceIl_phone_towerjad iation_add ressed
Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
www.cwta ca
.
BC Centre for Disease Control
www.bccdc.ca/healthenv/ElectromagFields/default.htm
RFCom University of Ottawa
www.rfcom.ca/
—
Your role
Rogers is seeking your input and comments about the proposed site
to ensure consideration is given
to all of the needs of the community as well as our technic
al requirements, including improved
wireless services for the area. As this is a formal consultation
process, your comments are
welcome either by email or posted letter by Wednesday, April
29, 2015.
180
‘1.
Town of Gibsons
riate site options and address
Rogers has pre-consulted with the Town of Gibsons to discuss approp
projects, which could impact on
any engineering challenges, such as gas lines, sewers, and upcoming
be sharing your feedback with
the site positioning. Following consultation with the community, we will
the Town of Gibsons.
Industry Canada
a, sets out the rules and
Industry Canada, as the regulator for all wireless providers across Canad
with municipal and
closely
work
policies for our business. In addition to Industry Canada, we
options and if needed, to obtain
provincial authorities to seek their support to identify appropriate site
any necessary permits and approvals.
Land Use Consultant
, who assists our efforts in
Rogers is working with Standard Land Company Inc. on this project
gathering public input and working with regulatory authorities.
Contact Information
You are invited to provide your
We would like to hear your comments and answer your questions.
questions to Rogers at the
feedback by mail or electronic mail. Please send your comments and
2015.
29,
address below by the close of business day on Wednesday, April
do Standard Land Company Inc.
Attention: Matthew McDonagh
610 688 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V6B 1 P1
Tel: (604) 687-1119
TF: 1(877) 687-1102
Fax: (604) 687-1339
E-mail: [email protected]
—
ns specific to local land use
Please find below, additional contacts in the event that there are questio
or Industry Canada Regulations.
Industry Canada
Vancouver Island Office
Room 430 1230 Government Street
Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3M4
Tel: (250) 363-3803
E-mail: victoria.districtic.gc.ca
Town of Gibsons
Andre Boel, Director of Planning
474 South Fletcher Road
Box 340
Gibsons, British Columbia VON 1VO
Tel: (604) 886-2274 Ext. 209
E-mail: aboelgibsons.ca
—
181

planning and development committee agenda

Transcription

Similar documents

EnWin Utilities - Rogers Enterprise Business Solutions

Residential Extreme Home Makeover -HRV 1

Burglar Alarm Permit Form - Palm Beach County Sheriff`s Office

Lifetime Resident Hunting and Fishing Sportsman`s Permit

Rogers Lions MN - Rogers Lions Club

Rohtang Pass Permit MIS

Minor Development Permit Detached Garage

IX. Basic specification

study permit - International at Humber

Residence Permit 201..