2019/09/16 · regular council meeting agenda september 16, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. council chambers 8645...

Regular Council Meeting Agenda

September 16, 2019 at 6:00 p.m.

Council Chambers

8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

3. DELEGATIONS

(a) Lolehawk Laura Buker and Tracy Lyster

Re: Importance of Mission’s tree canopy and the need for a tree

protection bylaw

Page 8

(b) Neil Smith and Gillian Hartz

Re: The UN Climate Change Summit and Earth's Climate Crisis

Awareness Week

Page 9

4. PROCLAMATIONS

(a) Earth's Climate Crisis Awareness Week

September 20-27, 2019

0

(b) Wrongful Conviction Day

October 2, 2019

Page 12

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) Public Hearing Notice for September 16, 2019

For reference

Page 13

(b) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5856-2019-5050(352)

R19-014 (Reti) – a bylaw to rezone property at 9663 Doyle Street from

Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone

Copy of Notice to Owner/Occupant and previous staff report included as

background information

Page 15

(c) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5857-2019-5050(353)

R19-003 (Lacey Developments Ltd.) – a bylaw to rezone property at

33481 Larkspur Avenue from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16

Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone



Page 25

1

Regular Council Agenda September 16, 2019

(d) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5858-2019-5050(354)

R19-012 (Mandzuk) – a bylaw to rezone property at 8913 Neale Drive

from Suburban 36 (S36) Zone to Suburban 36 Secondary Dwelling

(S36s) Zone



Page 36

6. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

7. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

(a) ALR Exclusion Applications - 9314, 9332, 9380 and 9424 Hayward

Street, 9541 and 9449 Woodward Street

RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve:

1. That the Agricultural Land Reserve Application ALR19-001 for

exclusion of 9380 Hayward Street be supported;


exclusion of 9449 Woodward Street be supported;








exclusion of 9541 Woodward Street be supported; and

7. That the resolution(s) of support be forwarded to the Agricultural

Land Commission (ALC).

Page 47

(b) Floodplain Exemption Application - 9960 Lindsay Terrace

This report details the application for a site specific exemption to

Floodplain Management Bylaw 4027-2007 for the property located at

9960 Lindsay Terrace.

A resolution of Council is required for a site specific exemption to the

Bylaw to allow the construction of a single family dwelling below the flood

construction level and less than the required setbacks.

RECOMMENDATION: Council consider and resolve:

That the request for an exemption to Floodplain Management Bylaw

4027-2007 be approved for the property located at 9960 Lindsay

Terrace.

Page 57

2


(c) Rezoning Application - 34843 Ferndale Avenue

This report details the development application to rezone

34843 Ferndale Avenue from Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling Zone

(RU16s) to the Rural Residential Secondary Dwelling Zone (RR7s) to

facilitate a two-lot subdivision and identifies the necessary amendments

to the Zoning Bylaw.

Staff support the application moving forward and, as such, have listed

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5855-2019-5050(351) under the “Bylaws for

Consideration” section of the Council Agenda.

Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for

October 7, 2019.

Page 62

(d) Rescind Rezoning Application - 7965 Grand Street

This report details the applicant’s request to close the development

application to rezone 7965 Grand Street from Urban Residential 558

(R558) Zone to Urban Residential 558 Secondary Dwelling (R558s)

Zone.

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5704-2018-5050(277) is currently sitting at third

reading; first, second and third readings need to be rescinded as

requested. Staff have listed the bylaw under the “Bylaws for

Consideration” section of the Council agenda.

Page 71

(e) Temporary Use Permit Renewal Application - 33307 Glasgow

Avenue

This report details Temporary Use Permit application TP14-001

(renewal) submitted by Anglo American Cedar Products Ltd. to allow the

current use of the storage shed for cedar shakes on the property located

at 33307 Glasgow Avenue to continue.

Staff support the application for a Temporary Use Permit for a three-year

term and as such, have listed Temporary Use Permit TP14-001

(renewal) for approval under the “Permits for Consideration” section of

the agenda.

Page 76

8. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS

(a) Traffic Calming Policy Update


1. That Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy STR.32 be repealed;

2. That Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A), as attached

to the report from the Engineering Technologist III – Traffic &

Transportation dated September 16, 2019 be approved;

3. That Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A) be included

in the District of Mission’s Policy and Procedure manual; and

4. That funding for traffic calming from 2020 to 2024 be sourced from

the Traffic Safety Strategy funding.

Page 82

3


(b) Signatories Request for BC Ministry of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy Joint Submission


1. That support be provided for joining the submission from the

Districts of Squamish and Tofino in response to the BC Ministry of

Environment and Climate Change Strategy’s proposed amendments

to the Recycling Regulation of the Environmental Management Act;

and

2. That staff be instructed to advise the Districts of Squamish and

Tofino accordingly that the District of Mission request to be a

signatory to the proposed joint response letter.

Page 104

9. CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

(a) 2020 Permissive Tax Exemption Applications

The District received permissive tax exemption applications from seven

organizations for 11 properties that fit the criteria for a one-year

permissive tax exemption for the 2020 taxation year for Council’s

consideration. These applications received are from organizations which

were approved for a permissive tax exemption on the same properties in

2019. The applications have been reviewed by staff and are all complete.

Accordingly, a draft bylaw has been prepared and placed under the

“Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

A resolution from Council is required if the draft bylaw is to be amended

to remove applicants.

Page 111

(b) Revision of Municipally Funded Grants Processes, Policies, and

Forms


1. That the proposed Fee for Service Grants Policy FIN.54(C), as

attached to the report from the Administrative Assistant dated

September 16, 2019 (Appendix A), be approved;

2. That the duration of the Fee for Service agreements be increased

from a one-year term to a three-year term (with a 2% cost of living

increase in years two and three), while first time recipient

organizations receive one-year funding;

3. That the Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C) be amended

by removing all references and direction to the Fee for Service

Grants program (Appendix B);

4. That the ‘Terms of Reference’ for the Municipal Grants Advisory

Committee be amended by changing the Committee’s name to the

‘Municipal Grants Select Committee’ to align with the Municipally

Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C), and specifying that the four-year

term for the Committee members is to coincide with the term of

Council (Appendix D); and

Page 122

4


Continued from previous page

5. That the new and amended Fee for Service and Municipally Funded

Grant application forms and year end reporting forms (Appendix E),

be approved.

10. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORT

11. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES

RESOLUTION: That the following item be received as information:

(a) Mission Traffic and Transit Committee meeting minutes – April 4, 2019 Page 144

13. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

RESOLUTION: That the following minutes be adopted:

(a) Regular Council Meeting (for the purpose of going into a closed meeting)

– September 3, 2019

Page 149

(b) Regular Council Meeting – September 3, 2019 Page 151

14. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION

(a) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5855-2019-5050(351)

R19-009 (Ballard) – a bylaw to rezone property at

34843 Ferndale Avenue from Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling

(RU16s) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s)

Zone

See “Development Services” Section 7(c)

First and Second

Readings

Page 161

(b) 2020 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw 5860-2019

A bylaw to provide for permissive exemption from taxation of

certain properties for the 2020 tax year

See “Corporate Administration and Finance” Section 9(a)

First, Second,

and Third

Readings

Page 162

(c) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5704-2018-5050(277)

R17-031 (Fodor) – a bylaw to rezone property at 7965 Grand

Street from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Urban

Residential 558 Secondary Dwelling (R558s) Zone

See “Development Services” Section 7(d)

Rescind First,

Second, and

Third Readings

Page 164

(d) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5856-2019-5050(352)

R19-014 (Reti) – a bylaw to rezone property at 9663 Doyle Street

from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling

(RU16s) Zone

Third Reading

Page 165

5


(e) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5857-2019-5050(353)

R19-003 (Lacey Developments Ltd.) – a bylaw to rezone property

at 33481 Larkspur Avenue from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to

Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone

Third Reading

Page 166

(f) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5858-2019-5050(354)

R19-012 (Mandzuk) – a bylaw to rezone property at 8913 Neale

Drive from Suburban 36 (S36) Zone to Suburban 36 Secondary

Dwelling (S36s) Zone

Third Reading

Page 167

(g) Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5819-2019

LUC18-018 (DOM) – a bylaw to terminate the Land Use

Contracts 173-1972 and 691-1978 for the properties located at

34555 Vosburgh Avenue and 8160 Manson Street

Adoption

Page 168

(h) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5820-2019-5050(333)

LUC18-018 (DOM) – a bylaw to rezone properties located at

34555 Vosburgh Avenue and 8160 Manson Street from Urban

Residential 930 (R930) Zone to Commercial Local One (CL1)

Zone and Commercial Neighbourhood Public House (CPH) Zone

Adoption

Page 170

(i) Building Amending Bylaw 5837-2019-3590(4)

A bylaw to amend the District’s building permit fees and to add

minor housekeeping amendments

Adoption

Page 172

(j) Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amending Bylaw

5848-2019-5700(2)

A bylaw to amend the fine structure for Building Bylaw 3590-2003

and Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 infractions

Adoption

Page 190

(k) Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5854-2019

LUC18-026 (DOM) – a bylaw to terminate Land Use Contract

651-1978 and Land Use Contract Amendment Bylaw

3569-2003-651(2) for the property at 32516 – 14th Avenue

Adoption

Page 192

15. PERMITS FOR CONSIDERATION

(a) Temporary Use Permit Renewal Application TP14-001

(33307 Glasgow Avenue)

Temporary Use Permit to supplement District of Mission Zoning Bylaw,

as amended, in respect to the above-noted lands as follows:

• to allow for a post and beam dry storage shed for cedar shakes; and

• the allowable use, as outlined in the permit, shall be permitted to be

conducted on the said lands for a maximum of three years from the

date of issuance of the permit, and the use of the property for those

purposes is subject to several conditions as listed on the draft permit.

See “Development Services” Section 7(e)

Page 193

6


16. RESOLUTIONS RELEASED FROM CLOSED

(a) Mission Sustainable Housing Committee Appointments

This report is being provided for information purposes. Council action is

not required.

Page 195

17. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS

18. NOTICES OF MOTION

19. QUESTION PERIOD

20. ADJOURNMENT

7

8645 Stave Lake Street PO Box 20, Mission, BC V2V 4L9

Phone: 604-820-3700 Fax: 604-826-1363

Email: [email protected]

Personal information contained on this form is collected under the authority of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and will be used for the purpose of providing correspondence relating to matters before Council. Questions regarding collection of the information

on this form may be directed to the Corporate Officer, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC V2V 4L9.

Delegation Request The deadline for submission is 4:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding the date of the meeting.

Completed submissions are to be addressed to the Corporate Officer and can be delivered by:

x Email: [email protected] x Fax: 604-826-1363

x Mail or hand deliver: Corporate Administration Department, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC V2V 4L9

Request to attend the Council Meeting of:

Preferred meeting date Alternative meeting date

Please refer to the Council Meeting Schedule on the District’s website for dates of Council Meetings

Individual(s) making the presentation:

Name Title

Organization being Represented:

Subject of the presentation:

Action requested:

Have you been in contact with District staff/Council regarding your matter of interest? � Yes � No

If yes, what was the result?

Background material PowerPoint: � Yes � No Handout: � Yes � No

Your PowerPoint presentation is required to be submitted to [email protected] no later than 12:00 pm on the Friday prior to the meeting.

x Each Delegation to Council is limited to ten (10) minutes.x The District of Mission reserves the right to refuse any delegation request.

x If your request is approved, you will be provided with further details including the meeting time and date andwhat specific Committee meeting you will attend.

x Presenter(s) are limited to discussing only the above topic during the delegation.

Please Note: This form will be published and made available for public viewing. Council meetings are recorded and broadcast live on our website. A copy of the agenda, video recording, and written minutes of the meeting will be posted to our website. Presenters and presentations will form part of the public record.

Lolehawk Laura Buker & Tracy Lyster Tree protection ideas

Importance of the tree canapy from an indigenous and environnmental point of view.

Enact a fair, effective and enforacleble tree protection bylaw.

Motion passed last year for a staff report.

✔ ✔

✔

September 16, 2019 Sepetember 3, 2019

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.mission.ca/municipal-hall/mayor-council/council-meeting-schedule/


District of Mission Council Resolution - September 16, 2019

Be it resolved that the District of Mission hereby proclaims

September 20– 27, 2019 as

“Earth's Climate Crisis Awareness Week

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this 16th day of September, 2019

______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

MAYOR PAMELA ALEXIS CORPORATE OFFICER

10

From: Santana Di Nardo <[email protected]> Date: August 2, 2019 at 10:08:51 AM PDT To: [email protected] Subject: Proclamation Request

Dear Mayor Alexis,

My name is Santana Di Nardo, a Paralegal student from Seneca College, and a volunteer for Innocence

Canada (formerly the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted). I am writing to you on behalf

of Innocence Canada to ask if you would proclaim October 2nd as Wrongful Conviction Day in the

District of Mission.

The purpose of Wrongful Conviction Day is to spread awareness about wrongful convictions and the

effects these convictions have on individuals, their families, and the society at large. Through Wrongful

Conviction Day, Innocence Canada aims to decrease the amount of wrongful convictions in Canada by

encouraging the justice system to address issues that contribute to wrongful convictions.

Innocence Canada is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1993 and have assisted in the exoneration

of 23 wrongly convicted individuals. Amongst these exonerees are David Milgaard, Romeo Phillion,

Steven Truscott and Guy Paul Morin. There is an undetermined amount of individuals sitting in Canadian

prisons right now for crimes they did not commit. The varying factors leading to these convictions

include tunnel vision, false witness testimony, and forced confessions. Nobody is exempt from the

possibility of being wrongfully convicted.

Please visit http://www.innocencecanada.com/ for more information on the organization, and feel free to

contact me if you have further questions at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Santana Di Nardo __________

Innocence Canada Volunteer

111 Peter St

Toronto, ON

M5V 2H1

11



http://www.innocencecanada.com/


District of Mission Council Resolution - September 16, 2019

Be it resolved that the District of Mission hereby proclaims October 2, 2019 as

“Wrongful Conviction Day”

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this 16th day of September, 2019

______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

MAYOR PAMELA ALEXIS CORPORATE OFFICER

12

DISTRICT OF MISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 464 and 466 of the Local Government Act, a Public Hearing will take place in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC at 6:00 pm on Monday, September 16, 2019, 2019 to consider the following proposed bylaws:

1. DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5856-2019-5050(352) (R19-014 – RETI)

The purpose of the Bylaw is to rezone the subject property located at 9663 Doyle Street (shown on the maps below) from the Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to the Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone to allow a secondary dwelling use.

2. DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5857-2019-5050(353) (R19-003 – LACEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD.)

The purpose of the Bylaw is to rezone the subject property located at 33481 Larkspur Avenue (shown on the maps below) from the Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to the Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone to allow a secondary dwelling use

13

3. DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5858-2019-5050(354) (R19-012 – MANDZUK)

The purpose of the Bylaw is to rezone the subject property located at 8913 Neale Drive (shown on the maps below) from the Suburban 36 (S36) Zone to the Suburban 36 Secondary Dwelling (S36s) Zone to allow a secondary dwelling use.

Copies of the proposed bylaws and reports relevant to these bylaws may be inspected at the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC, Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, from Friday, September 6, 2019 to Monday, September 16, 2019. The information is also available on our website at mission.ca by searching “Public Hearing Information”. For further information regarding this bylaw, please contact the Development Services Department at (604) 820-3748.

At the Public Hearing, persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by these proposed bylaws will have the opportunity to be heard.

Should you have any comments or concerns you wish to convey to Council and you cannot attend the meeting, please submit in writing to the Corporate Officer by 4:00 pm on Friday, September 13, 2019.

You may forward your submission by:

• Mailing or delivering to the Corporate Officer’s Office, P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC, V2V 4L9

• Faxing: 604-826-1363 (Attn: Corporate Officer)

• E-mail: [email protected] with PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS as the subject line

Please note: Submissions that are subject of a public hearing, public meeting or other public processes will be included, in their entirety, in the public information package and will form part of the public record. Council shall not receive further information or submissions after the conclusion of the Public Hearing.

Following the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, Council may consider advancing bylaws forward for additional readings.

Jennifer Russell, Corporate Officer Dated at Mission, BC this 4th day of September, 2019.

14

http://www.mission.ca/


8645 S tave Lake S t ree t , Box 20 , M is s ion , BC V 2V 4L9 Phone (604) 820-3700 Fax (604) 826-1363 Web Site: mission.ca E-mail: [email protected]

D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S D E P A R T M E N T FILE: 08-3310-20 P2019-033

September 4, 2019 Dear Owner/Occupant: Re: Rezoning Application R19-014 (D. Reti) – 9663 Doyle Street As a property owner or neighbouring resident to the subject property located at 9663 Doyle Street, you are invited to attend a Public Hearing at 6:00 pm on Monday, September 16, 2019 and make known any comments that you may have about the proposed bylaw. The Public Hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC. The following is an excerpt from the Public Hearing Notice:

DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5856-2019-5050(352) (R19-014 – RETI) The purpose of the Bylaw is to rezone the subject property located at 9663 Doyle Street (shown on the maps below) from the Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to the Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone to allow a secondary dwelling use.

A copy of the proposed bylaw and report relevant to this bylaw may be inspected at the Municipal Hall, Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, from Friday, September 6, 2019 to Monday, September 16, 2019. The information is also available on our website at mission.ca by searching “Public Hearing Information”. If you are unable to attend the Public Hearing, you may send a written submission, including your name and address, to the attention of Jennifer Russell, Corporate Officer, or email

15

mailto:mission.ca



2

P .O . Box 20 , 8645 S tave Lake S t ree t , M is s ion , B .C . V 2V 4L9 Phone (604) 820-3748 Fax (604) 826-7951 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.mission.ca E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected] by 4:00 pm on the Friday preceding the date of the Public Hearing. All submissions will form part of the record of the Hearing. If you require additional information, please contact the Development Services Department at (604) 820-3748 or email [email protected]. Yours truly,

For, Rob Publow MANAGER OF PLANNING

16



Development Services Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 8

File: 08-3310-20 P2019-033

DATE: September 3, 2019

TO: Chief Administrative Officer

FROM: Jay Hazzard, Planner

SUBJECT: Rezoning Application (R19-014) to allow a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a garden cottage at the property located at 9663 Doyle Street

ATTACHMENT(S): Appendix 1 – Information for Corporate Officer

Appendix 2 – Location Map

Appendix 3 – Proposed Site Plan

Appendix 4 – Engineering Department Rezoning Comments

CIVIC ADDRESS: 9663 Doyle Street

APPLICANT: Dayle Reti

OCP: Rural Residential

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE:

April 15, 2019

LOCATION: Ferndale

17

STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 8

OVERVIEW AND STAFF COMMENTS:

This report details the development application to rezone 9663 Doyle Street from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone in order to facilitate a secondary dwelling unit.

Staff support the application moving forward and as such have listed Zoning Amending Bylaw 5856-2019-5050(352) under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council Agenda.

Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for September 16, 2019.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A rezoning application has been received from Dayle Reti for the property located at 9663 Doyle Street (Appendix 2). The application proposes to rezone the subject property from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone to facilitate a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a garden cottage.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS:

The subject property is approximately 1.45 hectares (3.58 acres) in size and is located in the Ferndale neighbourhood. The property fronts Doyle Street and is situated just north of Stave Lake Street. The property is currently developed with only a single-family dwelling. The entire property slopes downward to the east with some relatively steep sections and a flat portion towards the center.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:

Official Community Plan & Zoning Bylaw Compliance

The subject property is currently designated Rural Residential in the Official Community Plan (OCP) and is zoned RU16. This proposal to rezone to the RU16s Zone will allow for a secondary dwelling unit.

Specifically, OCP Policy 5.1.26 supports rezoning for secondary dwelling units as a form of infill housing and states that secondary dwelling units may be considered on lots that are large enough to accommodate on-site parking, private outside space, a separate entrance that is clearly secondary to the primary dwelling. The scale of the secondary dwelling (garden cottage) must clearly be ancillary to the primary use.

The applicant has supplied a site plan that shows adequate off-street parking on the property. The site plan showing the location of the existing single-family dwelling and the proposed garden cottage is attached as Appendix 3.

A building permit will be required for construction of the secondary dwelling unit. The Development Services Department will ensure the proposed coach house meets the requirements of the BC Building Code and Zoning Bylaw during the building permit review and plan check process.

Neighbourhood Character

The subject property is located within a rural neighbourhood comprised of single-family dwellings on larger lots. The proposed secondary dwelling unit will fit within the context of the surrounding properties and is believed to have little impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

Hazardous Lands Assessment

Due to the steep slopes on the property, a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer will be required to assess the potential hazards within the development property. Based on the findings of the report, a Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit, a restrictive covenant, and a reference plan may be required to identify the safe building area.

18


COMMUNICATION:

In accordance with Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003, the applicant has posted one (1) development notification sign on the site summarizing the proposed development.

Provided that a public hearing date is determined by Council:

1. The development notification sign will be modified to advertise the public hearing details (i.e. date, time and place) and a notice will be mailed to the owners and occupiers of all properties within a radius of 500 metres (1,640 feet.) from the development site notifying them of the public hearing details.

2. A notice of Public Hearing will be prepared in accordance with Bylaw 3612-2003 and the Local Government Act

3. A pre-public hearing information package will be prepared to include copies of all applicable documents and is available online or at municipal hall for public viewing (in accordance with Policy LAN. 50 – Pre-Public Hearing Information Packages).

REFERRALS:

Engineering

The Engineering Department has no objection to the rezoning application provided servicing requirements as outlined in Appendix 4 have been met.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FINAL READING:

The Final Reading of the Zoning Amending Bylaw will be held until the following have been satisfied:

1. A geohazard and landslide assessment prepared by a professional engineer with experience in geotechnical engineering will be required to assess the potential hazards and buildable areas on the property.

2. Confirmation that an area for a new septic system to service the proposed secondary dwelling unit has been approved, or confirmation that the existing septic system can service both the primary dwelling unit and the proposed secondary dwelling unit.

3. A well report, prepared by a professional engineer with expertise in ground water supply, confirming that the subject well(s) meets the provisions of the Development and Subdivision Control Bylaw and Council Policy WAT.19 – Well Water Quality – Aesthetic and Health Parameters.

4. Any requirements resulting from Council’s consideration of the Bylaw including Public Hearing.

19


SIGN-OFFS:

Jay Hazzard, Planner

Reviewed by: Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed.

20


Appendix 1

Information for Corporate Officer

Civic Address:

9663 Doyle Street

PID: 002-118-149

Legal: Lot 9 Section 3 Township 18 New Westminster District Plan 67177

21


Appendix 2

Location Map

22


Appendix 3

Proposed Site Plan

23


Appendix 4

Engineering Department Rezoning Comments

24



September 4, 2019 Dear Owner/Occupant: Re: Rezoning Application R19-003 (Lacey Developments Ltd.) – 33481 Larkspur Avenue As a property owner or neighbouring resident to the subject property located at 33481 Larkspur Avenue, you are invited to attend a Public Hearing at 6:00 pm on Monday, September 16, 2019 and make known any comments that you may have about the proposed bylaw. The Public Hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC. The following is an excerpt from the Public Hearing Notice:

DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5857-2019-5050(353) (R19-003 – LACEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD.)

The purpose of the Bylaw is to rezone the subject property located at 33481 Larkspur Avenue (shown on the maps below) from the Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to the Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone to allow a secondary dwelling use.

A copy of the proposed bylaw and report relevant to this bylaw may be inspected at the Municipal Hall, Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm from Friday, September 6, 2019 to Monday, September 16, 2019. The information is also available on our website at mission.ca by searching “Public Hearing Information”. If you are unable to attend the Public Hearing, you may send a written submission, including your name and address, to the attention of Jennifer Russell, Corporate Officer, or email

25

mailto:mission.ca



2

P .O . Box 20 , 8645 S tave Lake S t ree t , M is s ion , B .C . V 2V 4L9 Phone (604) 820-3748 Fax (604) 826-7951 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.mission.ca E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected] by 4:00 pm on the Friday preceding the date of the Public Hearing. All submissions will form part of the record of the Hearing. If you require additional information, please contact the Development Services Department at (604) 820-3748 or email [email protected]. Yours truly,


26




Page 1 of 9

File: 08-3310-20 P2019-008




SUBJECT: Rezoning Application (R19-003) to allow a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a garden cottage at the property located at 33481 Larkspur Avenue





CIVIC ADDRESS: 33481 Larkspur Avenue

APPLICANT: Lacey Developments Ltd.

OCP: Rural Residential


January 15, 2019

LOCATION: Ferndale

27



This report details the development application to rezone 33481 Larkspur Avenue from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone in order to facilitate a secondary dwelling unit.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A rezoning application has been received from Lacey Developments Ltd. for the property located at 33481 Larkspur Avenue (Appendix 2). The application proposes to rezone the subject property from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone to facilitate a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a garden cottage.


The subject property is approximately 1.82 hectares (4.5 acres) in size and is located in the Ferndale neighbourhood. The property sits at the corner of Larkspur Avenue and Barr Street. The property is currently developed with numerous structures including a principal dwelling, barn, swimming pool, and several accessory buildings. The property owners have plans to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling in the near future. There is a watercourse on the north side of the property which flows from the northeast to the west and forms a large open-water pond. The property slopes gradually to the northwest in the direction of the pond.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:


The subject property is currently designated Rural Residential in the Official Community Plan (OCP) and is zoned RU16. This proposal to rezone to the RU16s Zone will allow for a secondary dwelling unit.

Specifically, OCP Policy 5.1.26 supports rezoning for secondary dwelling units as a form of infill housing and states that secondary dwelling units may be considered on lots that are large enough to accommodate on-site parking, private outside space, a separate entrance that is clearly secondary to the primary dwelling. The scale of the secondary dwelling (garden cottage) must clearly be ancillary to the primary use.

The applicant has supplied a site plan that shows adequate off-street parking on the property. The site plan showing the location of the existing single-family dwelling and the proposed garden cottage is attached as Appendix 3.



The subject property is located within a rural neighbourhood comprised of single-family dwellings on larger lots. The proposed secondary dwelling unit will fit within the context of the surrounding properties and is believed to have little impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

Environmental Protection

District mapping identified a watercourse on the subject property. The watercourse runs along the property from the north-east to the western property line. A Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) report

28


prepared by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) was required to identify the setbacks from the watercourse. Based on the findings of the report an Environmental Development Permit is required and the identified Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area will also be protected with a restrictive covenant.

COMMUNICATION:



1. The development notification sign will be modified to advertise the public hearing details (i.e. date, time and place) and a notice will be mailed to the owners and occupiers of all properties within a radius of 500 metres (1,640 feet) from the development site notifying them of the public hearing details.



REFERRALS:

Engineering




1. The applicant shall provide and implement a vegetation restoration plan that aligns with clause 9.7.13 of the OCP to restore and enhance the SPEA. The vegetation and restoration plan shall be prepared by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) or Registered Landscape Architect.

2. Confirmation that an area for a new septic system to service the proposed secondary dwelling unit has been approved or confirmation that the existing septic system can service both the primary dwelling unit and the proposed secondary dwelling unit.

3. A well report, prepared by a professional engineer with expertise in ground water supply, confirming that the subject well(s) meets the provisions of the Development and Subdivision Control Bylaw and Council Policy WAT.19 – Well Water Quality – Aesthetic and Health Parameters.


SIGN-OFFS:

29





30


Appendix 1


Civic Address:

33481 Larkspur Avenue

PID: 006-329-420


31


Appendix 2

Location Map

32


Appendix 3

Proposed Site Plan

33


Appendix 4


34


35

1



September 4, 2019 Dear Owner/Occupant: Re: Rezoning Application R19-012 (Mandzuk) – 8913 Neale Drive As a property owner or neighbouring resident to the subject property located at 8913 Neale Drive, you are invited to attend a Public Hearing at 6:00 pm on Monday, September 16, 2019 and make known any comments that you may have about the proposed bylaw. The Public Hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC. The following is an excerpt from the Public Hearing Notice:

DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5858-2019-5050(354) (R19-012 – MANDZUK) The purpose of the Bylaw is to rezone the subject property located at 8913 Neale Drive (shown on the maps below) from the Suburban 36 (S36) Zone to the Suburban 36 Secondary Dwelling (S36s) Zone to allow a secondary dwelling use.

A copy of the proposed bylaw and report relevant to this bylaw may be inspected at the Municipal Hall, Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, from

36

mailto:mission.ca


2


Friday, September 6, 2019 to Monday, September 16, 2019. The information is also available on our website at mission.ca by searching “Public Hearing Information”. If you are unable to attend the Public Hearing, you may send a written submission, including your name and address, to the attention of Jennifer Russell, Corporate Officer, or email [email protected] by 4:00 pm on the Friday preceding the date of the Public Hearing. All submissions will form part of the record of the Hearing. If you require additional information, please contact the Development Services Department at (604) 820-3748 or email [email protected]. Yours truly,


37

mailto:mission.ca






Page 1 of 9

File: 08-3310-20 P2019-028




SUBJECT: Rezoning Application (R19-012) to allow a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a coach house at the property located at 8913 Neale Drive





CIVIC ADDRESS: 8913 Neale Drive

APPLICANT: Dean Mandzuk (Property Owner)

OCP: Suburban Residential


March 8, 2019

LOCATION: Cedar Valley

38



This report details the development application to rezone 8913 Neale Drive from Suburban 36 (S36) Zone to Suburban 36 Secondary Dwelling (S36s) Zone to allow a secondary dwelling unit ancillary to an existing principal dwelling.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A rezoning application has been received from Dean Mandzuk for the property located at 8913 Neale Drive (Appendix 2). The application seeks to rezone the subject property from Suburban 36 (S36) Zone to Suburban 36 Secondary Dwelling (S36s) Zone to facilitate a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a coach house.


The subject property is approximately 0.36 hectares (0.88 acres) in size and is located in the Cedar Valley neighbourhood. The property fronts Neale Drive which is situated off the western end of Tunbridge Avenue. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling, pool, and several small accessory buildings. The northwest corner of the property is quite steep and falls back towards the Silverdale Creek ravine.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:


The subject property is currently designated Suburban Residential in the Official Community Plan (OCP). This proposal to rezone to the S36s Zone is supported by the OCP will allow for a secondary dwelling unit.

Specifically, OCP Policy 5.1.26 supports rezoning for secondary dwelling units as a form of infill housing and states that secondary dwelling units may be considered on lots that are large enough to accommodate on-site parking, private outside space, a separate entrance that is clearly secondary to the primary dwelling. The scale of the secondary dwelling (coach home) must clearly be ancillary to the primary use.

The applicant has supplied a site plan that shows adequate off-street parking on the property. The site plan showing the location of the existing single-family dwelling and the proposed coach house is attached as Appendix 3.



The subject property is located within a suburban neighbourhood comprised of single-family dwellings on larger lots. The proposed secondary dwelling unit will fit within the context of the surrounding properties and is believed to have little impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

Hazardous Lands Assessment

Due to the slopes on the property, a report prepared by a geotechnical engineer was required to assess the potential hazards within the development property. Based on the findings of the report, a Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit is required.

39


Environmental Protection:

District mapping identifies watercourses on and near the subject property. The site is also located immediately adjacent to a Class A watercourse (Silverdale Creek) and an unnamed tributary. At minimum, a qualified environmental professional (QEP) will be required to conduct a RAR assessment, a preliminary bio-inventory of terrestrial site features, an arborists report, and an invasive plant assessment. The invasive plant assessment will specifically target the four-knotweed species and Giant Hogweed. No trees, vegetation, or soil is to be disturbed before providing the required studies for District staff evaluation. An Environmental Development Permit will be required and any identified Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas will be protected with a restrictive covenant.

COMMUNICATION:



1. The development notification sign will be modified to advertise the public hearing details (i.e. date, time and place) and a notice will be mailed to the owners and occupiers of all properties within a radius of 152 metres (500 feet) from the development site notifying them of the public hearing details.



REFERRALS:

Engineering




1. A qualified environmental professional (QEP) is required to provide, at minimum, a RAR assessment, a preliminary bio-inventory of terrestrial site features, an arborist report, and an invasive plant assessment, specifically for the four-knotweed species and Giant Hogweed. No disturbance of trees, vegetation, or soil is permitted prior to providing the requested studies for District of Mission staff evaluation.

2. Confirmation that there is no encroachment into the District-owned lot to the west. Previously disturbed areas should be restored and replanted.

3. Connection to the municipal water system is required. The existing water service to the parent lot shall be replaced with an adequately sized water service (likely 38 millimetre diameter to satisfy the sprinkler requirements) complete with meter box, meter setter, and meter with radio head at the property line. This in turn will require the existing 20 millimetre diameter water service to be capped at the water main.

4. Confirmation that an area for a new septic system to service the proposed secondary dwelling unit has been approved or that the existing septic system can service both the primary dwelling

40


unit and the proposed secondary dwelling unit.


SIGN-OFFS:




41


Appendix 1


Civic Address:

8913 Neale Drive

PID: 017-437-792

Legal: Lot 7 Section 32 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan LMP948

42


Appendix 2

Location Map

43


Appendix 3

Proposed Site Plan

44


Appendix 4


45


46

Development Services

Staff Report

STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 10

File: 08-3310-18 P2019-049, P2019-050, P2019-051, P2019-052, P2019-053, P2019-054



FROM: Amina Yasin, Planner

SUBJECT: Application to exclude the properties located at 9314, 9332, 9380 and 9424 Hayward Street, 9541 Woodward Street and 9449 Woodward Street from the Agricultural Land Reserve

ATTACHMENTS: A – Information for Corporate Officer

B – Location Map

C – Air Photo

D – Contour Lines

E – Mission OCP – Urban Growth Boundary _________________________________________________________________________________

CIVIC ADDRESSES: 9314, 9332, 9380 and 9424 Hayward Street, 9541 Woodward Street and 9449 Woodward Street

APPLICANT: OTG Developments, Authorized Agent to Property Owners

OCP: This application is not in conformance with the current OCP designation of Agriculture.

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: July 20, 2017

LOCATION: Silverhill

47



1. That the Agricultural Land Reserve Application ALR19-001 for exclusion of 9380 Hayward Street be supported;

2. That the Agricultural Land Reserve Application ALR19-002 for exclusion of 9449 Woodward Street be supported;




6. That the Agricultural Land Reserve Application ALR19-006 for exclusion of 9541 Woodward Street be supported; and

7. That the resolution(s) of support be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC).

SUMMARY:

This report details an application to the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude the six properties located at 9314, 9332, 9380, and 9424 Hayward Street; and 9541 and 9449 Woodward Street from the Agricultural Land Reserve. Pursuant to provincial regulations, ALR exclusion applications are first submitted to the local government authority prior to final consideration by the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC); which have ultimate jurisdiction over lands within the ALR. Council’s decision on a recommendation on whether to forward the application to the ALC is made in the form of a formal resolution.

The subject properties in this development proposal are located on sloping terrain that increases in elevation by approximately 15 m from Hayward Street to the northeast corner of 9541 Woodward Street. The properties are bisected by Johnston Brook, its tributaries and ravines.

The BC Ministry of Environment Land Capability for Agriculture Map identifies Class 2, 3 and 5 soils for the subject properties, but also highlights soil capability sub-classes that include undesirable soil structure and/or low permeability, topography and excess water, with low probability of improvement. Given the environmental sensitivity of this site with topographic, watercourse and soil condition constraints, staff support the application being forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission for further consideration.

BACKGROUND:

The properties are designated Agricultural in the District of Mission Official Community Plan (OCP) and zoned Rural 16 (RU16) Zone in the District of Mission Zoning Bylaw. The properties are located outside and adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary, as identified by the OCP and the Regional Growth Strategy for the Fraser Valley Regional District (Attachment E). The properties are bounded by lands to the north in the Langley Indian Reserve Number 4 designated in the Mission OCP as First Nation Reserve Land. The subject site is also bounded to the east, south and west by properties designated in the OCP as the Silverdale Comprehensive Planning Area, and additionally, to the west, by properties on the west side of Hayward Street designated Rural in the OCP. Properties located to the east and south, designated Silverdale Comprehensive Planning Area in the OCP, are currently large rural properties while the subdivision located on the west side of Hayward Street contains large urban sized properties.

The property located at 9541 Woodward Street is a District of Mission owned property which is the past location of Mission Animal Control Services. Animal control services are currently contracted with the Fraser Valley Regional District; as such, the property is currently rented for residential use.

48


PROPOSAL AND PROCESS:

The applicant has proposed to exclude the subject properties from the Agricultural Land Reserve to redevelop the properties for rural land uses.

The District has the discretion to forward or not forward applications to the ALC pursuant to s. 25(3) and s.30(4) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. If a local government exercises its authority and does not authorize the application, the application proceeds no further and will not be considered by the ALC.

Should the applicant’s proposal to exclude the properties from the ALR be supported by the District and ultimately receives ALC support for the proposed exclusion, the applicant would then be required to approach the District with detailed plans for the proposed change in land use and redevelopment of the property, including all required applications, such as Official Community Plan amendment and rezoning application with the subsequent public consultation process. The decision before Council at this time is whether the application for exclusion of the subject properties should be forward to the ALC with support, without comment, or without support.


The subject properties are 15.8 hectares (39.04 acres) in area. The properties at 9314, 9332 and 9380 Hayward Street, 9541 and 9449 Woodward Street contain single family residences. The property at 9424 Hayward Street does not contain a residential dwelling, but appears to include small garden plots. The properties are situated on undulating, sloping terrain, which increases in elevation from 15 m along Hayward Street to an elevation of approximately 35 m at Woodward Street. The properties at 9332 and 9380 Hayward Street are significantly bisected by Johnston Brook, its tributaries and ravines, all which would be classified as environmentally significant and sensitive. The subject properties are significantly covered with mixed vegetation (Attachment C).

PLANNING ANALYSIS:

Council Policy LAN.56 – ‘Agricultural Land Reserve Exclusion Applications provides guidance to Council and staff when considering ALR exclusion applications. The following eight criteria were considered with this application and are summarized below:

Soil Capability

As identified on the ‘Land Capability for Agriculture’ map ,92G/1e, prepared by the Ministry of the Environment, the soil capability for the subject properties is within one area having unimproved rating as follows:

Fifty percent (50%) of the site has a Soil Capability Rating of Class 3 with minor limitations requiring good ongoing management practices. However, the Class 3 soil areas also have constraints including topography where soils are limited by steepness which hinders use of farm machinery, and undesirable soil structure where soils are difficult to till, requiring special management for seedbed preparation. Thirty percent (30%) of the site is categorized as having Class 2 soils that have moderate limitations that restrict the range of crops or require moderate conservation practices. Topography and undesirable soil structure constraints are also identified in the Class 2 soil areas. Twenty percent (20%) of the site is classified as having Class 5 soils which have very severe limitations that restrict their capability to producing perennial forage crops. The areas with Class 5 soils also are identified as having soils where excess water is a limitation to their use for agriculture due to inadequate soil drainage, a high water table, seepage or runoff from surrounding areas.

Improved soil ratings show minor opportunities for enhancement where the portion of the site identified as Class 5 soils could be improved to Class 3, but with agricultural limitations including undesirable soil structure and/or low permeability and excess water. The ALC will consider this information and make a determination on this during their review of the application.

49


Proposed Use

Pursuant to Policy LAN.56, “[a]all exclusion applications must accompany all other necessary land use applications to properly assess the impact of the application as it applies to the District as a whole.” Notwithstanding this policy provision, staff is in a position to support the applicant’s request to Council and defer the associated OCP and zoning amending bylaw applications until such time the ALC has made a decision. While it was the applicant’s intent to submit all the development applications at one time, it was suggested to first seek Council’s direction and the ALC’s position on the “question of exclusion” prior to the applicant lodging associated OCP, rezoning, and subdivision applications, which can be costly for a developer to prepare. For this reason, a conceptual subdivision plan has not been prepared and the consideration of size of lots (density) will be considered upon subsequent development application. While a lot size (density) has not been proposed by the applicant, as a hypothetical scenario, if the adjacent Silverdale Comprehensive Planning Area OCP designation were applied to the subject property then rural residential development may be possible in this location as the site is at the western limit of the Silverdale community and is adjacent to Silvermere Lake and large urban properties and rural properties on the west side of Hayward Street.

In the event the ALR exclusion is granted, and the applicant wishes to subdivide the properties, an application to subdivide would be required.

1. Alternative Sites for Proposed Use

While the applicant has not provided evidence indicating that the proposed future land use of the subject property could not be accommodated elsewhere within the community, the District does have areas set-aside for rural residential development. However, the real question in this case is whether the property holds any true agricultural potential or whether the highest and best use of the property is for residential uses.

2. Location of Site

While at this time a proposal detailing the future land use of the property has not been provided, the inclusion of the subject property into the adjacent Silverdale Comprehensive Planning Area is generally considered as a logical and generally minor adjustment in the boundary of the ALR and the Urban Growth Boundary.

A key aspect in considering whether the subject property should remain within the ALR or be included within the areas designated for urban development within the District of Mission’s Official Community Plan is the subject property is somewhat isolated from other ALR lands and is more in keeping with the existing residential lands to the east, south and west and with the long-term development of the Silverdale community.

3. Roads and Services

There are no changes to existing road network proposed or anticipated as a result of an exclusion of land from the ALR. No municipal water and drainage services are currently available in this location. The applicant should be aware that access to sanitary sewer could be challenging.

4. Interface Buffering

Agricultural protection buffering is proposed for the portions of the development site that bounds two adjacent properties located at 9449 and 9471/73 Woodward Street that are within the ALR. Buffering could include the retention of mature trees with planting of native shrubs within a 5 m wide landscaped buffer area to be identified with a proposed subdivision application should the ALR exclusion application be approved by the ALC.

50


5. Impacts on Adjacent Lands

The proposed use of the property, if excluded, would be a continuation of the surrounding residential development, which is not anticipated to adversely impact the surrounding residential or agricultural land users.

6. Compensation

No compensation is proposed for this application.

After reviewing the applicant’s proposal in the context of the evaluation criteria identified within Council Policy LAN.56 and considering the overall impact of the proposed exclusion of land from the ALR, staff believe that the application merits further consideration by the ALC and as such recommend that Council forward the application to the ALC.

COMMUNICATION:

No communication is required as part of the District of Mission application process; however, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the Agricultural Land Commission notification requirements as a component of this application.

SIGN-OFFS:

Amina Yasin, Planner Reviewed by: Rob Publow, Manager of Planning


51


ATTACHMENT A


Civic Address: 9314 Hayward Street

PID: 009-723-650

Legal: Lot “B” Section 35 Township 14 New Westminster District Plan 12607


PID: 008-665-486



PID: 008-665-451



PID: 000-740-616

Legal: Lot 1 Except: Firstly: Part subdivided by Plan 39687; Secondly: Part subdivided by Plan 57425; Section 35 Township 14 New Westminster District Plan 6843

Civic Address: 9541 Woodward Street

PID: 001-969-234


Civic Address: 9449 Woodward Street

PID: 005-585-830


52


ATTACHMENT B

Location Map

53


ATTACHMENT C

Air Photo

54


ATTACHMENT D

Contour Lines

55


ATTACHMENT E

Mission OCP – Urban Growth Boundary

56



File 08-3310-20 P2019-040



FROM: Marcy Bond, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: Application for a Site-Specific Exemption to Floodplain Management Bylaw 4027-2007 at 9960 Lindsay Terrace

ATTACHMENTS: A – Location Map

B – Site Plan

CIVIC ADDRESS: 9960 Lindsay Terrace

APPLICANT: Joel Roste

OCP: This application is in conformance with the current Rural Residential OCP designation.


August 20, 2019

LOCATION: Ferndale

57



This report details the application for a site specific exemption to Floodplain Management Bylaw 4027-2007 for the property located at 9960 Lindsay Terrace.

A resolution of Council is required for a site specific exemption to the Bylaw to allow the construction of a single family dwelling below the flood construction level and less than the required setbacks.

RECOMMENDATION: Council consider and resolve:

That the request for an exemption to Floodplain Management Bylaw 4027-2007 be approved for the property located at 9960 Lindsay Terrace.

SUMMARY:

The District is in receipt of an application for a site specific exemption to Floodplain Management Bylaw 4027-2007 (Bylaw) for the property located a 9960 Lindsay Terrace (Attachment A).

The property owner wishes to construct a single family dwelling on the property. In order address water run-off from the steeper crown-owned land to the north, the property owner installed a number of ditches on the property to direct water seepage away from a proposed building site. The creation of these ditches by the property owner has resulted these now being classified as streams and thus two new requirements must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit.

The first requirement was to have Riparian Area Regulation (RAR) report completed as part of the building permit application and ensure the proposed house will meet the setback requirements established under the RAR regulations. The proposed house would be able to meet the required RAR setbacks.

The second requirement is that the proposed house must meet the requirements of Floodplain Management Bylaw 4027-2007. As the proposed house location does not meet the requirements within the bylaw the owner is requesting an exemption to the setbacks and flood construction level to allow a house to be constructed in the proposed location.


The subject property was created by subdivision in June 2017 and there is no dwelling on the lot. The lot is 0.883 hectares in size and is located at the north end of Lindsay Terrace which extends north off of Richards Avenue. The lot slopes from the northeast down towards the south end of the lot.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:

Floodplain Management Bylaw

Ditches were created for the purpose of directing water seepage away from a building site, the Bylaw defines stream as follows:

“Stream: includes a watercourse or source of water supply, whether usually containing water or not, a pond, lake, river, creek, brook, ditch and spring, marsh or wetland that is integral to a stream.”

These ditches now meet the definition of a stream under the Bylaw and thus new construction must meet the requirements of the Bylaw.

The required flood construction level is 1.5 metres above the natural boundary of a stream and the required setback to the stream is 15 metres. There are some constraints on the property, such as topography, the location of the watercourses, septic field and well location that do impose some restrictions on building sites, as shown on (Attachment B). The owner is proposing to locate a house with and inground basement that is less than 1.5 metres above the natural boundary of the stream and

58


less than 15 metres from the natural boundary of the stream; the developer is therefore requesting a site specific exemption to the floodplain management bylaw to allow the proposed house located as shown on Attachment B.

The developer was required to submit a report from a geotechnical engineer confirming that the house at the proposed setback and elevations are safe for the use intended to allow for a building which does not meet the requirements of the Bylaw.

Accordingly, a geotechnical report was submitted by Fraser Valley Engineering Ltd. on August 20, 2019. The report concludes that with the construction of the additional swale on the south side of the driveway, as shown on Attachment B, the building site is safe for the use intended.

INFORMATIONAL NOTES:

1. Registration of a Section 219 save harmless covenant must be registered on the title of the lot.

2. Any other requirements that may result from Council’s consideration of the site specific exemption.

SIGN-OFFS:

Marcy Bond, Senior Planner

Reviewed by: Rob Publow, Manager of Planning

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed.

59


Attachment A -Location Map

60


Attachment B – Site Plan

61


Staff Report


File: 08-3310-20 P2019-020




SUBJECT: Rezoning of 34843 Ferndale Avenue to facilitate a 2-lot subdivision

ATTACHMENTS: A – Information for Corporate Officer

B – Location Map

C – Draft Plan of Subdivision

D – Engineering Department Comments

CIVIC ADDRESS: 34843 Ferndale Avenue

APPLICANT: April and Michael Ballard

OCP: This application is in conformance with the current Rural Residential OCP designation:

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: July 17, 2019

LOCATION: Ferndale

62



This report details the development application to rezone 34843 Ferndale Avenue from Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling Zone (RU16s) to the Rural Residential Secondary Dwelling Zone (RR7s) to facilitate a two-lot subdivision and identifies the necessary amendments to the Zoning Bylaw.

Staff support the application moving forward and, as such, have listed Zoning Amending Bylaw 5855-2019-5050(351) under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council Agenda.

Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for October 7, 2019.

SUMMARY:

A rezoning application was received from April and Michael Ballard for the property at 34843 Ferndale Avenue (Attachment B). The application proposes to rezone the property from Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling Zone (RU16s) to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling Zone (RR7s) to facilitate a two-lot subdivision, as shown in Attachment C.


The subject property is 2.007 hectares. The property slopes steeply from west to east. There is one existing dwelling and coach house on the property which will be retained on proposed Lot A, as part of the subdivision. There is an existing watercourse on the property which was identified and protected as part of a previous rezoning with a Section 219 covenant.

PLANNING ANALYSIS:


The property is designated Rural Residential within the Official Community Plan (OCP) and the proposed RR7s zone is supported within this designation.

The minimum lot size under the RR7s zone is 0.7 hectares. The proposal is to create two parcels each with a minimum lot size of 0.7 hectares as shown on Attachment C. Each proposed lot meets the minimum parcel size requirement.


The subject property is located in the Ferndale area of Mission, on the north side of Ferndale Avenue. Surrounding properties are also designated Rural Residential, some may have further development potential either on their own or as part of a consolidation. The proposed development will fit in with conform to the overall rural nature of the area.

Access and Servicing

Each lot will have frontage and access off of Ferndale Avenue.

While municipal water is available along Ferndale Avenue, access to municipal water is not a requirement with the Rural Residential designation.

Sanitary sewer and storm sewer are not available on Richards Avenue.

Tree Retention

In accordance with LAN 32 Tree Retention and Replanting Policy, the applicant will be required to plant two trees per lot, for a total of four trees. This condition will be met as part of the subdivision approval. In addition to this requirement, the applicant is required to replace significant trees (having a caliper of 0.2 m or greater) that will be removed, except in the areas of building envelopes, driveways, well and septic fields.

63


Geotechnical Hazards

Due to the steep slopes on the property a Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit and geotechnical report are required. This development permit has been delegated to staff, and will be addressed through the subdivision process.

Environmental Protection

There are watercourses on the northern portion of the property that were identified and protected as part of a previous rezoning.

A RAR report that was submitted as part of this current application, identified an additional watercourse on the southern portion of the lot, adjacent to the road. Therefore, a Natural Environment Development Permit will be required. This development permit has been delegated to staff, and will be addressed through the subdivision process.

Fire Interface

The subject property is located within the Fire Interface Development Permit area where the intent is to protect residents, structures and property from the potential risk of wildfires. Therefore, a Fire Interface Development Permit is required which has been delegated to staff, and will be addressed through the subdivision process.

Community Amenity Contribution (LAN.40 Financial Contribution for Community Amenities)

In accordance with Council Policy LAN.40, the applicant has volunteered to contribute $2,815 ($2,815 per new lot or unit) to offset the unique financial burden that residential development incurs on the District to fund new facilities and/or amenities.

COMMUNICATION:

The developer has posted one development notification sign on the site summarizing the proposed development. Provided a public hearing date is determined by Council, the sign will be modified to advertise the public hearing details (i.e., date, time, and place). In addition, a notice will be mailed to the owners and to the occupiers of all properties within a distance of 500 metres (1,640 feet) of the development site notifying them of the public hearing details.

Policy LAN.50 - Pre-Public Hearing Information Packages

A pre-public hearing information package will be prepared to include copies of all applicable documents and will be made available online or at municipal hall for public viewing.

Bylaw 3612-2003 Land Use Application Procedures and Fees

A notice of Public Hearing will be prepared in accordance with Bylaw 3612-2003 and the Local Government Act

REFERRALS:

Engineering

The Engineering Department has no objection to the project, subject to the completion of engineering servicing requirements as outlined in Attachment D.


The Final Reading of the amending bylaw will be held until the following have been satisfied:

1. The community amenity contribution that has been volunteered, in the amount of $2,815 per new lot, is received;

64


2. The servicing requirements, as outlined in Attachment D, have been addressed to the satisfaction of the District Engineer; and

3. Any other requirements resulting from Council’s consideration of the Bylaw, including Public Hearing.

SIGN-OFFS:

Marcy Bond, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Robert Publow, Manager of Planning


65


Attachment A


Civic Address:

34843 Ferndale Avenue

PID: 024-194-654

Legal: Lot 3, Section 35, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan LMP38544

66


Attachment B

67


Attachment C

68


Attachment D

69


70


Staff Report


File: 08-3310-17 P2017-044




SUBJECT: Rescind first, second and third readings of bylaw related to Rezoning Application R17-031, at the property located at 7965 Grand Street

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Information for Corporate Officer

Attachment B – Location Map

Attachment C – Request to Close Rezoning Application R17-031

CIVIC ADDRESS: 7965 Grand Street

APPLICANT: Rick Fodor

OCP: Attached Multi-unit Residential


August 21, 2017

LOCATION: Mission Core

71



This report details the applicant’s request to close the development application to rezone 7965 Grand Street from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Urban Residential 558 Secondary Dwelling (R558s) Zone.

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5704-2018-5050(277) is currently sitting at third reading; first, second and third readings need to be rescinded as requested. Staff have listed the bylaw under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council agenda.

SUMMARY:

A rezoning application was received from Rick Fodor for the property located at 7965 Grand Street (Attachment B). The application had proposed to rezone the subject property from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Urban Residential 558 Secondary Dwelling (R558s) Zone to facilitate a secondary dwelling unit in the form of a secondary suite. The rezoning application was presented to Council on the below dates:

• March 5, 2018 - First and Second Readings; and

• March 19, 2018 - Public Hearing and Third Reading.

On July 26, 2019, the applicant submitted a formal request to withdraw rezoning application R17-031. As such, the readings are to be rescinded and the file closed.

FILE REQUEST CLOSURE:

In accordance with LAN.13 Land Use Development File Closure and Extension Policy, the applicant has provided a written request to close rezoning application R17-031 (Attachment C).

SIGN-OFFS:


Reviewed by: Robert Publow, Manager of Planning


72


Attachment A - Information for Corporate Officer

Civic Address:

7965 Grand Street

PID: 011-790-695


73


Attachment B - Location Map

74


Attachment C – Request to Close Rezoning Application R17-031

75


Staff Report


File: 08-3060-30 TP14-001




SUBJECT: Temporary Use Permit Renewal Application TP14-001 for Anglo American Cedar Products

ATTACHMENTS: A – Location Map

B – Draft Temporary Use Permit TP14-001 (renewal)

CIVIC ADDRESS: 33307 Glasgow Avenue

APPLICANT: Peter Laslo, Anglo American Cedar Products Ltd.


June 7, 2019

LOCATION: Mission Core

76



This report details Temporary Use Permit application TP14-001 (renewal) submitted by Anglo American Cedar Products Ltd. to allow the current use of the storage shed for cedar shakes on the property located at 33307 Glasgow Avenue to continue.

Staff support the application for a Temporary Use Permit for a three-year term and as such, have listed Temporary Use Permit TP14-001 (renewal) for approval under the “Permits for Consideration” section of the agenda.

SUMMARY:

This report details a temporary use permit (TUP) application submitted by Anglo American Cedar Products for the property located at 33307 Glasgow Avenue (Attachment A). A TUP is required for temporary land uses that do not conform to the Zoning Bylaw. A TUP may be issued for up to three years and can renewed once by Council for an additional three years. The applicant is seeking to renew their previous permit allowance for another three years to allow the continued use of a shed to store cedar shakes on the subject property.

The storage shed is approximately 204 m2 (2,196 ft2) in size. Anglo American has occupied the subject property for over 30 years and aside from the storage shed, all the other uses on the property are considered legally non-conforming. The issuance of the TUP will also allow Anglo American to continue to store the cedar shakes and enable the continued operation of the business on the property.

BACKGROUND:

The first TUP to allow the storage shed was issued in 2009 after a fire in 2008 burnt down the existing storage shed. While the original shed was considered legally non-conforming to the Zoning Bylaw, the property’s current commercial zoning, Commercial Highway One (CH1) Zone, would not allow the construction of a new permanent shed. A TUP was the alternative chosen by the applicant to avoid having to rezone the property to allow the use permanently.

As part of the approval of the original TUP in 2009, the applicant was required to provide a letter of credit in the amount of $20,000 for the District of Mission to draw upon for the removal of the storage shed if deemed necessary. Staff have confirmed that the letter of credit is still valid and could be used by the District if required.

When the first permit was approved, Council also granted an exemption to the District of Mission Floodplain Management Bylaw 4027-2007 to allow for the construction of the cedar storage shed below the required Flood Construction Level. Staff have confirmed this covenant is still registered on the title of the property.

Time Line

2008 Cedar storage shed burnt down

2009 Temporary Use Permit TP09-001 issued for two years

2011 Renewal of Temporary Use Permit TP09-001 issued for three years (Local Government Act changes to allow issuance of permits up to three years)

2014 Temporary Use Permit TP14–001 issued in 2014 for three years

2019 Applied for renewal of Temporary Use Permit TP14-001 for three years (current permit application)

77


Due to timing of when the applicant submitted the application forms and the processing of the file, the three-year time lines have been slightly extended over the past few years.

PLANNING ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:

While TUP’s are not a long-term solution for controlling land use, Council has supported temporary commercial and industrial permits to facilitate interim-development on vacant and underutilized waterfront properties ahead of comprehensive waterfront planning.

A TUP allows use of land, on a temporary basis, not otherwise permitted in a zoning bylaw and moreover, allows certain exemptions to requirements that would otherwise be applicable to a rezoning and development permit application.

To ensure that the storage shed is temporary in nature; a number of conditions from the initial Permit have been included within the draft permit as detailed in Attachment B.

COMMUNICATION:

As this is a renewal of the TP14-001 no notification is required to the adjacent property owners.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

The current use is still considered suitable by staff in advance of comprehensive waterfront planning and no conflicts with surrounding properties have been identified, as such staff recommend Council approve the renew of TP14-001 for an additional three years.

SIGN-OFFS:

Marcy Bond, Planner Reviewed by: Robert Publow, Manager of Planning


78


ATTACHMENT A

Location Map

79


ATTACHMENT B

Draft Temporary Use Permit TP14-001 (Renewal)

80


81

Engineering & Public Works

Staff Report


File: 11-5460-08

DATE: September 16, 2019 TO: Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Michele Fernie, Engineering Technologist III – Traffic and Transportation SUBJECT: Traffic Calming Policy Update ATTACHMENTS: A – Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A)

B – Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy STR.32 (February 2, 2009)

RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy STR.32 be repealed; 2. That Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A), as attached to the report from the

Engineering Technologist III – Traffic & Transportation dated September 16, 2019 be approved; 3. That Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A) be included in the District of Mission’s

Policy and Procedure manual; and 4. That funding for traffic calming from 2020 to 2024 be sourced from the Traffic Safety Strategy

funding.

PURPOSE: This report outlines the proposed updated Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A), provided herein for Council’s consideration.

BACKGROUND: Traffic is a major concern on neighbourhood streets in the District of Mission (District). On July 21, 2003 Council adopted the Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy STR.32 (STR.32), included as Attachment B. This policy was most recently amended on February 2, 2009. In 2018, staff received Chief Administrative Officer approval to update the Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy. Requests for traffic calming on existing roads have been placed on hold, pending an update to the policy. On March 18, 2019 staff presented the initial draft Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A) (Policy) to Council for review and approval. Council resolution RC19/160 stated “That consideration of Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A) be deferred pending a comprehensive workshop with staff on traffic calming and traffic safety strategies.” On April 16, 2019 staff presented additional information to Council on the Policy. Council resolution SC19/023 directed staff to investigate funding options and report back to Council.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: STR.32 put significant emphasis on vehicle volumes, with a required minimum of 1,000 vehicles per day for District-funded traffic calming; however, any road which had 1,000 vehicles per day qualified for resident-funded traffic calming regardless of speeds. As most local roads do not achieve daily traffic

82


volumes that high, this system heavily favors collector roadways. The Policy update included a review of several lower mainland municipalities’ traffic calming policies. All policies reviewed included a warrant system utilized to determine if traffic calming should be installed, the specified criteria, and the applicable funding source. The Policy shares similar warrants, criterion and/or funding sources with multiple municipalities. The Policy is similar to STR.32 in regard to the consultation and approval process; the warrant process is where it predominantly differs. STR.32 included separate warrants for District-funded and resident-funded traffic calming projects, whereas the Policy utilizes scoring from the warrant process to determine the applicable funding source. The main purpose of traffic calming is to reduce vehicle speeds where the majority of traffic is exceeding the speed limit by a specific margin. It is not intended to address locations where a small number of motorists are speeding; enforcement is the more appropriate response in those cases. To ensure that the District installs traffic calming that addresses the highest priorities, and makes the most beneficial use of available funding, the Policy includes a minimum 85th percentile speed threshold of 10 km/h above the posted speed limit. If the threshold is met, the Policy utilizes a multi-criterion scoring system to determine if traffic calming is warranted. The Policy identifies both the District and residents as potential funding parties. The funding party is determined by the warrant score; projects that score 40 or over may be considered for District-funded traffic calming, whereas projects that score between 20 and 39 may be considered for resident-funded traffic calming. Projects that score 19 points or less will not be considered for traffic calming. In addition to the two main funding parties, traffic calming projects may be eligible for ICBC funding. Updated Process The Policy has been modified slightly from the version presented on March 18 and April 16, 2019. Minor changes for clarity have been made, as well as more significant changes to the process, and funding requests. The traffic calming process identified in the previously presented policy was quite comprehensive and would require significant staff time to investigate and implement. The Policy included in this report includes a pared down process. Section 5 of the Policy has been updated since April 16, 2019, removing the resident advisory committee component, opting instead to solicit resident concerns and suggestions on the preliminary petition form. The policy was originally drafted based upon a case-by-case funding model, however the updated Policy has removed reference to requesting funding, to better reflect a structured funding model, in line with the options presented in this report. The updated Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A) is included as Attachment A. The tracked changes identify the major differences between the proposed Policy and the Policy presented on March 18, 2019 and April 16, 2019. Trial Period During the review of neighbouring municipality’s traffic calming policies, it was noted that the City of Chilliwack has placed a moratorium on all traffic calming projects. The moratorium is a result of negative feedback received with concerns relating to increased emergency services response times, speeding relocated to adjacent streets, residents feeling “stuck” with the traffic calming devices, the perception that drivers are speeding despite the speed humps, and that drivers circumvent the speed humps by driving on resident’s lawns. To decrease the likelihood of similar concerns within the District, staff recommends the first traffic calming project based on the updated Policy be conducted as a pilot program. As such, a minimum six-month period should be observed to collect sufficient feedback from residents and traffic data, in order to determine the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures. District Funding Options There is currently $25,000 in funding available for traffic calming in 2019. The unfunded capital project

83


list within the District’s Long Term Financial Plan includes $28,000 in each of 2020 and 2021, and an annual amount of $30,000 in subsequent years for traffic calming. As there is currently no approved funding dedicated to traffic calming beyond 2019, if a District-funded traffic calming project were warranted and supported, funding would be requested on a project-by-project basis. This can put Council in a difficult position, as requests would likely come forward outside of the established budgeting process, denying Council the opportunity to prioritize the traffic calming project against other pending requests for funding. To ensure that traffic calming does not put Council in this position, staff has identified three funding options for traffic calming:

1. Annual funding; 2. Traffic Safety Strategy; or 3. Discrete funding requests. Annual Funding Option Council can approve pre-set amounts for traffic calming funding for future years, providing traffic calming funding from 2020 to 2024, based on values included in the unfunded capital list of the District’s financial plan. The highest scoring warranted and supported traffic calming projects would be funded through annual funding. Lower scoring projects would be deferred to subsequent years. Benefits:

• Construction can proceed as soon as reasonably possible once Council approves a traffic calming project

• Predictable funding amount for budget purposes • Controls the number of traffic calming projects that can be completed in any given year

Disadvantages:

• Requires new funding which would result in a tax increase or a reduction in service levels elsewhere

• Set funding levels may not be sufficient for some traffic calming projects Traffic Safety Strategy Option This option includes funding for traffic calming requests beyond 2019 being supplied through existing Traffic Safety Strategy funding. Funding for traffic calming evaluation and implementation has been included in the cost estimate for the Traffic Safety Strategy. The highest scoring warranted and supported traffic calming projects could be funded through the Traffic Safety Strategy while lower scoring projects would be deferred to subsequent years. Benefits:

• Funding in place • Traffic Safety Strategy cost estimate included evaluation and implementation of traffic calming • Construction can proceed as soon as reasonably possible once Council approves traffic

calming project • Predictable funding for budget purposes • Controls the number of traffic calming projects that can be completed in any given year

Disadvantages:

• No major disadvantages

84


Discrete Funding Requests Option Individual warranted and supported traffic calming projects would be submitted as a spending package to Finance for inclusion in the following budget process. This would give Council the opportunity to prioritize traffic calming with other requests. Should funding not be available in a given year, the traffic calming project could be included in the unfunded capital projects list for prioritization in subsequent budget processes. Benefits:

• Each traffic calming project is evaluated individually and is compared to all other District funding requests

Disadvantages:

• Potentially lengthy lag time between Council approval of traffic calming project, and available funding and construction

• Unpredictable budget forecasting • The highest scoring traffic calming project may not be the first traffic calming project completed

Staff recommend that funding for traffic calming from 2020 through 2024 be drawn from the Traffic Safety Strategy budget, as costs for traffic calming were included in the initial cost estimate for the Traffic Safety Strategy. Additionally, this option shares the benefits of the annual funding option, with no additional funding required. If the Traffic Safety Strategy program is not extended beyond 2024, traffic calming projects will require funding from a separate project budget within the District’s Long Term Financial Plan.

COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report addresses Council’s goal of improved public safety by reducing vehicle speed and cut‐through volumes on District roads. Reduced vehicle speeds have been proven to decrease the number and severity of collisions, particularly those involving a pedestrian or cyclist.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: On August 19, 2019, at its regular meeting, Council passed the following resolutions:

1. That a new budget in the amount of $250,000 per year be established for a six-year period, starting in 2019, for capital expenditures for traffic safety issues, with funding from the General Capital Reserve Fund; and

2. That the District’s financial plan be amended accordingly Funding any identified traffic calming measures from this funding source will mean no further budget allocation will be necessary. I have reviewed the financial implications

Doug Stewart, Director of Finance

COMMUNICATION: The Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A) will be included in the District’s Policy and Procedure Manual. A District Traffic Calming Guide is being developed to supplement the Policy. The District’s website includes a traffic page with information regarding traffic calming. Links to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A) and the Traffic Calming Guide will be included.

85


Development of the Policy involved consultation with internal stakeholders, including Public Works and Mission Fire Rescue, and the external stakeholders from the Mission Traffic and Transit Committee, including BC Transit, RCMP, and ICBC. Any traffic calming projects borne of this Policy will include consultation with these stakeholders.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Concerns regarding speeding and increased vehicle traffic often lead to requests for traffic calming. The District’s Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy STR.32 has high traffic volume thresholds for neighbourhood streets, resulting in limited eligible projects for streets it is intended to target. This policy has been updated, based on a review of neighbouring municipality’s traffic calming policies, and consultation with internal and external stakeholders. Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy EPW.32(A) is an updated policy that sets the criteria for the evaluation and prioritization process for traffic calming requests, as well as the funding, approval, and implementation of traffic calming projects on District roadways. The Policy presented with this report differs slightly from the Policy presented on March 18, 2019 and April 16, 2019, with a more streamlined process, removing the resident advisory committee component, in favor of gathering resident concerns and suggestions on the preliminary petition form. Staff recommend that funding for traffic calming from 2020 through 2024 be drawn from the Traffic Safety Strategy budget. If the Traffic Safety Strategy is not extended beyond 2024, a new project budget will be required for ongoing traffic calming projects. This option has all the benefits of annual funding, as costs have already been factored into the Traffic Safety Strategy, and no additional tax funding is required.

SIGN-OFFS:

Michele Fernie, Engineering Technologist III – Traffic and Transportation

Reviewed by: Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering & Public Works


86

NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY

EPW.32(A)

Page 1 of 13

POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL

Category: Streets & Roads

Number: EPW.32(A) NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING POLICY

Type: Authority: Approved By:

☒ Policy ☐ Procedure

☐ Council ☒ Administrative

☒ Council ☐ Chief Administrative Officer ☐ Department Head

Office of Primary Responsibility: Engineering

Date Adopted: September 16, 2019

Council Resolution No: RC19/XXX

Date to be Reviewed: September 2022

Manner Issued: District Website, Pipeline BACKGROUND:

The District of Mission receives numerous requests each year for Traffic Calming on neighbourhood roads. Traffic Calming measures such as speed humps/tables, curb extensions, raised medians, and traffic circles are designed to encourage safe driving by slowing down the speed of vehicles and reducing the volume of traffic on local roads.

Traffic Calming can be controversial, and general support of the residents and owners of parcels in an area is desirable before Traffic Calming measures are implemented. The measures may also require funding contributions from residents and/or owners. This policy sets out the processes for determining the level of support, the type of funding, and the apportionment of that funding. Traffic Calming projects are intended to be small scale neighbourhood-level projects, with relatively low implementation costs. Projects which are projected to cost more than $50,000 will be considered Local Area Service projects and will be processed using the District’s Local Area Service Tax Policy.

PURPOSE:

The Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Policy (Policy) sets the criteria for the evaluation and prioritization process for Traffic Calming requests as well as the funding, approval, and implementation of Traffic Calming projects on District roadways.

This Policy is intended to address existing road conditions. While it is not intended to guide new development, any Traffic Calming measure installed on newly constructed roads is also subject to Section 2 of this Policy.

POLICY:

1. Definitions

“85th Percentile Speed” means the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are observed to be traveling. “Ballot Sheet” means a ballot mailed to all parcel owners and residents in the Benefiting Area, affording each parcel one vote in the Traffic Calming initiative in their neighbourhood.

Attachment A87


EPW.32(A)

Page 2 of 13

“Benefiting Area” means the area which bounds the properties that face, flank or back onto the section of Highway proposed to receive Traffic Calming and may be responsible for costs associated with the work. This area will include, at a minimum, the entire block where Traffic Calming measures are proposed. “Council” means the duly elected officials of the District of Mission, those being the Mayor and Councilors. “Director” means the Director of Engineering and Public Works or their designate. “District” means the District of Mission. “Funding Parties” means the owners or residents of parcels who have indicated a willingness to fund the proposed Traffic Calming measures. “Highway” means any public street, road, lane, or other public way. “LAS” means Local Area Service, a municipal service that is to be paid for in whole or in part by an LAS tax, in accordance with FIN.53(C) Local Area Service Tax Policy. “Official Ballot for Traffic Calming” means an official Ballot Sheet and information package mailed out to all owners and residents of parcels in the Benefiting Area. “Parcel” means any lot, block or other area in which land is held or into which it is subdivided, but does not include a highway. “Preliminary Petition” means a petition form issued to the Proponent whereby signatures are requested from parcel owners or residents that benefit from or abut the proposed Traffic Calming project. “Proponent” means the owner(s) or resident(s) of a parcel who have requested Traffic Calming for their street or neighbourhood. “Traffic Calming” means physical and non-physical features installed on a road with the intent to reduce the speeds at which vehicles travel, to discourage through traffic, to improve traffic safety, and to improve comfort levels for all road users. Traffic Calming measures may include speed humps, curb extensions, and mini-roundabouts or traffic circles.

2. Traffic Calming

2.1 All Traffic Calming measures installed in the District of Mission shall conform to the standards established in the Transportation Association of Canada’s Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming (February 2018) and any revisions thereto.

2.2 In general, Traffic Calming measures will only be installed in residential areas or on a roadway adjacent to a park or school. Traffic Calming measures will generally be limited to the following measures and applications:

88


EPW.32(A)

Page 3 of 13

Traffic Calming Measure

Location Applicability

Local Rural Local

Collector Arterial

Emerg/

Priority #1 Snow

Route

VERTICAL DEFLECTION Raised Crosswalk (only considered where there is an existing marked crosswalk, or a crosswalk is warranted)

Speed Cushion Speed Hump Speed Bump Lane

only HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION

Chicane Curb Radius Reduction

Traffic Circle / Mini-Roundabout ROADWAY NARROWING

Curb Extension On-Street Parking (as appropriate by road cross-section) Centre Median NON-PHYSICAL MEASURES (includes surface treatments and education)

Transverse Rumble Strips On-Road Pavement Markings (“Sign”, converging chevrons) Speed Display Devices Speed Watch Appropriate Use with Caution Not Appropriate

2.3 Other measures will only be considered in the event that the above measures would not, in the opinion of the Director, adequately address the identified traffic issues or concerns. The above notwithstanding, traffic control signs other than those associated with the above noted measures will not be considered for use as Traffic Calming measures. Static signs are considerably less effective than structural measures or dynamic signage in achieving speed and volume reductions or decreasing shortcutting traffic, and generally require enforcement for compliance.

89


EPW.32(A)

Page 4 of 13

2.4 Vertical and horizontal deflection Traffic Calming measures will not be considered where:

a) Road centerline grade is greater than 8 percent; b) Emergency access route would be significantly impacted; or c) Location is a Priority #1 snow clearing route, in accordance with Snow Plowing Policy

EPW.25(C).

2.5 Caution must be exercised when considering Traffic Calming measures for transit routes and Priority #2 snow clearing routes.

2.6 Stop signs shall not be considered for Traffic Calming. The purpose of a stop sign is to assign right-of-way at an intersection and stop signs are only installed where MUTCD warrants are met. Unwarranted stop signs have low compliance rates, potentially leading to increased accidents, additional noise and air pollution, and increased speeds between intersections.

2.7 Traffic Calming measures within or fronting new developments will be considered at the development application review stage.

3. Initiation

3.1 A request for Traffic Calming is generally initiated by a resident or business. Residents and businesses can request Traffic Calming in writing via email, letter or by completing a Traffic Inquiry Form. The Traffic Inquiry Form is available on the District’s website.

3.2 Staff will conduct an initial assessment to determine if a similar request has been submitted in the past five (5) years. If a request has previously been submitted and reviewed, staff will investigate if traffic patterns have changed significantly thereby necessitating a new traffic study. If a previous request has been unsuccessful in the past five years, and no significant traffic pattern changes have occurred, staff will document the findings and notify the Proponent.

3.3 Staff will undertake a traffic study which will include vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, road classification, nearby pedestrian generators, and collision history. A minimum 85th Percentile Speed threshold of 10 km/h above the posted speed limit is required to proceed. If the minimum threshold is not met staff will document the findings and notify the Proponent that the Traffic Calming project will not be proceeding.

3.4 If the minimum threshold is met, the data gathered during the traffic study will be scored based on the warrant criteria and weighting for the Traffic Calming warrant in accordance with Appendix A.

4. Evaluation and Funding Options

4.1 The warrant process will result in a numeric score ranging from 10 to 60. This score will determine the applicable funding source. Traffic Calming requests that score 40 points or greater may be considered for District-funding, while requests that score between 20 and 39 may be approved to be funded by residents. Traffic Calming requests which score 19 or less are considered unwarranted and will not be considered. If Traffic Calming is not

90


EPW.32(A)

Page 5 of 13

warranted staff will document the findings and notify the Proponent that the Traffic Calming project will not be proceeding.

4.2 District-funded Traffic Calming projects will be prioritized based on the warrant score, and are subject to Council approval and available budget. Traffic Calming requests which meet the warrant for District funding, but for which funding is not currently available will remain on the Traffic Calming priority list be placed on the District’s unfunded budget list to be considered in a subsequent year.

4.3 Traffic Calming projects with warrant scores from 20 points to 39 points may be funded by residents in the Benefiting Area. Costs associated with resident-funded Traffic Calming will be 100% borne by residents/owners.

4.4 Traffic Calming projects which satisfy the warrant score for District-funded Traffic Calming, but for which District funding is not available in a given year, may be funded by residents/owners. Costs associated with these types of Traffic Calming projects will be 100% borne by owners.

5. Project Development – Neighbourhood Support

5.1 If Traffic Calming is warranted, the Benefiting Area will be defined. The Benefiting Area will be used to determine which residents are to be consulted in the Preliminary Petition, open house, and Official Ballot for Traffic Calming. The extents of the Benefiting Area are influenced by the nature of the traffic concerns. It may be confined to a single street if speeding is the major concern, or include an entire neighbourhood in the case of non-local or short-cutting traffic into local streets. For a local road, the Benefitting Area must be comprised of a minimum one block length; whereas a collector road’s Benefitting Area will likely encompass a larger area.

5.2 The Proponent will be required to canvas the Benefiting Area to gauge neighbourhood support for a Traffic Calming project. The Proponent will be provided with:

a) District of Mission Traffic Calming Guide; and b) Applicable Preliminary Petition form (Appendix B), filled out with addresses of all

properties in the Benefiting Area.

5.3 The Proponent has up to sixty (60) days to circulate the Preliminary Petition for Traffic Calming and return it to the District. If the Preliminary Petition is not returned, the District will not take any further steps with respect to the proposed Traffic Calming.

5.4 Sufficient support is deemed to exist when at least fifty percent (50%) of the residents of parcels (based on one vote per parcel) located in the proposed Benefiting Area have indicated their support for the proposed Traffic Calming on the Preliminary Petition.

5.5 If the Preliminary Petition fails to achieve sufficient support, the Traffic Calming request will be closed and the location will not be considered for Traffic Calming for a period of one year. Staff will document the findings and notify the Proponent.

5.6 If the Preliminary Petition is returned within sixty (60) days and the Director is satisfied that there is sufficient support for the proposed Traffic Calming project, staff will:

Commented [MF1]: Changed to reflect a structured funding model for Traffic Calming

91


EPW.32(A)

Page 6 of 13

a) review residents main concerns identified on the Preliminary Petition;form a residents’ advisory committee of up to four owners or residents of parcels located in the Benefiting Area;

b) meet with residents’ advisory committee to review areas of concern and discuss possible Traffic Calming measures to mitigate issues;

c)b) develop two or more options which meet the criteria of this policy and TAC guidelines;

d)c) consult with the RCMP, Mission Fire and Rescue Service, transit and Public Works; e)d) prepare a cost estimate for each option; f)e) schedule an open house. All owners and residents in the Benefiting Area will be

invited to attend and provide input on proposed options. Notice of the open house will be posted in the newspaper and District website. If concerns or objections are identified which cannot be reasonably solved, the Traffic Calming request will be closed. Staff will document the findings and notify the Proponent; and

g)f) finalize the preferred option’s design based on feedback from the open house and revise the estimate as required. If the cost estimate of the preferred option exceeds the allowable maximum for resident-funded Traffic Calming projects, the Local Area Service Tax Policy will be applied.

6. Official Ballot

6.1 Staff will report to Council the results of the open house, and request approval from Council to initiate the Official Ballot for Traffic Calming process. and, in the case of a District-funded project, also request approval of funding-in-principal.

6.2 If Council approves the request to initiate the Official Ballot for Traffic Calming process, staff will mail an information package to owners and residents of parcels in the Benefiting Area. The mail out will include a cover letter, estimated project costs, and in the case of a resident-funded project the estimated cost plus a 5.5% administration fee for each parcel; a map of the proposed works; a Ballot Sheet (Appendix C); and a pre-paid, pre-addressed return envelope.

6.3 Each parcel is allocated a single vote in the process. If a parcel is owned by two or more persons the Ballot Sheet must be signed by the majority of owners. If the resident is not the owner and the support of the owner and resident are not the same, the vote for the parcel is considered neutral.

6.4 Ballot Sheets are to be returned to the District within sixty (60) days, or another period of time as specified by the Director. Ballot Sheets received after this time will not be considered in the determination of sufficiency and validity of the Official Ballot for Traffic Calming.

6.5 The Director will determine the sufficiency and validity of the Official Ballot for Traffic Calming. To be certified as sufficient and valid:

a) a minimum fifty percent (50%) of parcels located in the Benefiting Area must submit a Ballot Sheet; and

b) a minimum of two-thirds (66.7%) of parcels in the Benefiting Area must support the project before it can proceed, even if a lesser number of owners/residents are willing to fund a resident-funded project.

Commented [MF2]: Removed resident advisory committee to streamline process


92


EPW.32(A)

Page 7 of 13

6.6 If the Official Ballot for Traffic Calming is not certified as sufficient and valid by the Director, the District will provide written notice to the owners/residents of parcels in the proposed Benefiting Area and will not take any further steps with respect to the proposed Traffic Calming, nor will any further requests for Traffic Calming be considered for five years, unless significant traffic pattern changes occur in the area.

6.7 If the Official Ballot for Traffic Calming has been certified as sufficient and valid by the Director, the results will be presented to Council, which may choose to:

a) approve construction and funding of a District-funded Traffic Calming project; b) defer construction and funding of a District-funded Traffic Calming project to a future

year; c) approve construction of a resident-funded Traffic Calming project; or d) cancel the Traffic Calming project.

6.8 If Council approves the construction of a resident-funded Traffic Calming project, all Funding Parties will be contacted to provide a deposit for their share of the estimate plus a 5.5% administration fee.

6.8.1 In the case of a change in willingness to fund the Traffic Calming project by one or more parties, staff will contact the remaining Funding Parties to solicit sufficient funds for the project.

6.8.2 If funding in the amount of the estimate and administration fee is not available, the Traffic Calming project will be placed on hold for one (1) year. If funding is not secured within that year, the Traffic Calming project will be cancelled, and further requests for Traffic Calming will not be considered for an additional four (4) years. Any funds collected will be returned to the person(s) that provided the deposit.

7. Implementation

7.1 Once funding is secured, the Traffic Calming project will proceed and the Traffic Calming measures will be implemented.

7.2 Construction of approved Traffic Calming projects may be delayed by the Director to coordinate with other construction projects.

7.3 Where possible, the Traffic Calming measures will be initially installed on a temporary basis. If after a monitoring period of at least six months the temporary measure is achieving the initial objectives then the permanent installation may be considered.

7.4 For resident-funded Traffic Calming projects, if the actual cost of installation is less than the estimate and administration fee, the difference will be refunded to the Funding Parties in proportion to their contributions. If the cost of installation is more than the estimate and administration fee, the District will fund the additional expense.

8. Evaluation

8.1 Evaluation of the performance of temporary measures will be conducted using a similar process to the Traffic Calming warrant.


93


EPW.32(A)

Page 8 of 13

8.2 For permanently installed measures staff will monitor the Traffic Calming measure to assess performance; however, residents will not be contacted for further input.

8.3 Once installed, Traffic Calming measures will generally remain in place. The process for removing Traffic Calming measures will follow the same initiation, project development, approval, and implementation procedure as a Traffic Calming request would. Resident requested Traffic Calming removal will be 100% resident funded.

8.4 If Council decides to remove resident-funded Traffic Calming measures, the District will pay for the removal and if this occurs within two (2) years of the installation, it will refund the Funding Parties their contributions to the project.

RELATED POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AGREEMENTS AND/OR BYLAWS:

Development and Subdivision Control Bylaw 5650-2017 Local Area Service Tax Policy FIN.53(C) Snow Plowing Policy EPW.25(C)

*** END OF POLICY ***

RECORD OF AMENDMENTS/REVIEW

Policy # Date Adopted

Date Reviewed

Amended (Y/N)

Date Reissued

Authority (Resolution #)

STR.32 2003-07-21 03/880

STR.32 2008-04-02 Y CAO Approval

STR.32 2009-02-02 Y RC09/064

EPW.32(A)

94


EPW.32(A)

Page 9 of 13

APPENDIX A

WARRANT CRITERIA FOR TRAFFIC CALMING STUDIES

Criteria Points Basis for Points

Speed 20 85th percentile speeds (1 point for every km above existing speed limit, up to a maximum of 20 points)

Traffic Volume 10 Average daily traffic (varies based on road classification)

10 – Local > 750 vehicles per day

5 – Local > 500 vehicles per day

10 – Collector >3,000 vehicles per day

5 – Collector > 1,500 vehicles per day

School 10 School frontage located within 150 m of location (scoring varies based on level of school)

10 – Elementary School

5 – Middle School

3 – High School or Other

Park 10 Park frontage located within 150 m of the proposed location

Crash History 5 Greater than 1 preventable accident per year for the last 5 years (based on available ICBC and/or RCMP data)

Bike Route 5 Location is on a bike route

Maximum Total 60

40 points or greater - may be considered for District-funded Traffic Calming 20 to 39 points - may be considered for resident-funded Traffic Calming 20 points or less - will not be considered for Traffic Calming District‐funded Traffic Calming projects will be prioritized according to their score.

95


EPW.32(A)

Page 10 of 13

APPENDIX B

TEMPLATE PRELIMINARY PETITION FOR DISTRICT‐FUNDED TRAFFIC CALMING

Traffic calming generally involves the use of features installed on a road to a) reduce the speeds at which

vehicles travel, b) discourage through traffic, c) improve traffic safety, and d) improve comfort levels for all

road users. Typical traffic calming measures include speed humps, curb extensions, and traffic circles.

A request has been received from residents of your neighbourhood for the District of Mission to initiate a

traffic calming project on <STREET(S)>. Please refer to the provided map for the extent of the neighbourhood

covered by the request.

Before the District can proceed with this request it is necessary to determine whether or not residents of the

neighbourhood generally support traffic calming. In accordance with the District's Neighbourhood Traffic

Calming Policy, for traffic calming to proceed to the next step at least 50% of the addresses below must

support traffic calming. If supported, the following steps include identification of options, preparation of cost

estimates, an open house, and circulation of an Official Ballot for Traffic Calming.

By signing below I am indicating my support in principle for a traffic calming project in my neighbourhood:

Name: (Please print) Address: Signature:

Main Concern and

SuggestionsProvide phone no. if you

wish to volunteer for the resident

advisory committee (max. 4 people)

<i.e. 8645 Stave Lake St>

<Address>

<Address>

<Address>

<Address>

<Address>

Return this petition to the District of Mission Engineering Department on or before <DATE>.

Commented [MF5]: Removed advisory committee, replaced with column for resident’s main concerns

96


EPW.32(A)

Page 11 of 13

TEMPLATE PRELIMINARY PETITION FOR RESIDENT‐FUNDED TRAFFIC CALMING

Traffic calming generally involves the use of features installed on a road to reduce the speeds at which

vehicles travel, to discourage through traffic, to improve traffic safety, and to improve comfort levels for all

road users. Typical traffic calming measures include speed humps, curb extensions, and traffic circles.

A request has been received from residents of your neighbourhood for the District of Mission to initiate a

traffic calming project on <STREET(S)>. Please refer to the provided map for the extent of the neighbourhood

covered by the request.

Before the District can proceed with this request it is necessary to determine whether or not residents of the

neighbourhood generally support traffic calming. In accordance with the District's Neighbourhood Traffic

Calming Policy, for traffic calming to proceed to the next step at least 50% of the addresses below must

support traffic calming. If supported, the following steps include identification of options, preparation of cost

estimates, an open house, and circulation of an Official Ballot for Traffic Calming.

This traffic calming project does not warrant District funding in accordance with the District’s Neighbourhood

Traffic Calming Policy. Costs for this project will be borne 100% by residents. The intent of this petition is to

determine neighbourhood support in principle; signing this petition carries no financial obligation.

By signing below I am indicating my support in principle for a traffic calming project in my neighbourhood:

Name: (Please print) Address: Signature:

Provide phone no. if you wish to

volunteer for the resident advisory

committee (max. 4 people) Main

Concerns and Suggestions

<i.e. 8645 Stave Lake St>

<Address>

<Address>

<Address>

<Address>

Return this petition to the District of Mission Engineering Department on or before <DATE>.

Commented [MF6]: Removed advisory committee, replaced with column for resident’s main concerns

97


EPW.32(A)

Page 12 of 13

APPENDIX C

TEMPLATE BALLOT SHEET FOR

DISTRICT‐FUNDED TRAFFIC CALMING

The District of Mission is considering the installation of the following traffic calming measures, as indicated

on the map:

1. <TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE 1>; and

2. <TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE 2>.

Please check one of the following:

□ I/we support the above noted traffic calming

□ I/we DO NOT support the above noted traffic calming

Owner Name (print) Signature




Ballot must be received at the District of Mission Engineering Department by close of business on

<DATE>.

Note: Each parcel is allocated a single vote in the process.

If a parcel is owned by two or more persons the Ballot Sheet must be signed by the majority of owners.

If a parcel is occupied by other than the owner, the occupant may vote. However, if the owner and

occupant votes differ, the votes will cancel each other

ADDRESS LABEL

98


EPW.32(A)

Page 13 of 13

BALLOT SHEET FOR

RESIDENT‐FUNDED TRAFFIC CALMING

The District of Mission is considering the installation of the following traffic calming measures, as indicated

on the map:

1. <TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE 1>; and

2. <TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURE 2>.

Please check one of the following:

□ I/we DO support the above noted traffic calming

□ I/we DO NOT support the above noted traffic calming

This traffic calming project does not warrant District funding. The costs of this project are to be borne by the benefiting neighbourhood. If you support the identified traffic calming measures please check one of the following:

□ I am/we are willing to fund a portion of the traffic calming measures, understanding that if others

are unwilling to contribute that the cost may increase. Any increase in cost will be communicated

to all funding parties prior to the project proceeding.

□ I/we DO NOT wish to financially contribute to the construction of traffic calming measures. I/we

understand that if others are also unwilling to fund the project then the project will not move

forward and traffic calming in this location will not be considered again for five (5) years.





Ballot must be received at the District of Mission Engineering Department by close of business on <DATE>.

Note: Each parcel is allocated a single vote in the process.

If a parcel is owned by two or more persons the Ballot Sheet must be signed by the majority of owners.

If a parcel is occupied by other than the owner, the occupant may vote. However, if the owner and

occupant votes differ, the votes will cancel each other

ADDRESS LABEL

99

District of Mission Engineering & Public Works Department Streets & Roads – Neighbourhood Traffic Calming –STR.32 Page 1

��

NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING

STR.32

POLICY

Date Policy Adopted: July 21, 2003 Council Resolution Number: 03/880 Date Policy Amended: April 2, 2008 CAO Approval Date Policy Amended: February 2, 2009 Council Resolution Number: RC09/064

1.0 Purpose

This policy identifies standards and provides a procedure for consideration, evaluation, funding, and implementation of requests for traffic calming devices on residential streets.

2.0 Standards

All traffic calming devices installed in the District of Mission shall conform to the standards established in the Transportation Association of Canada’s Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming - December 1998 and any revisions thereto.

In general, traffic calming devices will be installed only on urban residential streets except as noted herein, and will be limited to the following:

Raised crosswalk Road markings Collector standard speed hump (3.0 metre wide top) Chicane Curb extension Curb radius reduction Traffic circle

Other devices will only be considered in the event that none of the above devices would, in the opinion of the Director of Engineering, address the issue under consideration.

The above notwithstanding, traffic control signs other than those associated with the above noted devices will not be considered for use in traffic calming solutions. The primary purpose of traffic control signs is to regulate traffic and not to calm traffic.

Signs are considerably less effective than structural measures in achieving speed and volume reductions or controlling shortcutting traffic and require greater enforcement for compliance.

It is particularly critical that stop signs only be installed where MUTCD warrants are met. Experience in other municipal jurisdictions has demonstrated that unwarranted stop signs

Attachment B100

Streets & Roads Neighbourhood Traffic Calming

STR.32

District of Mission Engineering & Public Works Department Streets & Roads – Neighbourhood Traffic Calming –STR.32 Page 2 of 4

may cause accidents, generally breed contempt for other necessary stop signs, create added noise and air pollution, and may increase rather than decrease speeds between intersections controlled with stop signs.

Installation of traffic calming devices will be subject to the following restrictions in relation to road classification, transit and school bus routes, truck routes, priority snow clearing routes and adjacent land use designation:

Road Classification Type of Route Land Use Traffic

Calming Measure Arterial Collector Local Transit School

Bus Truck Route

Snow Clearing

Non Residential

Rural

Raised Crosswalk x √ √ A A A A x x

Road Markings √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Speed Hump x √ √ A A A A x x

Chicane x A √ A A A A x x

Curb Extension x √ √ √ √ √ A √ x

Curb Radius Reduction x √ √ √ √ * √ √ x

Traffic Circle x A √ A A A A x x

√ = use; x = don’t use; A = Avoid wherever possible; * = avoid use where trucks turn right on a truck route

3.0 Funding

Traffic calming requests which meet District funded project warrants will be paid for by the District subject to availability of budget and Council approval. Requests will be processed on a first come first served basis and those which meet District funding warrants but are submitted after all current budgetary funds are committed will be placed in a first come first served waiting list for subsequent years.

Requests which do not meet District funded project warrants but do meet resident funded project warrants must be paid for by the residents in the benefiting neighbourhood through direct funding by the residents. A two thirds majority of the residents must approve the project before it can proceed even though a lesser number of residents may be prepared to cover the costs.

Residents whose requests meet District funded project warrants but whose requests have been placed in a subsequent year’s waiting list due to budgetary constraints will have the option of paying for the projects through a direct funding mechanism as noted above to advance the project.

4.0 Warrants

A warrant calculation process must be completed before a traffic calming project request is allowed to proceed through to the implementation process.

101


STR.32


a) District Funded

• Minimum 1000 vehicles per day (24 hour 2 way total); and • Measured 85th percentile speed > 10 km/h over posted speed limit; or • Minimum average of 1 accident per year over the past two years with speed listed

as a contributing factor.

b) Resident Funded

• Combined number of vehicular speed and volume points > 20 where points are calculated as follows:

2 points for each km/h the measured 85th percentile speed is over the posted speed limit; plus

2 points for each 100 vehicles per day (24 hour two way total)

Note: calculated points will be rounded to the nearest whole number.

If both warrants fail the individual(s) who made the request will be notified that no further action will be taken.

5.0 Determination of Benefiting Neighbourhood Boundaries

In responding to a traffic concern on a particular street, any potential effects of proposed solutions on adjacent streets must be considered. Each request must be evaluated on a site specific basis in order to determine a reasonable boundary for the extent of traffic calming works and the associated benefiting area. Some public input may be required in defining the extent of the traffic concern and in identifying areas potentially impacted by proposed traffic calming measures.

The extent of the study area is to a degree influenced by the nature of the traffic concerns. It may be confined to a single street if speeding is the major concern or be expanded to include an entire neighbourhood bounded by arterial and collector streets if the issue is excessive infiltration of non local traffic into local streets.

The benefiting area will be used to determine which residents are to be consulted in both the threshold warrant process and the selection and implementation of measures as well as to define the extent of local improvement areas or similar areas for direct resident paid projects and for soliciting feedback after installation.

6.0 Consultation and Approval Process

Once it has been established that both warrants have been met, the following consultation process will be followed.

• Residents’ committee of up to four members is formed with staff’s assistance. • Staff meet with residents’ committee to review possible calming measures which

could address the issues of concern and obtain input. • Staff develop one or more options which meet the criteria of this policy and the TAC

Guide in consultation with the RCMP, Fire Department and Public Works, prepare a

102


STR.32


cost estimate for each and meet with the residents’ committee to obtain input on the proposed options.

• An open house is scheduled and all residents in the benefiting area are invited to attend and provide input on proposed options.

• Staff finalize the proposed calming project details, revise the estimate if required and determine resident acceptance of the proposed measures.

• In the case of a District funded project a questionnaire including a sketch of the proposed works will be circulated to all residents in the benefiting area and the results of the questionnaire will be forwarded to Council for approval or shelving of the project. A two thirds majority of residents based on a minimum questionnaire return rate of two thirds must be in favour in order for the project to proceed.

• In the case of a resident funded local improvement project, staff will prepare a questionnaire including a sketch of the proposed works for circulation among neighbourhood residents by the residents’ committee members. If a 2/3 majority approve, based on a minimum questionnaire return rate of two thirds, then the residents committee will be asked to deposit an amount with the municipality equal to the estimated cost of the work before the work proceeds. Staff will obtain quotations from contractors to install the works. If the low bid exceeds the amount of the deposit the residents shall deposit the difference before the work proceeds. If the cost of the work is less than the deposit the difference will be refunded.

7.0 Implementation and Monitoring

Where possible the traffic calming devices will be initially installed on a temporary basis. This approach is not possible for calming devices involving vertical deflections such as speed humps, raised crosswalks, etc. If after a monitoring period of at least six months the device has been demonstrated to be achieving the initial objectives then the permanent installation will be constructed.

Evaluation of performance of temporary devices will be done by obtaining data on traffic characteristics as well as by sending a questionnaire to residents in the benefiting area. If the device falls short of expected performance as indicated by traffic data or if the response to the questionnaire on a minimum 50% return results in two thirds or more of respondents unsatisfied, the matter will be referred back to the original residents’ committee for review, and the consultation and approval process may be repeated for another option.

For permanently installed devices staff will obtain traffic data to assess performance; however, residents will not be contacted for further input.

8.0 Device Removal

Once installed, traffic calming devices will generally remain in place unless residents petition Council for the removal. Should such cases arise, a procedure similar to that set out in section 6.0 herein would be followed with respect to removal of the devices.

103

ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS Staff Report


File: 11-5380-01

DATE: September 16, 2019 TO: Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Barry Azevedo, Manager of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Signatories Request for BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy Joint Submission ATTACHMENTS: A - Introductory Letter Regarding Joint Local Government Submission Regarding

Provincial Plastics Action Plan, dated September 3, 2019 B - Proposed Joint Local Government Response Letter to Provincial Plastics Action Plan from District of Squamish and District of Tofino, dated September 3, 2019

RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That support be provided for joining the submission from the Districts of Squamish and Tofino in

response to the BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy’s proposedamendments to the Recycling Regulation of the Environmental Management Act; and

2. That staff are instructed to advise the Districts of Squamish and Tofino accordingly that the Districtof Mission request to be a signatory to the proposed joint response letter.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to join the Districts of Squamish and Tofino’s proposed response to the BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy’s (BCMOECC’s) proposed amendments to the Recycling Regulation of the Environmental Management Act.

BACKGROUND: On July 25, 2019, Environment and Climate Change Strategy Minister, George Heyman, launched a province-wide, public engagement on the topic of reducing plastic waste. This included inviting feedback on new policy opportunities and proposed amendments to the Recycling Regulation of the Environmental Management Act by September 30, 2019 to address plastic waste. On September 3, 2019, the Districts of Squamish and Tofino, provided an introductory letter (Attachment A) and a proposed joint response letter (Attachment B) to local governments across BC, inviting them tobecome signatories to their response letter.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the introductory letter (Attachment A) and the proposed joint response letter (Attachment B). The points in the proposed response letter are similar to those already provided by the District to the Province several times in the past, both from Council communications and from direct staff communications. Of the five topic areas of the proposed response letter, past District of Mission comments particularly focused on:

104


• Prioritization of Reduction and Reuse over Recycling and Disposal

• Improvement of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs – particularly includingcommercial packaging and printed paper recycling in the Recycle BC stewardship program, andthe addition of new stewardship programs such as for mattresses and drywall.

• Adequate Consultation

Staff agree with all the requests and actions provided in the proposed joint response letter provided by Squamish and Tofino, and believe they all fit with the direction and comments received by the District of Mission Council in the past. Staff therefore recommend that Council direct staff to inform Squamish and Tofino staff that the District of Mission Council wishes to join their submission to the BC MOECCS.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this report.

COMMUNICATION: If Council agrees with the recommendation to join the Squamish and Tofino response to BC MOECCS, Mission staff will notify the Squamish and Tofino staff in accordance with their request in their introductory letter.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: On July 25, 2019, the BC MOECCS invited feedback on proposed amendments to the Recycling Regulation of the Environmental Management Act by September 30, 2019, to address plastic waste. On September 3, 2019, the Districts of Squamish and Tofino, provided an introductory letter and a proposed joint response letter to local governments across BC, inviting them to become signatories to their response letter. District of Mission staff reviewed the proposed joint response letter and believe it represents direction and comments received by Council in the past and recommend Council approve becoming a signatory to the proposed joint response letter.

SIGN-OFFS:

Barry Azevedo, Manager of Environmental Services

Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering & Public Works


105

Dear Mayors, Councillors and Regional District Board Members,

September 3, 2019

Re: Joint Local Government Submission regarding Provincial Plastics Action Plan

Municipalities and Regional Districts are often at the forefront of environmental issues that affect our citizens and local environments. As local governments who are taking steps to reduce single-use items in our communities, we write to you asking you to join us in a response to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy’s call for submissions regarding proposed amendments to the Recycling Regulation of the Environmental Management Act to address plastic waste. In this way, it is our hope that the voices of local governments will be stronger together.

In reviewing the “Plastics Action Plan Policy Consultation Paper”, the following five topic areas were determined as matters requiring specific feedback from the local government sector, and they form the basis of our joint letter:

1. Prioritization of Reduction and Reuse over Recycling and Disposal2. Clarification of Local Government Authority3. A “Stepped” Or Phased Approach to Regulation4. Improvement of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs5. Adequate Consultation (including with other Ministries)

To be clear, there is no reason why your organization cannot submit its own specific feedback to the proposals laid out in the Consultation Paper in addition to this joint submission. However, if you are in alignment with the five broad themes as outlined above, we encourage you to consider passing the following resolution at your next meeting:

“THAT the [insert jurisdiction] Council/Board supports and wishes to join the submission from the Districts of Squamish and Tofino in response to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy’s proposed amendments to the Recycling Regulation of the Environmental Management Act.”

In order to jointly submit our feedback by the deadline of 4PM on September 30th, 2019, we ask that your staff please contact Elyse Goatcher-Bergmann, Manager of Corporate Services for the District of Tofino, at [email protected] by noon on Wednesday, September 25th, 2019 in order to add your local government’s name to the letter.

We understand the tight timeline for consideration of this submission, and thank you and your staff for your attention in advance. We look forward to working together on this and other important matters in the future.

Sincerely,

Karen Elliott Mayor of Squamish

Josie Osborne Mayor of Tofino

Attachment A 106

https://cleanbc.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/436/2019/07/CleanBC_PlasticsActionPlan_ConsultationPaper_07252019.pdf


Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy Recycling Regulation Amendments PO Box 9341 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9M1

Dear Minister Heyman,

September 3, 2019 Joint Local Government Response to Provincial Plastics Action Plan

As local governments who have taken steps to reduce single-use items in our communities, we write together in response to the Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Strategy’s (the Ministry) call for submissions regarding proposed amendments to the Recycling Regulation of the Environmental Management Act to address plastic waste.

In reviewing the “Plastics Action Plan Policy Consultation Paper” (Consultation Paper), the following five topic areas were collectively determined as matters requiring specific feedback from the local government sector. In addition to this letter, local governments may also be submitting individual feedback relevant to their communities. We thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to continuing the conversation on these important matters.

1. FOCUS ON REDUCTION AND REUSE

The pollution prevention hierarchy emphasizes reduction and reuse over recycling and disposal. These priorities are also apparent in the Ministry’s Consultation Paper, which discusses reducing plastic consumption through the use of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs and bans on single-use items. However, local governments feel that these programs can only be considered successful if any unintended shift to excessive consumption of damaging single use alternatives is avoided. To avoid this shift, we recommend that EPR policies be accompanied by incentives to encourage the use of sustainable, reusable options.

In addition, the Consultation Paper frames reuse in terms of recyclability, “ensuring recycled plastic is re-used effectively” through standards on recycled content. We agree that this approach can help reduce emissions and support EPR programs, but there is also an opportunity to consider reuse in terms of behaviour. We urge the Ministry to adopt a policy which supports and enables practices of reuse outside of recycling, with the ultimate goal being reduction of single-use items. This includes encouraging refillable containers (e.g. growlers, wine bottles, soap bottles, etc.), allowing patrons to bring their own container (e.g. takeout food, restaurant leftovers, bulk food shopping, etc.), enabling the right to repair (e.g. repair

Attachment B107

2

cafes, requirements for the provision of spare parts and services, online publication of manuals, etc.), and promoting zero waste shopping (e.g. zero waste stores, farmers’ markets, etc.). This added focus on reduction and reuse will help move the Plastics Action Plan forward in accordance with pollution prevention best practices.

2. CLARIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY

We appreciate that the Ministry has acknowledged the actions being taken by local governments to address the local impacts of single-use items in BC communities. Indeed, more than 23 communities in B.C. have been actively developing bans, fees and levies, to address single-use items. However, as notedin the Consultation Paper, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling regarding the City of Vitoria’s business licenceregulation bylaw is of major concern to local governments as its implications for municipal authority toadopt bylaws under sections 8 and 9 of the Community Charter are potentially significant.

Until the Court of Appeal decision was issued, it has been the view of many municipalities that the nature of concurrent powers expressly described by statute in sections 8 and 9 of the Community Charter allowed for the regulation of unsustainable business practices. To be certain, there are numerous examples of municipal business regulations which already include one or more provisions intended to protect the environment, including imposing requirements or prohibitions on the pollution of waterways, drains and sewers.

As the Province reviews the Court of Appeal’s decision, we urge the Minister to consult with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide clarity on the limits and intent of the general concurrent authorities shared by local governments and the Province in relation to the protection of the natural environment, and specifically as it applies to single use items. Moreover, we request that a clear, timely and uniform process be developed for local governments who choose to act on those matters which fall under section 9(1) [spheres of concurrent authority] of the Community Charter.

3. A “STEPPED” OR PHASED APPROACH

As each local government faces unique challenges with respect to recycling and solid waste management, a one-size-fits-all provincial regulation may not meet the needs or expectations of all communities. To this end, we recommend the Minister regulate single-use plastics through a “stepped” or “phased” approach akin to the BC Energy Step Code Regulation. A phased approach would allow local governments to move at a pace appropriate for their communities, while also providing industry with a set of consistent targets for waste reduction and recycling across British Columbia. This flexibility is particularly important for smaller rural communities while also enabling faster action to be taken by those local governments who are ready for more ambitious, multifaceted approaches to regulating waste and single-use items. In this way, communities can adopt these regulations gradually or more quickly depending on their ability and resources. Moreover, a consistent incremental framework that raises standards would ensure that, as the recycling and packaging industries innovate, we are able to avoid the current patchwork of disparate standards in each community.

The BC Energy Step Code is an excellent example of collaboration between the Province, local governments, industry, and other stakeholders. We encourage the Ministry to consider a similar approach to the regulation of single-use items to encourage innovation while respecting the capacity of all municipalities.

108

3

4. IMPROVING EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR)

BC is a leader in implementing EPR programs and moving ahead on its commitments to the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment Canada-wide Action Plan on EPR. As the Ministry now has experience with these programs, it is important to foster continuous improvement, address problems that have arisen and push for programs to meet their full potential.

EPR programs are designed so that producers pay for their products’ end of life management, but also so that products and packaging become better designed. The Recycling Regulation and the work of the Ministry have focused on collection for recycling or responsible handling, however few programs are achieving success in redesign, reduction or reuse. There needs to be a focus higher up the hierarchy, which would hold the business sector accountable. This could include exploring ways to redesign products, reduce the amount of packaging, or change the materials used. There are different ways to achieve this, including mandating differential fees based on environmental-impact or waste-creation (rather than fees set by operational costs only), implementing financial penalties for non-compliance, or requiring targets for reduction or redesign. Another area for expansion within the EPR framework is the inclusion of industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) materials. The main driver for participation by businesses in diversion is the cost of participation relative to disposal. As changes in global markets drive down the revenue potential of these diverted materials, and with high costs of hauling to recycling markets, the segregation and recycling of materials (e.g. plastic containers, plastic film and expanded polystyrene) are challenging to justify for many businesses. Thus, the segregated collection and diversion of materials from the ICI sector is cost prohibitive to the businesses, and in many cases is substantially subsidized by local governments and taxpayers. Inclusion of ICI materials (with a focus on packaging) into the Recycling Regulation would create efficiencies within the transportation network from remote communities and prevent landfilling of recyclables by the ICI sector. In this way, the expansion of regulated products captured by the Recycling Regulation is supported, including packaging-like products, mattresses, single-use household pressurized cylinders, and new and used gypsum drywall. EPR programs also need to be structured to ensure that they are accountable and cover the full costs related to the product disposal. Often, many of the costs associated with the collection of EPR products are not covered by the stewardship programs, which results in fees or taxpayer subsidization of the collection, transportation, and responsible disposal of the materials (e.g. tires). In addition, local governments are subsidizing the collection and management of material that escapes the stewardship collection program (through streetscapes, litter collection, illegal dumping, etc.). On a final note, EPR programs should enhance accountability and transparency. This includes local government and public representation on boards, open access to information given to boards and to their decisions, and the inclusion of financial and material management information for all programs. These changes to EPR programs would greatly enhance their effectiveness in the reduction of plastic waste.

5. ENSURING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

Finally, it is unclear from the Consultation Paper how and when other Ministries and impacted stakeholders will be specifically consulted. When policy tools are evaluated, it is important to consider all impacts and to ensure that viable alternatives are available. To this end, we recommend that the Ministry of Health be specifically consulted regarding potential regulatory changes to allow restaurants to fill take-out orders in reusable containers brought in by customers. This measure is integral to the implementation

109

4

of bans on single-use containers and packaging, as the City of Vancouver found that nearly 50% of all garbage collected from public waste bins consists of take-out containers and disposable cups. Compostable and recyclable packaging materials often get mixed up when discarded, contaminating both streams and making them impossible to process.

In the development of exemptions, we support evidence-based policies that have been shown to be effective at reducing waste. Moreover, disability advocates, care facilities, local governments, and other provincial agencies (such as the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty) should be specifically consulted in the development of exemptions as a means to highlight and ensure accessibility.

CONCLUSION

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment and strongly encourage the Ministry to continue to consult with local governments in the upcoming regulatory process. In this letter, we have highlighted the need for a focus on reduction and reuse, clarification of local government authority, and further internal and external consultation. We have also made suggestions for the improvement of EPR programs and a community-led approach akin to the existing BC Energy Step Code adoption model. We hope that these concerns are taken into consideration and we look forward to further engagement with the Ministry. Sincerely,

Karen Elliott Mayor of Squamish

Josie Osborne Mayor of Tofino

Additional signatories to be included upon final submission

110

Finance Staff Report

Page 1 of 11

File Category: 05-1970-03



FROM: Kerri Onken, Deputy Treasurer/Collector

SUBJECT: 2020 Permissive Tax Exemption Applications

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Permissive Tax Exemption Policy FIN.49

Appendix B – Summary of Permissive Tax Exemption Applications

Appendix C – Estimated 2020 Property Tax Values for One Year Permissive Tax Exemption Applications

Appendix D – 2020 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw 5860-2019

The District received permissive tax exemption applications from seven organizations for 11 properties that fit the criteria for a one-year permissive tax exemption for the 2020 taxation year for Council’s consideration. These applications received are from organizations which were approved for a permissive tax exemption on the same properties in 2019. The applications have been reviewed by staff and are all complete. Accordingly, a draft bylaw has been prepared and placed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda.

A resolution from Council is required if the draft bylaw is to be amended to remove applicants.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the one-year permissive tax exemption applications that were received for the 2020 taxation year. This report also refers to and attaches the recommended 2020 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for Council’s consideration.

BACKGROUND:

Under the provisions of Section 224 of the Community Charter, Council may exempt certain lands, improvements, or both from municipal property taxes. The permissive tax exemption does not apply to user fees such as water, sewer, garbage and recycling charges. To grant municipal property tax exemptions, Council must adopt a permissive tax exemption bylaw on or before October 31st of the preceding calendar year. Adoption of this bylaw requires a 2/3 majority vote of Council members. Additionally, preceding adoption of the bylaw, the District is required to publish notification in the newspaper once each week for two consecutive weeks.

Permissive tax exemptions can be provided during a four-year period as outlined in the District’s Permissive Tax Exemption Policy FIN.49 (Appendix A) which was developed and approved by Council at its July 6, 2015 meeting. The current four-year period covers the 2017 to 2020 taxation years under the Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw 5597-2016. In particular instances, such as organizations that are leasing land/improvements from the owner, the duration of the exemption is for one year only, and these organizations are required to re-apply each year.

111

of 11

Should the potential eligibility for an organization change during a longer-term period of the permissive tax exemption (more than one year) the organization must inform the District immediately of the change, which may result in the property becoming taxable in the next calendar year. For example, if an organization moves the program to a new location, the old location may become assessable for property taxes and the organization would apply for a permissive tax exemption for the new location.

In addition, the 2019 to 2023 Financial Plan Bylaw, adopted by Council April 15, 2019, provides an objective and policy in Section 3 Permissive Tax Exemption that states:

Council’s objective and policy in regards to permissive tax exemptions are provided below.

Objective:

Over the five-year financial plan timeframe, Council will continue supporting worthy charitable/non-profit organizations that provide valuable services to the community.

Policy:

Council chooses to support charitable/non-profit organizations (churches, social, recreational, health and housing organizations) that provide valuable services to the community through permissive tax exemptions as allowed for by legislation. Council is committed to continuing with these tax exemptions and to treating all organizations with similar mandates equally when it comes to property tax exemptions.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:

The District received permissive tax exemption applications from seven organizations for 11 properties that fit the criteria for a one-year permissive tax exemption for the 2020 taxation year for Council’s consideration. The applications received are from all the organizations which were approved for permissive tax exemptions on the same properties in 2019. The applications have been reviewed by staff and are all complete as outlined in Council’s Permissive Tax Exemption Policy FIN.49. Appendix B lists the applications received from the seven organizations for the 11 properties and the application packages with all supporting materials have been prepared and are available in Council’s reading basket.

Appendix C, attached to this report, is a table estimating the property taxes foregone as a result of the permissive tax exemption applications received. The table below shows the assessment class of the properties, the 2019 assessed values of the land and improvements, the estimated exempted property tax values for 2020 (estimating a 3% increase for both the municipal property taxes and taxes collected on behalf of other authorities) and the municipal portion of the 2019 property taxes for comparison. Should the condition of any of the properties change or the estimated tax rates change from the estimated 3%, the value of the exemption will change accordingly.

The attached bylaw (Appendix D) has been prepared with all properties listed, however Council is at liberty to remove any of the properties listed and accordingly read the drafted bylaw as amended. A resolution is required from Council as to which, if any, of the noted properties included in Appendix A of the bylaw should be removed from the permissive tax exemption bylaw. Applicants have been notified that this report will be on the September 16, 2019 Regular Council agenda and to send a representative should Council have any questions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Appendix C, attached to this report, is a table estimating the property taxes foregone as a result of the permissive tax exemption applications received. The total benefit to the applicants from a property tax exemption is estimated to be $97,070 in 2020. The municipal portion is estimated to be $69,316 with the balance of $27,755 levied from other authorities. For comparison purposes, the municipal portion of property taxes from the 2019 permissive tax exemption on these properties totaled $67,297.

112

of 11

2019 Total Assessment

Estimated Taxes for Municipal Portion

2020

Estimate Taxes for Other Authorities

2020

Total Estimated Property Taxes

2020

Municipal Portion of Property Taxes

2019

$10,068,620 $69,316 $27,755 $97,070 $67,297

Assuming a 3% increase in property taxes between 2019 and 2020

I have reviewed the financial implications Doug Stewart, Director of Finance

COMMUNICATION:

Pursuant to the Community Charter, public notification will be placed in the local paper on Friday, September 20, 2019 and again on Friday, September 27, 2019 that will generally advise Council’s intention to grant the one-year permissive tax exemptions for the 2019 taxation year. Once the bylaws are formally adopted, the applicants will be advised.

COUNCIL GOALS and OBJECTIVES:

This report addresses the three specific goals under Council’s focus area of Secure Finances, Assets and Infrastructure and the goals under the focus area of Organizational Excellence. This report also addresses the objective and policy in Section 3 Permissive Tax Exemption of the 2019 to 2023 Financial Plan Bylaw.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

Under the provisions of Section 224 of the Community Charter, Council may exempt certain lands, improvements, or both from municipal property taxes. Council must adopt a permissive tax exemption bylaw, requiring a 2/3 majority vote of Council members, on or before October 31st of the preceding calendar year. Permissive tax exemptions do not apply to user fees such as water, sewer, garbage and recycling charges.

The District received permissive tax exemption applications from seven organizations for 11 properties that fit the criteria for a one-year permissive tax exemption for the 2020 taxation year for Council’s consideration. The applications received are from all the organizations which were approved for a permissive tax exemption on the same properties in 2019. The applications have been reviewed by staff and are all complete as outlined in Council’s Permissive Tax Exemption Policy FIN.49, attached as Appendix A. Appendix B lists the applications received from the seven organizations for the 11 properties and the application packages with all supporting materials have been prepared and are available in Council’s reading basket.

Attached to this report as Appendix C is a table estimating the property taxes foregone should the permissive tax exemption applications received be approved by Council.

A resolution is required from Council as to which, if any, of the properties should be removed from the permissive tax exemption bylaw.

The attached Bylaw in Appendix D has been prepared with all properties listed that have applied for the one-year property tax exemption. Of course, Council is at liberty to remove any of the properties listed and read the draft bylaw as amended. Applicants have been notified that this report will be on the September 16, 2019 Regular Council agenda and to send a representative should Council have any questions.

113

of 11

SIGN-OFFS:

Kerri Onken, Deputy Treasurer/Collector

Reviewed by: Jamie Brovold, Administrative Assistant


114

of 11

APPENDIX “A”


Category: Finance

Number: FIN.49

Name: Permissive Tax Exemption Policy


☒ Policy

☐ Procedure

☒ Council

☐ Administrative

☒ Council ☐ Senior Management Team

☐ CAO ☐ Department Head

Office of Primary Responsibility: Corporate Administration

Date Adopted: July 6, 2015

Council Resolution No: RC15/366

Date to be Reviewed: January 2016

Manner Issued: Mail, email and website

Related Policies, Reference: N/A

PREAMBLE:

The adoption of this policy by Council Resolution includes the repeal of policy number FIN.31.

BACKGROUND:

Municipalities in British Columbia may exempt certain properties from property taxes by passing a bylaw in accordance with Division 7 – Permissive exemptions of the Community Charter. PURPOSE:

A permissive tax exemption is one means for the District of Mission to aid eligible community-minded resources and support their respective function for the overall common good.

POLICY:

1. Process

(a) Council will consider applications for permissive tax exemptions annually. Notification will be advertised in the local newspaper and on the District website.

(b) Applications must be submitted to the District using the prescribed application form, (included within this

policy), on or before July 15th of each year unless otherwise designated in the annual notification. Staff will review the applications and compile them in a report to Mayor and Council who shall consider the request and make the final decision.

(c) All applications should be submitted on the prescribed form and should include copies of the following in

order to receive optimal consideration:

• current year’s budget

• previous year’s annual financial statement

• annual general meeting minutes, (including manager’s report, if applicable)

• current site plan for each property

115

of 11

If the property is rented or leased from the owner:

• site drawing for leased/rented portion of the property

• lease/rental agreement

If the property is rented or leased to another person/organization:

• site drawing for leased/rented portion of the property

• lease/rental agreement

(d) The staff report will highlight relativity to the eligibility criteria. (e) All permissive tax exemptions will be reviewed each year by staff to ensure that they continue to qualify for

an exemption. Updates of information may be required upon request of the District.

2. Eligibility Criteria

(a) Subject Property must be one of the following:

i. Land and/or improvements owned, or in specific situations, leased, or; ii. Land and/or improvements ancillary to a statutory exemption under section 220 of the Community

Charter.

(b) Nature of organization must be:

i. Non-profit organization; ii. Charitable/philanthropic organization; iii. Athletic or Service Club/Associations; iv. Partner of the municipality by agreement under section 225 of the Community Charter; v. Other local authority (e.g. Regional District, diking authority, etc.); or vi. Organization eligible under statutorily exempt under section 220 of the Community Charter (e.g. place

of public worship).

(c) No permissive tax exemptions will be considered for organizations or properties providing housing services considered to be the responsibility/authority of senior levels of government such as care homes and private health care facilities, unless otherwise designated by municipal council.

(d) The applicant organization’s use of the land/improvements must benefit the community in one or more of the following ways:

i. Provides recreational facilities for public use; ii. Provides recreation programs to the public; iii. Provides programs to and/or facilities used by youth, seniors or other special needs groups; iv. Offers cultural or educational programs to the public which promote community spirit, cohesiveness

and/or tolerance; or v. Offers services to the public in formal partnership with the municipality.

(e) The exemptions can only be considered after a building is constructed, given final occupancy approval by the

District, is occupied and operationally compliant with all licensing and permits.

(f) There is no obligation for Council to grant a permissive tax exemption.

116

of 11

3. Duration of Exemption

Permissive tax exemptions will normally be provided for a period of up to four years. In the case of an organization that is leasing land/improvements from the owner of the property, the duration of the exemption is for one year only. Should the eligibility criteria change during the term of the permissive tax exemption the organization must inform the District immediately and this may result in the property becoming taxable in the next calendar year.


Policy # Date Adopted Date Reviewed Amended (Y/N) Date Reissued Authority (Resolution #)

117

of 11

APPENDIX “B”

Summary of Permissive Tax Exemption Application For the 2020 Tax Year

ORGANIZATION ROLL NUMBER PROPERTY FOR EXEMPTION % Leased Use/Purpose Exemption

in 2019

Communitas Supportive Care Society 832 138 000 33032 11th Avenue 100% Support programs and facilities Yes

District of Mission Arts Council 870 357 001 33529 1st Avenue 100% Art gallery and programs Yes

District of Mission Arts Council 870 354 000 33535 1st Avenue (parking) 100% Adjacent lot/parking Yes

Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation 311 053 000 Power Lines 100% Special needs camp Yes

Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation 311 054 000 15600 Florence Lk Rd Gate Hse

100% Special needs camp Yes

Mission Community Services (Haven in the Hollow) 820 449 000 32646 Logan Avenue 100% First stage housing Yes

Mission Daycare Society 860 677 000 33649 Prentis Avenue 100% Child care centre Yes

Mission Daycare Society 860 677 001 33649 Prentis Avenue (lot) 100% Adjacent vacant lot Yes

SARA for Women Society 831 022 000 33070 5th Avenue 28% Office and support programs Yes

Sto:lo Heritage Trust Society (Xá:ytem Longhouse) 930 522 000 35087 Lougheed Highway owned Preserving heritage and culture Yes

Sto:lo Heritage Trust Society (property) 930 618 000 35102 Sunnyside Drive (lot) owned Preserving heritage and culture Yes

Total # of Applicants (Organizations): 7 Total # of Properties: 11

118

of 11

APPENDIX “C”

Estimated 2020 Property Tax Amounts

For One Year Permissive Tax Exemption Applications

Rolll Number Organization Assessment

Class 2019

Assessment

2020 Municipal

Taxes (Estimated) *

2020 Other Authority

Taxes (Estimated)

**

Total Estimated 2020 Taxes

832 138 000 Communitas Supportive Care Society 1

$938,000 2,880.46 1,503.29 4,383.75

870 354 000 District of Mission Arts Council

6 $377,300 4,850.70 1,721.83 6,572.53

870 357 001 6 $753,000 9,680.83 3,436.35 13,117.18

311 053 000 Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation

1 $26,500 81.38 42.47 123.85

311 054 000 1 $381,300 1,170.92 611.09 1,782.01

820 449 000 Mission Community Services (Haven in the Hollow)

1 $617,000 1,894.72 988.84 2,883.56

6 $617,000 7,932.37 2,815.71 10,748.08

860 677 000 Mission Daycare Society

1 $1,720,000 5,281.87 2,756.57 8,038.44

860 677 001 1 $1,078,000 3,310.38 1,727.67 5,038.05

831 022 000 SARA for Women Society (28%) 6 $268,520 3,452.19 1,225.40 4,677.59

930 522 000 Sto:lo Heritage Trust Society

6 $1,908,000 24,529.91 8,707.25 33,237.16

930 618 000 1 $1,384,000 4,250.06 2,218.08 6,468.14

TOTALS: $10,068,620 $69,316 $27,755 $97,070

*Includes general municipal, police, drainage and library taxes

** Includes FV Regional District, FV Hospital District, BC Assessment, Municipal Finance Authority and Provincial School taxes.

119

of 11

APPENDIX “D”

2020 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw 5860-2019

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5860-2019

A Bylaw to provide for permissive exemption from taxation of certain properties

WHEREAS Section 224 of the Community Charter provides that Council may by bylaw, adopt prior to October 31 in any year, exempt certain land, improvements or both from taxation for the next calendar year; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “District of Mission Permissive Tax Exemption

Bylaw 5860-2019”.

2. That the not-for-profit organizations described in Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this bylaw shall be exempt from taxation imposed pursuant to Section 224 of the Community Charter for land and improvements herein specified for the year 2020.

READ A FIRST TIME this __ day of September, 2019

READ A SECOND TIME this __ day of September, 2019

READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of September, 2019

Advertised in the Mission Record on this >>> day and >>> day of September, 2019.

ADOPTED this __ day of October, 2019

______ PAMELA ALEXIS, MAYOR JENNIFER RUSSELL, CORPORATE OFFICER

120

of 11

Schedule "A"

Owner/Occupier Roll Number Legal Description of Property

Communitas Supportive Care Society

832138-000 PID: 010-314-369, Lot 4, Section 21, Township 17, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP17978

District of Mission Arts Council 870357-001

870354-000

PID: 002-430-045, Lot 1, Group 3, District Lot 1, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP70294


Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation, Inc.

311053-000

311054-000

Section 10, Township 4, part NW ¼, Group 1, District Lot 5868, Land and Water BC Inc. Licence #241369 (Crown Provincial), Land District 36 , NWD

Block B, part NW ¼, Section 10, Township 4, Range 3, Meridian W7, Land District 36, NWD, Land and Water BC Inc. Licence #240012 (Crown Provincial)

Mission Community Services Society (Haven in the Hollow)

820449-000 PID: 005-824-583, Lot 96, District Lot 165, Group 3, Section 20, Township17, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP59878

Mission Daycare Society (Heritage Park Child Care Centre) (Sublessee) Owner: Province of B.C. Lessee: School District No. 75

860677-000

860677-001

PID: 005-603-811, Portion of Lot 0 Except Part in Plan LMP25574, District Lot 4, Group 3, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP29500 / Lease #24164

SARA for Women Society

(28% land and improvements)

831022-000 PID: 004-937-163, Lot 518 Except Plan 87080, Section 21, Township 17, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP51424

Sto:lo Heritage Trust Society (for the Xá:ytem Longhouse and property)

930522-000

930618-000

PID: 008-614-652, Lot 31 Except Part in Plan 44937, District Lot 476, Group 1, NWD, Plan NWD38924

PID: 002-872-854, Parcel A Except Part Subdivided by Plan 75549, District Lot 476, Group 1, NWD, Explanatory Plan NWD70816

121

Corporate Administration

Staff Report to Council


File: 05-1850-01


TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: Jenny Hill, Administrative Assistant

SUBJECT: Revision of Municipally Funded Grants Processes, Policies, and Forms

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Proposed Fee for Service Grants Policy FIN.54(C) Appendix B – Amended Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C) Appendix C – Existing Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C) Appendix D – Amended Municipal Grants Select Committee Terms of Reference Appendix E – New and Amended Grant Application and Year End Reporting Forms

RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That the proposed Fee for Service Grants Policy FIN.54(C), as attached to the report from the

Administrative Assistant dated September 16, 2019 (Appendix A), be approved;

2. That the duration of the Fee for Service agreements be increased from a one-year term to a three-year term (with a 2% cost of living increase in years two and three), while first time recipient organizations receive one-year funding;

3. That the Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C) be amended by removing all references and direction to the Fee for Service Grants program (Appendix B);

4. That the ‘Terms of Reference’ for the Municipal Grants Advisory Committee be amended by changing the Committee’s name to the ‘Municipal Grants Select Committee’ to align with the Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C), and specifying that the four-year term for the Committee members is to coincide with the term of Council (Appendix D); and

5. That the new and amended Fee for Service and Municipally Funded Grant application forms and year end reporting forms (Appendix E), be approved.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide a multi-year funding option for the District’s Fee for Service program, and for staff to present proposed changes to the District’s Municipally Funded Grants processes, policies, and forms.

BACKGROUND: On January 16, 2017 Council made the following resolution (RC17/010):

That staff report back to Council with options for a multi-year funding model for Fee for Service contracts.

122


The District’s Municipally Funded Grants program primarily provides grants in the follow three categories: 1. Community Enhancement Grants ($73,073 budgeted for 2020); 2. Community Event/Special Event Grants ($28,514 budgeted for 2020); and 3. Fee for Service Grants ($201,436 budgeted for 2020).

The following discussion and analysis outlines the information gathered and the proposed changes to the District’s Municipally Funded Grants processes, policies, and forms.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: In reviewing the District’s current grant processes, staff came to the conclusion that separating the Fee for Service Grants from the Community Enhancement and Community/Special Event Grants would be more effective due to the unique nature of the Fee for Service program. This division would result in a grant process that is easier for organizations to navigate. To this end, a draft Fee for Service Grants Policy FIN.54(C) was written (Appendix A), and the existing Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C) was amended by removing all references to the Fee for Service Grants program (Appendix B). Also, a new Fee for Service Grant application form was created and all references to Fee for Service grants were removed from the current Municipally Funded Grant application form (Appendix E). For ease of use, all application and year end reporting forms were updated and converted into fillable forms. The application deadline for all three categories of grants would remain as July 15th of the preceding year. Fee for Service Grants: Fee for Service grants are designed to assist local not-for-profit incorporated organizations or community contribution companies with the delivery of services to the community that would otherwise likely be offered by the District; such as litter collection on roadways and operation of a cat shelter. On April 11, 2019 questionnaires were sent to the seven current Fee for Service Grant recipients and interviews were subsequently held on April 29th and 30th to obtain their input regarding the District’s current Fee for Service program. The data from the questionnaires was compiled as follows:

1. Preferred duration of the FFS contract 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 1 0 4 2

2. Liability insurance coverage requirements Increase Decrease Remain the Same 0 0 7

3. Obtain grant funding by January 31st Yes No 5 2

4. Format of current draft application form Remain the Same Revise 7 0

5. Supporting documentation requirements Remain the Same Revise 7 0

6. Year end reporting requirements Remain the Same Revise 6 1

During the interviews, representatives from two of the recipient organizations expressed concerns in regards to the potential loss of gaming grants due to their Fee for Service contracts with the District. The Government of British Columbia’s Community Gaming Grants Branch does not provide assistance to programs that receive grants from municipal governments under any type of signed funding arrangement. These concerns can be addressed by replacing the word ‘contract’ with the word ‘agreement’ on all Fee for Service documentation, and by having the District provide support letters to these organizations, as explained in the last bullet below.

123


Based on feedback from the current Fee for Service recipient organizations during the consultation process and subsequent staff discussions, staff propose the following changes to the District’s Municipally Funded Grants program:

• The term for the agreements be increased from a one-year term to a three-year term (with a 2% cost of living increase in years two and three), while first time recipient organizations receive one-year funding. This increase in the duration of the agreements would provide recipient organizations with more financial stability to better plan and implement their programs.

• The liability insurance coverage requirements be set at two million dollars ($2,000,000) for all organizations.

• The Fee for Service Staff Committee meet early in the fall in order to facilitate grant funding as close to January 31st as possible.

• The application form’s supporting documentation requirements remain the same, with the exception of the previous year’s financial statements, where a Notice to Reader is required for amounts below $50,000, and a Review Engagement is required for amounts over $50,000.

• The Statement of Accountability form be amended by adding the supporting documentation requirements from the previous annual application form (i.e. a current list of board members, annual general meeting minutes, a detailed proposed budget, etc.), and the wording regarding funds received from the District and other sources, and the net profit or loss be revised to enhance clarity.

• All occurrences of the word ‘contract’ in Fee for Service documentation be replaced with the word ‘agreement’, and the District provide support letters to any Fee for Service recipient organizations that are having difficulty obtaining provincial gaming grant funds due to their Fee for Service agreement with the municipality.

Community Enhancement and Community/Special Event Grants: In order to facilitate the proposed division of the Community Enhancement and Community/Special Event Grant procedures from Fee for Service Grant procedures as noted above, the Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C) was amended by removing all references and direction to the Fee for Service Grants program (see Appendix B). The proposed application form was also amended by removing all references to Fee for Service grants, and adding a new in-house financial statement form in lieu of the prospective organization’s own financial statements. The ‘choose one’ requirement on the top of the second page of the application form was removed to avoid confusion, as organizations may apply for more than one District grant. Although the questions on the year end reporting form remain the same, the outdated format was updated and, for ease of use, converted into a fillable form. Staff also recommend that the ‘Terms of Reference’ for the Municipal Grants Advisory Committee be amended by changing the Committee’s name to the ‘Municipal Grants Select Committee’ to align with the Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C), and specify that the four-year term for the Committee members coincide with the term of Council (see Appendix D).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications that would result from the recommendations in this report. The budgeted amounts for the grants would remain the same.

COMMUNICATION: Should the proposed revisions to the District’s grant processes be approved, the new and revised documents would immediately be posted to the District’s website. These changes would not have an impact on the grant applications already received. Current Fee for Service Grant recipients will be contacted by correspondence to advise them of the amended agreement durations and the new policy.

124


As well, annual notification of the Fee for Service, Community Enhancement and Community/Special Event Grant deadlines of July 15th of the preceding year will continue to be placed in the Mission Record and on the District’s website.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: On January 16, 2017 Council directed staff to report back with options for a multi-year funding model for Fee for Service Grant recipients. This report details staff’s recommendation to increase the duration of Fee for Service agreements from a one-year to a three-year model, implement a new Fee for Service Policy FIN.54(C), and amend the existing Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C) and Municipal Grants Advisory Committee ‘Terms of Reference’. Also, for ease of use, all application and year end reporting forms have been updated and converted into fillable forms.

SIGN-OFFS:

Jenny Hill, Administrative Assistant Reviewed by: Jennifer Russell, Corporate Officer

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Approved.

125


Category: Finance

Number: FIN.54(C)

Name: Fee for Service Grants Policy


☒ Policy

☐ Procedure

☒ Council

☐ Administrative




Date Adopted: XXX XX, 2019

Council Resolution No: RC19/XXX

Date to be Reviewed: XXX XX, 2020


Related Policies, Reference: FIN.50(C) Municipally Funded Grants Policy

BACKGROUND:

Municipalities in British Columbia may:

▪ provide any service through another organization; and▪ provide grants to organizations by Council resolution.

PURPOSE:

Fee for Service grants are designed to assist local not-for-profit incorporated organizations or Community Contribution Companies (CCC) with delivery of services to the community that otherwise would likely be offered by the District.

POLICY:

1. Process

(a) Council will consider applications for Fee for Service grants annually. Notificationwill be advertised in the local newspaper and on the District website.

(b) Applications must be submitted to the District using the prescribed application form,(included within this policy), on or before July 15th of the preceding year unlessotherwise designated in the annual notification. A staff committee will review theapplications and prepare a report with recommendations to Mayor and Council whoshall consider the request and make the final decision.

(c) Applications received after July 15th of the preceding year will not be considered.

(d) All applications should include copies of the following in order to receive optimalconsideration:

i. constitution (if not previously provided or if changes have occurred);

ii. a current list of board members and number of employees, (full time and parttime);

iii. the organization’s public advertisement;

iv. annual general meeting minutes, (including the manager’s report, if applicable);

v. a detailed proposed budget for the current year, detailed expenditures andrevenues, including a list of all other grants and donations;

APPENDIX A 126

FEE FOR SERVICE GRANTS POLICY FIN.54(C)

Page 2 of 3

vi. financial statements for the previous fiscal year (‘Notice to Reader’ for grant requests below $50,000 and ‘Review Engagement’ for grant requests above $50,000);

vii. a statement identifying the amount of reserved funds, if any, and the purpose of those funds; and

viii. identification of the name and position of any individuals who receive payment from the grant funds, (salaries, honorariums or contracts) together with the amount of compensation each receives.

(e) In order to ensure funding equitability among the grant recipients, the committee’s

report to Council will highlight relativity to the eligibility criteria and any additional District assistance the organizations receive, (i.e. permissive tax exemptions, use of District buildings, etc.).

(f) Delegations to Council by organizations missing the intake deadline will not be

permitted, except under specific qualifying or emergency circumstances.

2. Eligibility Criteria

(a) Organization’s Mandate:

Primarily must support a service or program that otherwise would likely be offered by the District. Staff Liaisons will be appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer to each organization to support activities and provide a close connection with the District. The organization must notify the District of Mission Staff Liaison of the date, time, and venue for their organization’s Annual General Meeting, and any significant changes (i.e. in leadership) to their organization.

(b) Organization Eligibility:

i. the organization must be registered as a not-for-profit incorporated society in British Columbia or a Community Contribution Company (CCC);

ii. the organization must offer their services within the District of Mission;

iii. the general membership of the organization must consist of at least 50% of Mission’s residents;

iv. the organization must be able to demonstrate that they are able to match the District’s contributions in either other donation dollars or in-kind services; and

v. the organization must notify the District of Mission Staff Liaison of the date, time, and venue for their organization’s Annual General Meeting, and any significant changes (i.e. in leadership) to their organization.

3. Payment of Grant Funds

Upon receipt of the signed Municipal Fee for Service Agreement, and subsequent Statements of Accountability that are due at the end of each calendar year, the District will provide funding to the organization in the January of each calendar year for the term of the agreement. Funding is contingent upon receipt of the organization’s annual Statements of Accountability.

APPENDIX A 127

FEE FOR SERVICE GRANTS POLICY FIN.54(C)

Page 3 of 3

4. Insurance Requirements

The organization is required to obtain and keep in force liability insurance coverage of not less than two million dollars per occurrence, throughout the duration of the Fee for Service Agreement. The insurance policy must name the District of Mission as an additional insured.

5. Duration of Funding and Agreements

Fee for Service grants will normally be provided for a period of three years, with a two percent (2%) cost of living increase in years two and three. The two percent (2%) cost of living increase for subsequent funding years will be reviewed every fourth year, and may be adjusted based upon the Vancouver Consumer Price Index (VCPI).

First time recipient organizations will receive one-year funding, and may receive three-year funding thereafter.


Policy # Date Adopted Date Reviewed

Amended (Y/N) Date Reissued


FIN.54(C) XXX XX, 2019 RC19/XXX

APPENDIX A 128


Category: Finance

Number: FIN.50(C)

Name: Municipally Funded Grants Policy


☒ Policy

☐ Procedure

☒ Council

☐ Administrative




Date Adopted: July 6, 2015





PREAMBLE:

The adoption of this policy by Council Resolution includes the repeal of policy number FIN.18 and FIN.19.

BACKGROUND:

Municipalities in British Columbia may:

▪ provide any service through another organization▪ provide grants to organizations by Council resolution

PURPOSE:

The Municipally Funded Grant types are as follows:

▪ Community Enhancement Grant▪ Community Event Grant▪ Special Event Grant

The Municipally Funded Grants Program is designed to assist:

▪ local community-minded organizations offering events and services that facilitate the arts,cultural, recreational or social service functions, (Community Enhancement, CommunityEvent and Special Event Grants)

POLICY:

1. Process

(a) Council will consider applications for Municipally Funded Grants annually.Notification will be advertised in the local newspaper and on the District website.

(b) Applications must be submitted to the District using the prescribed application form,(included with this policy), on or before July 15th of each year unless otherwisedesignated in the annual notification. A select committee will review the applicationsand prepare a report with recommendations to Mayor and Council who shall considerthe request and make the final decision.

(c) Applications received after July 15 will not be considered.

APPENDIX B 129

MUNICIPALLY FUNDED GRANTS POLICY FIN.50(C)

Page 2 of 3

(d) All applications should include copies of the following in order to receive optimalconsideration:

i. Constitution (if not previously provided or if changes have occurred);ii. Current list of board members;iii. Annual general meeting minutes, (including manager’s report, if applicable);iv. Detailed proposed budget for the current year, listing expenditures and revenues,

including a list of all other grants and donations;v. Financial statement (in the form attached to the grant application);vi. Statement identifying the amount of reserved funds, if any, and the purpose of

those funds; andvii. Identification of the name and position of any individuals who receive payment

from the grant funds, (salaries, honorariums or contracts) together with theamount of compensation each receives.

(e) The committee report to Council will highlight relativity to the eligibility criteria.

(f) Delegations to Council by organizations missing the intake deadline will not bepermitted, except under specific qualifying or emergency circumstances.

2. Eligibility Criteria (Select Committee members are ineligible to apply for District Grants)

(a) Organization’s Mandate:

i. Community Enhancement Grants:Are intended to assist organizations in the provision of local community focusedactivities. The grants will be awarded to community groups with a physicalpresence in Mission, in the fields of the arts, cultural, recreational or socialservices.

ii. Community Event Grants:Are intended to support recurring events that Council has pre-determined providea significant benefit to the community as a whole and is open to all members ofthe public without charge. Typically, such grants are limited to not more than$5,000 per event annually.

iii. Special Event Grants:Are intended to support one-time events that are of a cultural, social orrecreational significance to the community, and that are open to the communityat large.

(b) Nature of Organization:

i. Community Enhancement, Community Event and Special Event Grant Eligibility:▪ Is not commercial in nature;▪ Is incorporated, either under the Societies Act of British Columbia or

under any federal act as a charitable organization or, in the event that thefunding applied for is equal to or less than $500, is an unincorporatedgroup with a written constitution which evidences objectives which arecharitable in nature;

▪ Has demonstrated sound financial and administrative management;▪ Has demonstrated financial need; and▪ Funding would benefit the residents of the District of Mission.

APPENDIX B 130

MUNICIPALLY FUNDED GRANTS POLICY FIN.50(C)

Page 3 of 3



Date Reviewed

Amended (Y/N)

Date Reissued


FIN.50 2015-07-16 RC15/366

FIN.50(C) Y 2017-01-16 RC17/009

FIN.50(C) Y 2018-05-07 RC18/240

FIN.50(c) Y 2019-XX-XX RC19/XXX

APPENDIX B 131

of 3


Category: Finance

Number: FIN.50(C) Name: Municipally Funded Grants Policy


☒ Policy☐ Procedure

☒ Council☐ Administrative

☒ Council ☐ Senior Management Team☐ CAO ☐ Department Head

Office of Primary Responsibility: Corporate Administration Date Adopted: July 6, 2015





PREAMBLE: The adoption of this policy by Council Resolution includes the repeal of policy number FIN.18 and 19.

BACKGROUND: Municipalities in British Columbia may: provide any service through another organization provide grants to organizations by council resolution

PURPOSE: The Municipally Funded Grant types are as follows: Fee for Service Grant Community Enhancement Grant Community Event Grant Special Event Grant

The Municipally Funded Grants Program is designed to assist: local not-for-profit incorporated organizations or Community Contribution Companies

(CCC) with delivery of services to the community that otherwise would likely be offeredby the District, (Fee for Service Grants)

local community-minded organizations offering events and services that facilitate thearts, cultural, recreational or social services functions, (Community Enhancement,Community Event and Special Event Grants)

POLICY: 1. Process

(a) Council will consider applications for Municipally Funded Grants annually.Notification will be advertised in the local newspaper and on the District website.

(b) Applications must be submitted to the District using the prescribed application form,(included within this policy), on or before July 15th of each year unless otherwisedesignated in the annual notification. A select committee will review the applicationsand prepare a report with recommendations to Mayor and Council who shall

APPENDIX C 132

of 3

consider the request and make the final decision.

(c) Applications received after July 15 will not be considered.

(d) All applications should include copies of the following in order to receive optimalconsideration:i. Constitution;ii. Current list of board members and number of employees, (full time and part

time);iii. Annual general meeting minutes, (including manager’s report, if applicable);iv. Detailed proposed budget for the current year, detailed expenditures and

revenues, including a list of all other grants and donations;v. Financial statements for the previous fiscal year;vi. Statement identifying the amount of reserved funds, if any, and the purpose of

those funds; andvii. Identification of the name and position of any individuals who receive payment

from the grant funds, (salary, honorarium or contract) together with the amountof compensation each receives.

(e) The committee report to Council will highlight relativity to the eligibility criteria.

(f) Delegations to Council by organizations missing the intake deadline will not bepermitted, except under specific qualifying or emergency circumstances.

2. Eligibility Criteria (selection committee members are ineligible to apply for District Grants)

(a) Organization’s Mandate:i. Fee for Service Grants:

Primarily must support a service or program that otherwise would likely beoffered by the District. Staff Liaisons will be appointed by the ChiefAdministrative Officer to each organization to support activities and provide aclose connection with the District.

ii. Community Enhancement Grants:Are intended to assist the organization in the provision of local communityfocused activities. The grants will be awarded to community groups with aphysical presence in Mission, in the fields of the arts, cultural, recreational orsocial services.

iii. Community Event Grants:Are intended to support recurring events that Council has pre-determinedprovide a significant benefit to the broader community and is open to allmembers of the public without charge. Typically such grants are limited to notmore than $5,000 per event annually.

iv. Special Event Grants:Are intended to support one-time events that are of a cultural, social orrecreational significance to the community, and that is open to the communityat large.

(b) Nature of Organization:i. Fee for Service Grant Eligibility:

Be registered as a not-for-profit incorporated society in British Columbia; Be located in the District of Mission; The general membership of the organization applying for a grant must

consist of at least 50% of Mission’s residents; and

APPENDIX C 133

of 3

Be able to demonstrate that they are able to match the District’scontributions in either other donation dollars or in-kind services.

ii. Community Enhancement, Community Event & Special Event Grant Eligibility: Is not commercial in nature; Is incorporated, either under the Societies Act of British Columbia or

under any federal act as a charitable organization, or, in the event thatthe funding applied for is equal to or less than $500, it is anunincorporated group with a written constitution which evidencesobjectives which are charitable in nature;

Has demonstrated sound financial and administrative management; Has demonstrated financial need; Funding would benefit the residents of the District of Mission.



Date Reviewed Amended (Y/N) Date Reissued


FIN.50 2015-07-16 RC15/366

FIN.50(C) 2017-01-16 Y 2017-01-16 RC17/009

FIN.50(C) 2018-05-07 Y 2018-05-08 RC18/240

APPENDIX C 134

2019-XX-XX RC19/XXX

Municipal Grants Select Committee TERMS OF REFERENCE

PURPOSE: Each year, the District of Mission includes a limited amount of funding in its annual budget to provide grants in support of Mission-based community groups engaged in arts, cultural, recreational or social service activities. The Municipal Grants Select Committee (MGSC) is a Select Committee established by Council. The MGSC will review and assess community enhancement, community event, and special event grant applications and provide Council with recommendations as to the distribution of grant funds.

CRITERIA: In reviewing grant applications, the MGSC will consider and assess the applications based on the extent to which a proposal positively contributes to the quality of Mission’s community activities and meets the criteria, including past financial performance, which may be set by Council from time to time, such as whether the proposal serves the proponent’s target market, evidence of community support, and alternate sources of funding.

COMPOSITION: Council shall appoint to the Municipal Grants Select Committee a minimum of three, up to a maximum of seven, community representatives who possess a wide understanding of Mission’s arts and cultural activities, sports and youth-orientated recreation activities, or local social service needs.

STAFF LIAISON / SUPPORT DEPARTMENT: The Corporate Officer will act as staff liaison to the MGSC and provide the committee with administrative assistant services from the Corporate Administration Department on an as needed basis. The staff liaison and administrative support person are not members, and accordingly, do not have voting privileges.

PROCEDURES: A MGSC meeting will be held early each fall for the committee to discuss and make recommendations as to the distribution of grant funds. The MGSC members will be provided with copies of the grant applications to review at least two weeks before each MGSC meeting. An appointed committee member will act as Chair for the MGSC. All committee members are voting members.

TERM OF OFFICE: • Each MGSC member community representative shall serve for a term of four (4) years and thereafter

may be re-appointed for a subsequent term of four (4) years to coincide with the term of Council.

• A call for MGSC member community representatives shall be conducted on an ‘as needed’ basis.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None of the committee members will be an employee or board member of any organization receiving or qualified to apply for any municipal grant. Committee members must abide by the conflict of interest provision outlined in the Community Charter as amended or replaced from time to time. If a conflict of interest arises between a committee member attending a meeting and the matter being discussed, the member must declare a conflict of interest and state the general nature of the conflict. After making such a declaration, the member must not take part in any discussions on the matter, must immediately leave the meeting, and must not attempt to influence any member at any time in relation to the matter.

APPENDIX D 135

FEE FOR SERVICE GRANT APPLICATION

This application form is for Non-profit Organizations or Community Contribution Companies who are applying for a Fee for Service grant. To ensure your application is considered, please complete and return the application with all required documentation by:

July 15th (unless otherwise specified)

(SECTION 1) - ORGANIZATION INFORMATION:

Organization Name: CRA/Society Act Number:

Contact Person: Phone Number:

Address of Organization:

Mailing Address (if different than above):

(SECTION 2a) – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION CHECK LIST (ATTACH COPIES TO APPLICATION):

Constitution (if not previously provided or if changes have occurred); Current list of board members and number of employees, (full time and part time); Annual general meeting minutes, (including manager’s report, if applicable); Detailed proposed budget for the current year, listing revenue/expenses and all other grants and donations; Financial statements for the previous fiscal year (‘Notice to Reader’ for grant requests below $50,000 and

‘Review Engagement’ for grant requests $50,000 and above); Statement identifying the amount of reserved funds, if any, and the purpose of those funds; and Identification of the name and position of any individuals who receive payment from the grant funds,

(salaries, honorariums or contracts) together with the amount of compensation each receives.

(SECTION 2b) – DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED AT THE END OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR:

The ‘Statement of Accountability’ form completed in full. Please note, each year’s funding is contingent uponreceipt of the annual reporting form.

(SECTION 3) – DECLARATION BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY:

I hereby certify that I have read the District of Mission Fee for Service Grants Policy FIN.54(C), that the application complies with its requirements, and that the information contained in the application is complete and correct.

IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION THE DISTRICT OF MISSION MUST BE NOTIFIED. Signature: Date:

Name (please print): Title:

(SECTION 4) – USE OF GRANT DETAILS:

Grant amount being requested: $

How will the District of Mission and its contribution be recognized by your organization?

(continued on back of page)

APPENDIX E 136

Eligibility Criteria

Fee for Service Grants are facilitated to assist non-profit Mission-based organizations with delivery of services to the community. The general membership of the organization must consist of at least 50% of Mission residents and be able to demonstrate the ability to match the District’s contribution in either other donation dollars or in-kind services. The services must be consistent with the District’s Goals and Objectives as posted on the District’s website. The service must be inclusive of all residents, support strong social and community values, and not be offensive to others.

Ensure your Application Declaration on the front page is signed and dated. The District of Mission may contact you to request additional information, or clarification, to support your application. If you require further information, please contact Municipal Hall at: 604-820-3700.

The personal information on this form is collected for the purpose of an operating program of the District of Mission as noted in Section 26(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you have any questions about the collection and use of the information, please contact the Freedom of Information Coordinator (604-820-3724).

(SECTION 5) - DETAILS OF SERVICES: (use a separate sheet if required)

1. Describe the service your organization provides to the community:

2. Number of clients/participants involved with your organization:

3. Describe how your organization would utilize the grant funds and how it would benefit the community:

4. What other community support or sponsorship exists for this project?

APPENDIX E 137

MUNICIPALLY FUNDED GRANTS APPLICATION

This application form is for Non-profit Organizations who are applying for a municipally funded grant. To ensure your application is considered, please complete and return the application with all required documentation by July 15th (unless otherwise specified).

(SECTION 1) - ORGANIZATION INFORMATION:

Organization Name: CRA/Society Act Number:

Contact Person: Phone Number:

Address of Organization:

Mailing Address (if different than above):

(SECTION 2a) – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION CHECK LIST (ATTACH COPIES TO APPLICATION):

Constitution (if not previously provided or if changes have occurred); Current list of board members; Annual general meeting minutes, (including manager’s report, if applicable); Detailed proposed budget for the current year, listing expenditures and revenues, including a list of all

other grants and donations; and Financial statement (form attached to this application).

(SECTION 2b) – DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE EVENT/PROJECT OR CALENDAR YEAR, (WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST):

Municipally Funded Grant – Year End Reporting form, (available at: https://www.mission.ca/municipal-hall/departments/finance/community-grants/)

(SECTION 3) – DECLARATION BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY:

I hereby certify that I have read the District of Mission – Municipally Funded Grants Policy FIN.50(C), that the application complies with its requirements, and that the information contained in the application is complete and correct.

IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION THE DISTRICT OF MISSION MUST BE NOTIFIED. Signature: Date:

Name (please print): Title:

(SECTION 4) – USE OF GRANT DETAILS:

Grant amount being requested: $

How will the District of Mission and its contribution be recognized by your organization?


APPENDIX E 138

https://www.mission.ca/municipal-hall/departments/finance/community-grants/

https://www.mission.ca/municipal-hall/departments/finance/community-grants/

The grant is being requested for:

A Community Enhancement Grant (complete Section 4a)For non-profit Mission based community groups in the arts, cultural, recreational or social services field.

A Community Event Grant (complete Section 4b)A recurring event that provides some significant benefit to the community as a whole, and is open to all members of the public without charge, (typically these grants are limited to not more than $5,000 per event annually).

A Special Event Grant (complete Section 4b)Any one-time or first-time event that is of cultural, social or recreational significance to the community.

(SECTION 4b) – DETAILS OF COMMUNITY EVENT/SPECIAL EVENT: (use a separate sheet if required)

1. Name of event:

2. Date of event:

3. Purpose of event:

4. Targeted audience:

5. Projected number of attendees:

6. Number of attendees for past 3 years (if applicable):

7. Proposed advertising/promotion of event:

8. Amount of projected local spending to hold the event:

9. Other funding sources:

Ensure your Application Declaration on the front page is signed and dated. The District of Mission may contact you to request additional information or clarification to support your application. If you require further information, please contact Municipal Hall at: 604-820-3700. The personal information on this form is collected for the purpose of an operating program of the District of Mission as noted in Section 26(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you have any questions about the collection and use of the information, please contact the Freedom of Information Coordinator (604-820-3724).

(SECTION 4a) – DETAILS OF COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT: (use a separate sheet if required)

1. Describe the service your organization provides to the community:

2. Number of clients/participants involved with your organization:3. Describe how your organization would utilize the grant funds and how it would benefit the community:

4. What other community support or sponsorship exists for this project?

APPENDIX E 139

C O R P O R A T E A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

Municipally Funded Grant – Financial Statement

Name of Organization:

Length of time the organization has been registered as a non-profit in Canada:

Number of paid employees: Full Time: Part Time:

Number of volunteer staff: Full Time: Part Time:

BALANCE SHEET Start of the Year End of the Year

Bank Balance: $ $

Total Accounts Payable and Liabilities: $ $

Retained Earnings, Accumulated Surplus or Reserves: $ $

Purpose of Reserve Funds:

INCOME STATEMENT Source of Revenue Past Fiscal Year

Total Salaries and Wages: $

Total Expenses: $

All Sources of Revenue: $

$

$

$

$

$

$


APPENDIX E 140

Name and position of any individuals who receive payment from the grant funds, (salaries, honorariums or contracts) and the amount of compensation each receives:

Name: Position: Compensation:

$

$

$

$

$

$

Certification and Date:

I certify that the information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signature of Director/Manager Signature of Treasurer

Date:

APPENDIX E 141

Fee for Service Grant – Statement of Accountability (Due: December 31st of each year)

Name of Organization:

Full Mailing Address:

Contact Person: Title:

Phone #: Email:

Description of Service Provided:

Number of People Using the Service:

Amount of Funds Received:

District of Mission: $ Other Sources: $

Revenue Received from All Sources: $

All Expenses: $

Net Profit or Loss: $

If Profit – How were the surplus funds disbursed?

If Loss – what steps will be taken to ensure the service will be profitable in the future?

Please attached the following supporting documentation:

A copy of the organization’s public ad. The current list of board members and number of employees (full time and part time). The annual general meeting minutes, (including manager’s report, if applicable). A detailed proposed budget, listing revenue/expenses and all other grants and donations. Financial statements for the previous fiscal year (‘Notice to Reader’ for grants below $50,000 and

‘Review Engagement’ for grants above $50,000).

The information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

Signature: Date:

APPENDIX E 142


MUNICIPALLY FUNDED GRANT – YEAR END REPORTING (Due: December 31st)

ORGANIZATION NAME:

MAILING ADDRESS:

(Street Address) (Municipality) (Postal Code)

CONTACT PERSON AND TITLE:

(Name) (Title)

(Phone) (Email)

TYPE OF SERVICE YOUR ORGANIZATION PROVIDES TO THE COMMUNITY:

AMOUNT OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT OF MISSION: $

Please describe how your organization used the grant funds:

The information included on this reporting form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

Signature: Date:

APPENDIX E 143

File: 01-0540-20-12 Page 1 of 5

The Minutes of the Mission Traffic and Transit Committee meeting held in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Hall at 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC on April 4, 2019 commencing at 1:30 pm.

Members Present: Councillor Danny Plecas, Chair Councillor Ken Herar, Vice-Chair Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering & Public Works Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services Constable Reid Trustham, RCMP Jodi Marshall, School District #75 Lisa Trotter, BC Transit Heather Andrew, Mission Senior Activity Centre Wendy Wilson, Mission Community Cycling Coalition Naasir Malik, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Kate Woochuk, ICBC

Members Absent: Representative, Mission Community Services Society Chris Slaney, First Transit Alison McDonald, BC Transit Judith Ray, Mission Association for Seniors Housing Representative, Mission Association for Community Living Representative, Mission Association for Seniors Housing

Others Present: Jay Jackman, Manager of Development Engineering & Projects David Hill, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Michele Fernie, Engineering Technologist III - Transportation Melissa McKimmie, Administrative Assistant Neil Smith, Mission Community Cycling Coalition Ron Coreau, Mission Community Cycling Coalition Dale Vinnish, Assistant Operations Manager Joan Hendriks, BC Old Age Pensioners’ Organization (Branch #28)

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Chair called the meeting to order.


Moved and seconded, That the agenda of the Mission Traffic and Transit Committee meeting held on April 4, 2019 be approved as circulated. CARRIED

144

Mission Traffic and Transit Committee Minutes April 4, 2019

File: 0540-20-12 Page 2 of 5

3. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

Moved and seconded, That the minutes of the meeting of the Mission Traffic and Transit Committee meeting held on February 7, 2019 be approved. CARRIED

4. OLD BUSINESS

(a) 11th Avenue – Topper Drive and Weaver Crescent – McEwen Avenue Petition to Change Two Bus Stops

Councillor Danny Plecas presented information to the Committee regarding an update on the 11th Avenue bus stop petition. Subsequent to a meeting in regards to the petition, that also saw Mayor Pam Alexis in attendance, emails were sent to staff and they are addressing this issue with BC Transit.

(b) 1st Avenue – Update / Messaging of Bus Stops The Committee reviewed Jay Jackman’s reimplementation of the downtown mid-block bus stop staff report. Through evaluating the pros and cons, it was staff’s recommendation that the bus stop reinstatement request not move forward due to the loss of downtown parking spots, amount of work required for this major modification, and significant associated costs. It was noted that the Committee would look at the addition of a new downtown bus stop location around the District’s Welton Common office in the future.

(c) Follow-up on Discussion on Need for an Additional Bus for Certain Portions of the Day at Mission Secondary School

Lisa Trotter presented information to the Committee regarding the automated counters on BC Transit’s buses, and that there was no indication of full buses received in the last year. It was noted that this was an isolated incident, and the automated counters will continue to be monitored over the next few months to rule out the possibility of overfilled buses.

(d) Traffic Safety Strategy Michele Fernie presented information to the Committee regarding the detailed “Traffic Safety Strategy for Mission” staff report, submitted to Council on March 18, 2019. In response to this staff report, Council asked for the setup of a workshop to obtain more details concerning the strategy, set for April 16, 2019.

(e) Traffic Calming Policy Michele Fernie presented information to the Committee regarding the detailed “Traffic Calming Policy” staff report, submitted to Council on March 18, 2019. In response to this staff report, Council asked for a closer look at the costs associated with the proposed policy through the setup of a workshop, set April 16, 2019.

145


File: 0540-20-12 Page 3 of 5

(f) MOTI Projects Updates It was noted that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Naasir Malik could not attend the meeting due to a transfer to another MOTI position. He sent his appreciation to the Committee for past collaborations and discussions. Mr. Malik’s Committee replacement will be joining the Committee as early as the next scheduled meeting to provide future MOTI Project Updates. Tracy Kyle provided the MOTI Project Updates in Naasir’s absence:

HIGHWAY 7 FOUR LANING

• Current Activities:

- Continued blasting and shot rock works. - Working with utilities to relocate the Fortis gas line and Hydro lines.

• Upcoming Activities:

- Continued blasting for another week, completing the shot rock works by next week.

- 2,000 millimeter culvert installation / south side ditching / settlement monitoring installation.

- Construction completion – Winter 2019.

• Addition Notes:

- No night work planned for the near future (project is at the position whereby all the work can take place during the day shift).

- Barriers will be placed along the shoulders to hold back the surcharge, which will be placed on the newly constructed shot rock embankments.

- Cyclist and pedestrian detour to remain in place (detour through Silverdale).

MISSION BRIDGE AND MURRAY STREET BRIDGE - Mission Bridge washing and sweeping is set for next week. - Murray Street Bridge pothole patching is set for the following week.

LINE PAINTING - The Fraser Valley’s line markings refresh paint is tentatively scheduled for over

the next two months, weather pending. Discussion ensued regarding the line painting on MOTI jurisdiction roads, and staff to follow up with MOTI.

(g) ICBC Road Safety Updates Kate Woochuk presented information to the Committee regarding ICBC’s March “Distracted Driving” campaign – their first of two distracted driving campaigns for 2019. April’s campaign focus will shift to “Auto Crime”, and then in May it will shift to “High Risk and Speed”.

146


File: 0540-20-12 Page 4 of 5

Discussion ensued regarding the RCMP’s successful reinforcement involvement in ICBC’s March “Distracted Driving” campaign. Through the use of local RCMP staff, volunteers, unmarked vehicles, and transit buses, they coordinated successful observations of distracted driving cases involving the use of a mobile phone or other electronic devices, and seat belt violations.

(h) Verbal Sub-Committee Updates The Committee reviewed the request to receive information and updates from the District’s Transit Sub-Committee. It was noted that the Sub-Committee meets bi-monthly, and Councillor Danny Plecas will attend their next meeting in June, and keep both Committees up to date on each other.

5. NEW BUSINESS

(a) Terms of Reference The Committee reviewed their 2019 Terms of Reference submission report to Council that was approved March 18, 2019. It was noted the Committee’s current member at large from the public, Ken Collier, had submitted his notice, leaving open a Committee Voting Member vacancy.

Action Item: Staff set up advertisement in local newspaper looking for Committee’s new member at large voting members, and draft and send out thank you letter to Ken Collier for his several years of service and commitment to this Committee.

(b) Petition for Best Avenue and Caribou Street The Committee reviewed the petition received in response to the traffic and pedestrian safety on Best Avenue and Caribou Street. It was noted that the petition’s referenced location is to be considered for action as part of the Traffic Calming Policy and Traffic Safety Strategy, pending the upcoming Council workshops on April 16, 2019.

(c) Clean BC Provincial Initiative Presentation Ron Coreau presented information to the Committee on the Province’s initiative to reduce carbon footprints through the launch of “cleanBC” (cleanbc.gov.bc.ca). The Provincial government recognized and provided new funding into Active Transportation, and set objectives on what they want to achieve. Mr. Coreau advised that Active Transportation evolved from recognition of cycling, walking, and other modes of transportation. Funding for active transportation in fifteen places in the Province has been provided, with the plan to continue expanding. It was noted that the District can keep up to date on updates and information for this Provincial initiative through the Province’s annual Municipal meetings. Wendy Wilson presented additional information to the Committee on a comprehensive education guide and rule book regarding bike cycling safety, available through the Mission Community Cycling Coalition (M3C).

6. CORRESPONDENCE

Correspondence to the District regarding traffic and/or transit-related issues, were received by the Committee for information.

147

https://cleanbc.gov.bc.ca/


File: 0540-20-12 Page 5 of 5

7. NEXT MEETING

Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 1:30 pm in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Hall.

8. ADJOURNMENT

Moved and seconded, That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 2:20 pm.

148

Minutes of the REGULAR MEETING of the DISTRICT OF MISSION COUNCIL (for the purpose of going into a closed meeting) held in the Conference Room the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on September 3, 2019 commencing at 1:02 p.m. Council Members Present: Mayor Pam Alexis Councillor Cal Crawford Councillor Jag Gill Councillor Ken Herar Councillor Danny Plecas Council Members Absent: Councillor Mark Davies Councillor Carol Hamilton Staff Members Present: Mike Younie, Chief Administrative Officer Michael Boronowski, Manager of Civic Engagement & Corporate Initiatives Stacey Crawford, Economic Development Officer Barclay Pitkethly, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Maureen Sinclair, Director of Park, Recreation and Culture Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services Doug Stewart, Director of Finance Christine Brough, Executive Assistant

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order.

2. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC

RC(C)19/032 SEPT. 3/19

Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Crawford, and

RESOLVED: That, pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Community Charter, this Regular Meeting of Council be closed to the public as the subject matter being considered relates to the following:

• 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;

• Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter – the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality.

CARRIED

149

Regular (Pre-Closed) Council Meeting September 3, 2019 Page 2 of 2

3. ADJOURN TO CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING

RC(C)19/033 SEPT. 3/19

Moved by Councillor Crawford, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That the Regular Council meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 1:03 p.m.

_________________________ _____________________________________ PAMELA ALEXIS JENNIFER RUSSELL MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

150

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSION and COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on September 3, 2019 commenced at 6:00 p.m.

Council Members Present: Mayor Pam Alexis Councillor Cal Crawford Councillor Mark Davies Councillor Jag Gill Councillor Ken Herar Councillor Danny Plecas Council Members Absent: Councillor Carol Hamilton Staff Members Present: Mike Younie, Chief Administrative Officer *Barry Azevedo, Manager of Environmental Services Michael Boronowski, Manager of Civic Engagement and

Corporate Initiatives *Chris Gruenwald, Acting Director of Forestry Guy Gusdal, Manager of Inspection Services Jay Jackman, Manager of Development Engineering and

Projects Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering and Public Works Barclay Pitkethly, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Robert Publow, Manager of Planning Scott Ross, Manager of Accounting Services Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services Doug Stewart, Director of Finance Allyssa Fischer, Administrative Assistant *Present for a portion of the meeting

1. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Alexis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.


RC19/502 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Crawford, and

RESOLVED: That the agenda for the Regular Council meeting of September 3, 2019 be adopted.

CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS

RC19/503 SEP. 03/19

Colin Worth

Colin Worth, Chairman of the West Coast Kids Cancer Foundation, appeared before Council to provide an update on the creation of a permanent camp for sick children and youth in Stave West. Mr. Worth described the lack of funding and social support for children and families of cancer patients and the need to establish a facility that would provide a safe haven for children battling illness. He noted that the Foundation had begun the formal approval process with the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development in 2018 and expressed his frustration with the lack of progress. He requested the District’s support in order to expediate the process.

151

Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 10 September 3, 2019

Discussion ensued in regards to fundraising efforts and provincial approvals. Council directed staff to contact Mr. Worth to discuss the issue in further detail.

4. PROCLAMATIONS

RC19/504 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Herar, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That September, 2019 be proclaimed “Childhood Cancer Awareness Month” within the District of Mission.

CARRIED

RC19/505 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Gill, seconded by Councillor Crawford, and

RESOLVED: That September 7-13, 2019 be proclaimed “Farmers’ Appreciation Week” within the District of Mission.

CARRIED

RC19/506 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Crawford, and

RESOLVED: That September 27-29, 2019 be proclaimed “Culture Days” within the District of Mission.

CARRIED

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

RC19/507 SEP. 03/19

Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5852-2019

LUC18-020 (DOM) – a bylaw to terminate Land Use Contract 364-1974 for the properties located at 32026 & 32028 - 7th Avenue and 7581 & 7589 May Street

-AND-

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5853-2019-5050(350)

LUC18-020 (DOM) – a bylaw to rezone property at 32026 & 32028 - 7th Avenue and 7581 & 7589 May Street from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Multiple Family 30 Townhouse (MT30) Zone

The purpose of the proposed Land Use Contract Repeal bylaw is to discharge Land Use Contract 364-1974 registered to the properties located at 32026 & 32028 - 7th Avenue and 7581 & 7589 May Street.

The purpose of the proposed Zoning bylaw amendment is to rezone the properties at 32026 & 32028 - 7th Avenue and 7581 & 7589 May Street from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Multiple Family 30 Townhouse (MT30) Zone to maintain the properties’ current uses. There are no proposed changes to the existing buildings or land use.

The subject properties are legally described as:

Address: 32026 - 7th Avenue Parcel Identifier: 001-325-850 Legal Description: Strata Lot 1 Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District

Strata Plan NW413 - Together with an interest in the common property in proportion to the unit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on Form 1

Address: 32028 - 7th Avenue Parcel Identifier: 001-325-868 Legal Description: Strata Lot 2 Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District

Strata Plan NW413 – Together with an interest in the common property in proportion to the unit entitlement of the strata lot as shown on Form 1

152


Address: 7589 May Street Parcel Identifier: 001-325-876 Legal Description: Strata Lot 3 Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District


Address: 7581 May Street Parcel Identifier: 001-325-884 Legal Description: Strata Lot 4 Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District


The Mayor opened the public hearing.

The Manager of Planning showed a PowerPoint presentation that provided the following information:

1. Purpose and outline of the proposal.

2. Subject property map.

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that no written submissions pertaining to the subject application had been received.

The Mayor opened the floor to the public for questions and comments.

Hearing no questions or comments, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing for District of Mission Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5852-2019 and Zoning Amending Bylaw 5853-2019-5050(350) closed.

RC19/508 SEP. 03/19

Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5854-2019

LUC18-026 (DOM) – a bylaw to terminate Land Use Contract 651-1978 for the property at 32516 – 14th Avenue

The purpose of the proposed Zoning bylaw amendment is to terminate Land Use Contract 651-1978 and Land Use Contract Amendment Bylaw 3569-2003-651(2) for the property at 32516 – 14th Avenue. Discharging the Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 651-1978 will allow the underlying Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to come into effect one year after Final Adoption of the Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw. There are no proposed changes to the existing buildings or land use. The subject property is legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 007-025-211 Legal Description: Lot “A” (P87176) Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster

District Plan 43652

The Mayor opened the public hearing.

The Manager of Planning showed a PowerPoint presentation that provided the following information:

1. Purpose and outline of the proposal.

2. Subject property map.

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that no written submissions pertaining to the subject application had been received.

The Mayor opened the floor to the public for questions and comments.

Yvan Charette, the owner, stated that he had owned the property for two years. He noted that he had limited knowledge of the Land Use Contract termination process and asked how the District’s rezoning application process worked.

153


In response, the Manager of Planning clarified that the property could not be rezoned without an Official Community Plan Bylaw amendment as the property’s current designation did not permit the current use. He explained that the District was allowing the property to remain legally non-conforming and would not require any changes to the property’s use.

Dionne Hairsine, Mission, stated that she was in favour of the property’s current use and would also support a rezoning application if it was brought forward to Council.

Attila Davalovsky, employee, questioned whether, with the termination of the LUC, the owner would be able to make changes to the exterior of the building.

In response, the Manager of Planning clarified that, as a legally non-conforming use, changes to the building’s exterior would not be permitted until the property had been rezoned.

June Thoms, Mission, stated that she had lived in the neighbourhood for 46 years and supported the property’s current use.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing for District of Mission Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5854-2019 closed.

6. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

RC19/509 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Crawford seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That Council now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

CARRIED

7. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

RC19/510 SEP. 03/19

Mass Timber Early Adoption Initiative

A report from the Manager of Inspection Services dated September 3, 2019, seeking support for departmental participation in the provincial government’s Mass Timber Early Adoption Initiative was provided for the Committee’s consideration.

Moved by Councillor Plecas, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That Council, together with its planning, building, and fire service departments, support participation in the Province of B.C.’s Tall Wood Early Adoption Initiative; and

2. That Council request the Province of B.C. to include the District of Mission as a participating local authority in the regulation for the Tall Wood Early Adoption Initiative.

CARRIED

RC19/511 SEP. 03/19

Change in Land Dedication - Polygon Homes Ltd.

A report from the Director of Development Services dated September 3, 2019, regarding a reduction in the amount of land dedication for a subdivision application by Polygon Homes Ltd., was provided for the Committee’s information.

Discussion ensued in regards to the previous land use decision adopted by Council, the final subdivision layout, the land’s current designation, and the developer’s ability to develop the parcel moving forward.

In response, the Director of Development Services noted that the report had been brought forward to Council as an informational item as the developer was requesting to reduce the amount of land dedicated to the District as part of Council’s previous consideration of the

154


land use. He clarified that the subdivision approval process was separate from the land use consideration brought before Council and that the District’s Approving Officer would be considering the developer’s request. He stated that the applicant was requesting to increase the proposal from a three-parcel subdivision to a four-parcel subdivision, with the fourth parcel retained by the developer. He explained that the fourth parcel was currently designated as park land, and would retain its current designation and zoning after the subdivision of the land.

RC19/512 SEP. 03/19

Rezoning Application - 9663 Doyle Street

A report from the Planner dated September 3, 2019, regarding a development application for the property located 9663 Doyle Street, was provided for the Committee’s information.

Staff supports the application moving forward and will schedule the Public Hearing for September 16, 2019 subject to Council granting second reading to the related zoning amending bylaw.

RC19/513 SEP. 03/19

Rezoning Application - 33481 Larkspur Avenue

A report from the Planner dated September 3, 2019, regarding a development application for the property located 33481 Larkspur Avenue, was provided for the Committee’s information.


Discussion ensued in regards to the demolition of the current home, the lot coverage of the proposed garden cottage, and the construction of a new primary residence. It was noted that District staff had communicated the maximum lot coverage of the property to the applicant.

RC19/514 SEP. 03/19

Rezoning Application - 8913 Neale Drive

A report from the Planner dated September 3, 2019, regarding a development application for the property located 8913 Neale Drive, was provided for the Committee’s information.


8. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS

RC19/515 SEP. 03/19

Purchase of Replacement Survey Equipment

A report from the Manager of Development Engineering, Projects and Design dated September 3, 2019, seeking approval to reallocate funds in order to cover capital costs associated with the purchase of a GPS survey equipment bundle, was provided for the Committee’s consideration.


RECOMMENDED:

1. That the existing current budget in the amount of $28,840 be increased by $7,299 with funding from existing capital project budgets and funding from the General Capital Reserve Fund, for a total revised budget of $36,139 to cover capital costs associated with the purchase of replacement survey equipment;

155


2. That funding be provided from the following sources:

a) Existing Capital Budget for survey equipment purchase: $28,840;

b) Existing Engineering Capital: $1,107;

c) Remaining Capital Budget no longer needed for handheld field data devices: $4,192;

d) An additional draw from the General Capital Reserve Fund of $2,000; and

3. That the District’s financial plan be amended accordingly.

CARRIED

9. CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

RC19/516 SEP. 03/19

Investment Holdings Quarterly Report – June 30, 2019

A report from the Manager of Accounting Services dated September 3, 2019, reviewing the District’s cash and portfolio investment holdings as of June 30, 2019, was provided for the Committee’s information.

RC19/517 SEP. 03/19

Contract Award Extension Recommendation, Request for Proposals 2016-016 - Financial Statement Audit Services

A report from the Manager of Accounting Services dated September 3, 2019, seeking approval to extend the agreement with BDO Canada LLP for the 2019 and 2020 fiscal years, was provided for the Committee’s consideration.

Moved by Councillor Davies, and

RECOMMENDED:

That the District exercise the option to extend the agreement with BDO Canada LLP and to be appointed as the auditor for the District of Mission for the 2019 and 2020 fiscal years.

CARRIED

RC19/518 SEP. 03/19

Request for a Council Representative/Liaison – Community Futures North Fraser

A report from the Executive Assistant dated September 3, 2019, seeking a representative/liaison for Community Futures North Fraser, was provided for the Committee’s consideration.


RECOMMENDED:

That Councillor Crawford be appointed as Council’s representative/liaison to Community Futures North Fraser.

CARRIED

RC19/519 SEP. 03/19

Proposed 2020 Council Meeting Schedule

A report from the Corporate Officer dated September 3, 2019, seeking approval of the proposed 2020 Council meeting schedule was provided for the Committee’s consideration.

Discussion ensued in regards to the practices of neighbouring municipalities, committee schedules, and the dates of the 2020 Union of BC Municipalities’ convention.

Moved by Councillor Gill, and

RECOMMENDED:

156


That the proposed 2020 Council meeting schedule, identified as Attachment A in the September 3, 2019 report from the Corporate Officer, be approved.

OPPOSED: Councillor Plecas

CARRIED

10. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORT

RC19/520 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Gill, and

RESOLVED: That the Committee of the Whole now rise and report.

CARRIED

11. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

RC19/521 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Davies, and

RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the September 3, 2019 Committee of the Whole, as contained in items RC19/510 to RC19/519, except item RC19/519 (Proposed 2020 Council Meeting Schedule) be adopted.

CARRIED

RC19/522 SEP. 03/19


RESOLVED: That the recommendation of the September 3, 2019 Committee of the Whole, as contained in item RC19/519 (Proposed 2020 Council Meeting Schedule) be adopted.

OPPOSED: Councillor Plecas

CARRIED

12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES

RC19/523 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Crawford, seconded by Councillor Davies, and

RESOLVED:

That the Cultural Resources Commission meeting minutes - June 19, 2019 be received as information.

CARRIED

13. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APPROVAL

RC19/524 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That the following minutes be adopted:

(a) Regular Council Meeting (for the purpose of going into a closed meeting) – August 19, 2019

(b) Regular Council Meeting – August 19, 2019

CARRIED

14. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION

RC19/525 SEP. 03/19


157


RESOLVED:

That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5856-2019-5050(352) R19-014 (Reti), a bylaw to rezone property at 9663 Doyle Street from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling, be read a first and second time.

CARRIED

RC19/526 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Crawford, and

RESOLVED:

That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5857-2019-5050(353) R19-003 (Lacey Developments Ltd.), a bylaw to rezone property at 33481 Larkspur Avenue from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone, be read a first and second time.

CARRIED

RC19/527 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Crawford, seconded by Councillor Gill, and

RESOLVED:

That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5858-2019-5050(354) R19-012 (Mandzuk), a bylaw to rezone property at 8913 Neale Drive from Suburban 36 (S36) Zone to Suburban 36 Secondary Dwelling (S36s) Zone, be read a first and second time.

CARRIED

RC19/528 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Gill, seconded by Councillor Davies, and

RESOLVED:

That Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5852-2019 LUC18-020 (DOM), a bylaw to terminate Land Use Contract 364-1974 and Land Use Contract Amendment Bylaw 3569-2003-651(2) for the properties located at 32026 & 32028 - 7th Avenue and 7581 & 7589 May Street, be read a third time.

CARRIED

RC19/529 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Herar, and

RESOLVED:

That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5853-2019-5050(350) LUC18-020 (DOM), a bylaw to rezone property at 32026 & 32028 - 7th Avenue and 7581 & 7589 May Street from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Multiple Family 30 Townhouse (MT30) Zone, be read a third time.

CARRIED

Discussion ensued in regards to Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5854-2019 and the following concerns and questions were noted by Council:

• if a rezoning application would include a Public Hearing;

• the approximate cost of the rezoning application process;

• concern that the owner’s lending institution would not understand the implications of the termination of the LUC; and

• if redesignation of the property could be considered during the next Official Community Plan Bylaw review.

In response, staff noted that:

158


• both the Zoning Bylaw amendment and the Official Community Plan Bylaw amendment applications would be subject to a Public Hearing;

• the approximate cost of both a rezoning and redesignation application would be between $6,000 to $8,000;

• the applicant would have a one-year grace period from the date of the adoption of the LUC Repeal Bylaw and that the applicant had the ability to come forward and ask for an extension; and

• the owner will be permitted to continue operating the business as a legally non-conforming use in perpetuity. It was noted that the applicant was within his rights to apply for a rezoning at any time.

RC19/530 SEP. 03/19


RESOLVED:

That Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5854-2019 LUC18-026 (DOM), a bylaw to terminate Land Use Contract 651-1978 and Land Use Contract Amendment Bylaw 3569-2003-651(2) for the property at 32516 – 14th Avenue, be read a third time.

CARRIED

15. CORRESPONDENCE

RC19/531 SEP. 03/19

Council reviewed a letter dated August 9, 2019 from Bruce Gibbons regarding a request to amend the Zoning Bylaw to prohibit the bottling of groundwater for commercial sale or bulk export. Council received the correspondence as an informational item.

It was noted that the bottling of water for commercial sale or bulk export was a provincial matter and that the issue would be discussed at the 2019 Union of British Columbia Municipalities convention.

16. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS

There was no new/other business.

17. NOTICES OF MOTION

Discussion ensued in regards to the most cost effective method to developing tiny home communities. It was suggested that there be no limit on the method of construction, be it a mobile home or a structure with a permanent foundation.

The Director of Development Services stated that staff would likely bring the concept forward as an amendment to the zoning bylaw.

RC19/532 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Crawford, seconded by Councillor Davies, and

RESOLVED:

That staff report back to Council with a review of the “Tiny House” movement, including potential issues and benefits of implementing within Mission and what bylaw amendments would be required.

CARRIED

18. QUESTION PERIOD

There were no questions from the public.

159


19. ADJOURNMENT

RC19/533 SEP. 03/19

Moved by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m.

PAMELA ALEXIS, JENNIFER RUSSELL, MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

160

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5855-2019-5050(351)

A Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009"

WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw

5855-2019-5050(351).”

2. "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended, is hereby further amended by:

a) rezoning the property located at 34843 Ferndale Avenue and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 024-194-654 Lot 3, Section 35, Township 17, New Westminster District, LMP38544

from Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone; and

b) amending the zoning maps accordingly.

READ A FIRST TIME this __ day of ___, 2019

READ A SECOND TIME this __ day of ___, 2019

PUBLIC HEARING held this __ day of ___, 2019

READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of ___, 2019

ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2019 PAMELA ALEXIS JENNIFER RUSSELL MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

161

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5860-2019

A Bylaw to provide for permissive exemption from taxation of certain properties

WHEREAS Section 224 of the Community Charter provides that Council may by bylaw, adopt prior to October 31 in any year, exempt certain land, improvements or both from taxation for the next calendar year; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “District of Mission Permissive Tax Exemption

Bylaw 5860-2019”.

2. That the not-for-profit organizations described in Schedule “A” attached hereto and forming part of this bylaw shall be exempt from taxation imposed pursuant to Section 224 of the Community Charter for land and improvements herein specified for the year 2020.

READ A FIRST TIME this __ day of September, 2019

READ A SECOND TIME this __ day of September, 2019

READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of September, 2019

Advertised in the Mission Record on this __ day and ___ day of September, 2019.

ADOPTED this __ day of October, 2019

PAMELA ALEXIS, MAYOR JENNIFER RUSSELL, CORPORATE OFFICER

162

District of Mission Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw 5860-2019

Page 2 of 2

Schedule "A"

Owner/Occupier Roll Number Legal Description of Property

Communitas Supportive Care Society

832138-000 PID: 010-314-369, Lot 4, Section 21, Township 17, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP17978

District of Mission Arts Council 870357-001

870354-000



Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation, Inc.

311053-000

311054-000

Section 10, Township 4, part NW ¼, Group 1, District Lot 5868, Land and Water BC Inc. Licence #241369 (Crown Provincial), Land District 36 , NWD

Block B, part NW ¼, Section 10, Township 4, Range 3, Meridian W7, Land District 36, NWD, Land and Water BC Inc. Licence #240012 (Crown Provincial)

Mission Community Services Society (Haven in the Hollow)

820449-000 PID: 005-824-583, Lot 96, District Lot 165, Group 3, Section 20, Township17, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP59878

Mission Daycare Society (Heritage Park Child Care Centre) (Sublessee) Owner: Province of B.C. Lessee: School District No. 75

860677-000

860677-001

PID: 005-603-811, Portion of Lot 0 Except Part in Plan LMP25574, District Lot 4, Group 3, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP29500 / Lease #24164

SARA for Women Society

(28% land and improvements)

831022-000 PID: 004-937-163, Lot 518 Except Plan 87080, Section 21, Township 17, Land District 36, NWD, Plan NWP51424

Sto:lo Heritage Trust Society (for the Xá:ytem Longhouse and property)

930522-000

930618-000

PID: 008-614-652, Lot 31 Except Part in Plan 44937, District Lot 476, Group 1, NWD, Plan NWD38924

PID: 002-872-854, Parcel A Except Part Subdivided by Plan 75549, District Lot 476, Group 1, NWD, Explanatory Plan NWD70816

163

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5704-2018-5050(277)



5704-2018-5050(277).”


a) rezoning the property located at 7965 Grand Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 011-790-695 Lot 1 Section 21 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 78716

from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Urban Residential 558 Secondary Dwelling (R558s) Zone; and


READ A FIRST TIME this 5th day of March, 2018

READ A SECOND TIME this 5th day of March, 2018

PUBLIC HEARING held this 19th day of March, 2018

READ A THIRD TIME this 19th day of March, 2018

ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2018 PAMELA ALEXIS, JENNIFER RUSSELL, MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

164

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5856-2019-5050(352)



5856-2019-5050(352).”


a) rezoning the property located at 9663 Doyle Street and legally described as:


from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone; and


READ A FIRST TIME this 3rd day of September, 2019

READ A SECOND TIME this 3rd day of September, 2019




165

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5857-2019-5050(353)



5857-2019-5050(353).”


a) rezoning the property located at 33481 Larkspur Avenue and legally described as:


from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone; and







166

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5858-2019-5050(354)



5858-2019-5050(354).”


a) rezoning the property located at 8913 Neale Drive and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 017-437-792 Lot 7 Section 32 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan LMP948

from Suburban 36 (S36) Zone to Suburban 36 Secondary Dwelling (S36s) Zone; and







167

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5819-2019

A Bylaw to terminate District of Mission Land Use Contract Bylaws 173-1972 and 691-1978

WHEREAS Council of the District of Mission, under Section 137 of the Community Charter, has the power to amend or repeal bylaws; AND WHEREAS Council of the District of Mission, under Section 548 of the Local Government Act, has the power to terminate a land use contract that applies to land within the jurisdiction of the local government; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission did, on the 5th day of February, 1973 enact a bylaw cited as “Mission District Land Use Contract By-Law No. 173-1972” that was subsequently amended on the 4th day of July, 1978; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission did, on the 4th day of July, 1978 enact a bylaw cited as “District of Mission Land Use Contract By-Law No. 691-1978”; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5819-2019”.

2. The Land Use Contract 173-1972 between the District of Mission and Sisto Lorenzo Petraccione and Dianne Lorraine Petraccione, for the property located at 34555 Vosburgh Avenue and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 005-581-354 Legal Description: Lot 209 District Lot 5 Group 3 Section 26 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 57359

- and -

The Land Use Contract 691-1978 between the District of Mission and Sisto Lorenzo Petraccione and Diane Lorraine Petraccione, for the property located at 8160 Manson Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 005-581-303 Legal Description: Lot 208 District Lot 5 Group 3 Section 26 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 57359

are hereby discharged.

3. “Mission District Land Use Contract By-Law No. 173-1972” and “District of Mission Land Use Contract By-Law No. 691-1978” are hereby repealed.

4. This Bylaw shall come into force one year plus one day after the date of adoption, and in any event no later than June 30, 2024.

168

District of Mission Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5819-2019

Page 2 of 2

READ A FIRST TIME this 17th day of June, 2019

READ A SECOND TIME this 17th day of June, 2019

PUBLIC HEARING held this 2nd day of July, 2019

READ A THIRD TIME this 2nd day of July, 2019

ADOPTED THIS __ day of ___, 2019

PAMELA ALEXIS JENNIFER RUSSELL MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

169

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5820-2019-5050(333)



5820-2019-5050(333).”


a) rezoning the properties located at:

34555 Vosburgh Avenue and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 005-581-354 Lot 209 District Lot 5 Group 3 Section 26 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 57359

- and -

8160 Manson Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 005-581-303 Lot 208 District Lot 5 Group 3 Section 26 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 57359

from Urban Residential 930 (R930) Zone to Commercial Local One (CL1) Zone and Commercial Neighbourhood Public House (CPH) Zone; and



READ A FIRST TIME this 17th day of June, 2019

READ A SECOND TIME this 17th day of June, 2019

PUBLIC HEARING held this 2nd day of July, 2019

170

District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5820-2019-5050(333)

Page 2 of 2

READ A THIRD TIME this 2nd day of July, 2019

APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this 27th day of August, 2019


171

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5837-2019-3590(4)

A Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Building Bylaw 3590-2003"

WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission did, on the 15th day of December, 2003, enact a bylaw cited as "District of Mission Building Bylaw 3590-2003"; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable to amend the said Bylaw; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Building Amending Bylaw 5837-2019-3590(4)".

2. "District of Mission Building Bylaw 3590-2003", as amended, is hereby further amended as follows:

(a) by deleting Schedule “A” and replacing it with a new Schedule “A” as follows:

SCHEDULE “A”

SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES

1. Building Permit Fees

(a) The fee payable for a Permit for the Construction of a Building of part thereof where the value of Construction does not exceed $5,000 shall be: $150.00

plus,

$ 11.50 for each $1,000 of Construction value or portion thereof, over $5,000.00 and up to $50,000.00, plus



$ 7.50 for each $1,000 of Construction value or portion thereof, over $500,000.00.

Notwithstanding the fee stated above, the Building Permit fee for the following applications shall be:

(b) $510.00 for the removal, repair or alteration of a building envelope and the repair of damage to structures caused by building envelope failure for any residential building completed between 1985 and 1998.

i. A Building Permit issued pursuant to this section remains subject to all other applicable Schedule “A” Permit fees.

172

District of Mission Building Amending Bylaw 5837-2019-3590(4)

Page 2 of 18

(c) A minimum of $500.00 for the alteration of, or minor addition (less than 25% of the existing floor area) to any building that is not:

• a single family dwelling, duplex, multi-family dwelling building;

• an accessory building to a single family dwelling, duplex, multi-family dwelling building; or

• an agricultural building.

(d) A minimum of $2500.00 for any new building or major building addition that is not:

• a single family dwelling, duplex, multi-family dwelling building;

• an accessory building to a single family dwelling, duplex, multi-family dwelling building; or

• an agricultural building.

(e) 50% of the prescribed fees listed in 1 (a), (c) or (d) for Building Permit on a property located within the MissionCity Downtown Action Plan Area (as shown on Schedule “B”) for any Permit application received on or before December 31, 2019.

2. Work Without Permit Fees

This section applies to any construction that requires a Permit pursuant to this bylaw.

(a) The Permit fees specified in Section 1 or 9 of Schedule A shall be increased by 100 % of the Permit fee or $250.00, whichever is greater, where Construction of work requiring a Permit begins before a Permit is issued.

3. Non-refundable Building Permit Application Fees

Each Building Permit application shall include the payment of a non-refundable portion of the Building Permit application fee as follows:

(a) $150.00 per Permit for: i. the alteration or minor addition (less than 25% of the existing floor area)

to a single family dwelling or duplex building; ii. an accessory building to a single family dwelling or duplex use; or iii. an agricultural buildings;

(b) $1,000.00 per Permit for: i. a new single family or duplex dwelling; or ii. a major addition to a single family or duplex dwelling;

(c) $500.00 per Permit for the alteration of or minor addition (less than 25% of the existing floor area) to any other building not included in clause (a) above; and

(d) $2,500.00 per Permit for any other new building or major addition not included in clause (b) above.

4. Building Permit Application Plan and Document Revision Fees

(a) An additional fee of 25% of the Building Permit fee pursuant to Section 1 of this Schedule will be charged where following the plan review the Building Official requires a second iteration of the drawings or supporting documents to be resubmitted.

(b) An additional fee of 50% of the Building Permit fee pursuant to Section 1 of this Schedule will be charged where following the plan review the Building Official requires a third iteration of the drawings or supporting documents to be resubmitted; and an additional fee of 50% of the Building Permit fee pursuant to Section 1 of this Schedule will be charged for each subsequent iteration where

173


Page 3 of 18

following the plan review the Building Official requires revised drawings or supporting documents to be resubmitted.

5. Building Permit Refunds

(a) Building Permit fee refunds processed pursuant to Section 7.18 shall not include the non-refundable building Permit application fee paid pursuant to section 3 of this Schedule and shall be limited to

50% of the remaining

Building Permit fees

paid

6. Covenant Preparation, Processing, Registration and Removal Fees:

(a) The fee to remove Land Title Notice from a property’s Title $650.00

7. Security and Compliance Deposit

The following security and compliance deposits shall be included at the time of a Permit application:

(a) New Single Family Dwelling or Duplex $3,000.00

(b) Major Additions to a Single Family Dwelling or Duplex (more than 25% of the existing floor area) $1,000.00

(c) New Multi-Family Residential, Mixed Use, Commercial, Industrial or Institutional Building (per building)

$5,000.00

(d) Significant alteration of or major addition (more than 25 % of the existing floor area) to a Multi-Family Residential, Mixed Use, Commercial, Industrial or Institutional Building (per building) $5,000.00

(e) Minor alteration of or small addition (less than 25 % of the existing floor area) to a Multi-Family Residential, Mixed Use, Commercial, Industrial or Institutional Building (per building) $2,000.00

(f) Removal of a Temporary Building pursuant to Section 9 of this Bylaw

$10,000.00

(g) An additional deposit for the removal or conversion of an existing residential building due to the construction of a new residential building on the property

$ 5,000.00

(h) New Free Standing Signs $1,000.00

8. Occupancy Permit and Provisional Occupancy Permit fees

(a) Fee for an Occupancy Permit issued pursuant to Section 7.18 (r) of the Building Bylaw $75.00

Provisional Occupancy Permit Fees:

(b) Single Family Dwelling or Duplex: i. $250.00 (90 day maximum period) ii. $125.00 renewal (90 day maximum period)

(c) Multi Family Dwelling i. $120.00 per unit (120 day maximum period) ii. $60.00 renewal per unit (60 day maximum)

174


Page 4 of 18

(d) Other Than Residential i. $500.00 per unit (60 day maximum period) ii. $250.00 renewal per unit (60 day maximum)

9. Plumbing Permit Fees

Plumbing Permit fees:

(a) Plumbing, involving the installation of fixtures, for each fixture $15.00

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the minimum fee payable for a plumbing Permit shall be $90.00

(c) Plumbing work involving the installation of storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water service lines and related appurtenances:

i. sanitary sewer $ 90.00

ii. storm sewer $ 90.00

iii. water service $ 90.00

iv. for each sump, oil or grease interceptor, catch basin, manhole, cleanout, inspection chamber, fire hydrant, water meter or reducing station $ 50.00

Fire Sprinkler System fees:

(a) for the first 15 sprinkler heads $120.00

(b) for each additional sprinkler head $2.00

(c) for each siamese connection $70.00

10. Equivalency Proposal Fees

(a) The fee to be paid at the time of submission of required information and documentation for an equivalency proposal $500.00

(b) The fee for each additional revision of the documentation for an equivalency proposal

$200.00

11. Revision to Issued Permit Drawings

(a) The fee to review and revise issued Permit plans or supporting documents for the first two hours or part thereof shall be $200.00

(b) Each additional hour or part thereof to review revised plans or documents shall be $90.00/hour

12. Temporary Building Permit Fees

(a) Temporary building – Building Permit fee $200.00

13. Demolition Permit Fees

(a) Building demolition Building Permit fee $200.00

(b) Building demolition Building Permit fee for properties located within the MissionCity Downtown Action Plan Area (as shown on Schedule “B”) received on or before December 31, 2019 $100.00

175


Page 5 of 18

14. Re-inspection Fees

(a) Re-inspection fee $90.00

15. Special Inspection Fees

(a) Inspection Fee for inspections during regular office operating hours that require special arrangements because of the location or nature of the construction, shall be billed per hour, plus travel expenses where such inspection is not within the District (for each hour or part thereof including travel time to and from the office). $90.00/hour

(b) Inspection Fee for inspections conducted after Standard Office Hours on a Standard Office Work Day (for each hour or part thereof including travel time back to the office) $130.00/hour

(c) Inspection Fee for inspections conducted on a Non-Standard Office Work Day (for each hour or part thereof including travel time back to the office; minimum 3 hour charge); or, before Standard Office Hours on a Standard Office Work Day (for each hour or part thereof) $200.00/hour

(d) Geotech Report Review Fee $150.00

(e) Secondary Suite Inspection to determine building upgrade requirements to add Secondary Suite to a dwelling unit $250.00

16. Woodstove Permit Fee

(a) Woodstove Permit fee $150.00

17. Administrative Processing Fees

(a) Building Permit Renewal fee $150.00

(b) Change of Property Owner fee $100.00

(c) Transfer of Building Permit fee $150.00

(d) File research fees:

i. First 30 minutes of part thereof $30.00

ii. Each additional 30 minutes or part thereof $30.00

(e) Preparing permanent construction records:

i. For a new single family dwelling or duplex: 0.02% of the construction

value, subject to a minimum of

$35.00 and a maximum of

$100.00

176


Page 6 of 18

ii. For new and/or additions of, commercial, industrial, institutional and multi-family projects:

0.02% of the construction


$100.00 and a maximum of $175.00

iii. For all other Permits (such as single family/duplex additions, accessory buildings, farm buildings, sign, plumbing, fire sprinkler, irrigation, tenant improvement Permits, etc.):

0.01% of the construction


$35.00 and a maximum of

$100.00

(b) by deleting Section 2 “Definitions” and replacing it with a new Section 2 “Definitions”

as follows, including related housekeeping changes in the Bylaw:

In this bylaw, unless context otherwise requires:

"Agent" means a person authorized in writing in a form acceptable to the Building Official to represent the Owner and may include a hired tradesman or contractor;

“Applicant” means an applicant for a Building Permit, and the holder of the issued Building Permit.

“Building” means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy;

"Building Code" means the British Columbia Building Code established pursuant to the British Columbia Building Code Regulation;

"Building Official" includes a person or persons designated by the District of Mission as a Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector, or Plan Checker, and includes the supervisors for these positions;

“Boulevard” has the same meaning as defined in the District’s Traffic Regulation Bylaw 1698-1987.

"Construction" means the erection, alteration, addition, demolition, repair or reconstruction of a Building, Plumbing System or a Retaining Structure;

“Cost of Construction” means the hard costs and soft costs of all completed Construction or work related to a Building Permit, including, but not limited to, finishes, roofing, electrical, plumbing, drains, heating, air-conditioning, fire extinguishing systems, elevators, and any other equipment and materials, fees for design, testing, consulting, management, all contributed or assumed labour and materials, contractor's profit and overhead, insurance, and for site works and improvements, including all associated paving, landscaping and underground servicing, but excluding furniture, fixtures or equipment not included in a Building Permit, and it will be the greater of:

177


Page 7 of 18

(a) the value declared by the Applicant on the Building Permit application; or

(b) the value of Construction that would be authorized by a Building Permit, estimated by a third party quantity surveyor or the Building Official, utilizing independent third party valuation sources of Construction costs; or a cumulative total of all contracts of Construction or the Building project.

“Damage” in respect of District Property, includes, but is not limited to, damage to sidewalks, curbs and gutters, pavement, street lights and trees, fire hydrants and the placement, dropping, or deposit of any dirt, debris, materials, objects, or substances on District Property.

“District” means the District of Mission.

“District Property” means real property owned by the District and includes District parks, Highways, streets, lanes, Boulevards, easements, statutory rights of way and all works and appurtenances therein and thereon.

“Do Not Occupy” means a notice issued by the Building Official where the Building or portion of a Building has not been given permission to be occupied.

“Field Review” has the same meaning as set out in the Building Code;

“Health And Safety Aspects Of The Work” means design and construction regulated by Division B Part 3, Division B Part 7 and Sections 9.4, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, 9.21, 9.22, 9.23, 9.24, 9.25, 9.31, 9.32, 9.34, 9.35, and 9.36 and Articles 9.28.1.1, 9.28.1.2 and 9.28.6.3 of Division B Part 9 of the Building Code.

“Highway” has the same meaning as defined in the District’s Traffic Regulation Bylaw 1698-1987.

"Occupancy" means permission or authorization pursuant to an Occupancy Permit and any conditions therein contained issued by the Building Official to occupy a Building or part thereof upon acceptance of work, which is the subject of a Permit issued under this Bylaw;

“Occupancy Permit” means an authorization by the Building Official for Permitting the Occupancy of a Building or Structure, or other work, specified in the Permit and includes a Provisional Occupancy Permit.

"Owner" means an Owner of real property as the terms "Owner" and "real property" are defined in the Community Charter, as amended;

“Permit” means permission or authorization in writing by the Building Official to perform Construction regulated by this Bylaw or other work specified in the Permit, or an Occupancy Permit;

"Plumbing System" means a drainage system, venting system and water system or parts thereof, and which is regulated by the Building Code;

“Repair” means the replacement of an existing element of a Building, other than a structural element, with a component of like characteristics.

"Registered Professional,” means:

178


Page 8 of 18

(a) a person who is registered or licensed to practise as an architect under the Architects Act, or

(b) a person who is registered or licensed to practise as a professional engineer under the Engineers and Geoscientists Act.

"Retaining Structure" means structures constructed for the retention of soils.

“Stop Work” means a notice issued by the Building Official to immediately suspend Construction.

“Unsafe to Occupy” means a notice issued by the Building Official that a Building has been deemed to be no longer safe.

“Work Without Permit” means Construction that has been carried out without a valid Permit or Permit record to prove otherwise.

(c) by deleting section 3.2 and replacing it with a new section 3.2 as follows:

The provisions of this Bylaw do not apply to Buildings exempted by Division A Part 1 of the Building Code, retaining structures less than 600 millimetres in height unless Section 8 of this Bylaw applies, or other structures that do not form part of a Building.

(d) by deleting section 4.1 and replacing it with a new section 4.1 as follows:

The Building Official may:

(a) enter, at all reasonable times, on or into any real property to determine whether the requirements of the Building Code and this Bylaw are being complied with;

(b) refuse to issue a Permit where in his or her opinion, following a limited review, the proposed construction will not substantially comply in all material respects with the requirements of the Building Code, this Bylaw, or any other relevant bylaw;

(c) revoke an issued Permit prior to issuance of the Occupancy Permit for any of the following reasons:

(i) for violation of any of the conditions under which the Permit was issued,

(ii) for violation of this or any other District bylaw, (iii) for violation of the Building Code, (iv) if an application is submitted that substantially alters the design

and structure of the approved Permit plans; (v) if any reason is found to exist which would have been cause for

denial of such Permit, if known to exist at the time of issuance of the Permit, or

(vi) if the Permit was issued in error.

(d) order the correction of any Construction which is in contravention of a Permit, the Building Code or this Bylaw;

(e) post a Stop Work notice, or otherwise order the cessation of Construction that is proceeding in contravention of a Permit, the Building Code or this Bylaw;

179


Page 9 of 18

(f) post a Work Without Permit notice where the Owner is notified of Construction carried out without a valid Permit as required pursuant to Section 6;

(g) declare a Building unsafe and post an Unsafe to Occupy or Do Not Occupy notice to the Owner and occupants that the Building is unsafe and continuing use of the Building may endanger the safety of the occupants in or around the Building;

(h) remove an Unsafe to Occupy or Do Not Occupy notice once all deficiencies are resolved and/or certification is received from an appropriate Registered Professional that the space is safe to occupy for its intended use; and

(i) waive the requirements for a site plan and/or title search, in whole or in part, where the Permit under Section 7 is sought for the alteration of an existing Building.

(e) by deleting section 5.2 and replacing it with a new section 5.2 as follows:

No person shall occupy or Permit the Occupancy of any building or part thereof:

(a) unless the Owner of the Building has obtained an Occupancy Permit from the Building Official, or

(b) contrary to the terms of any Permit, notice or order issued by the Building Official.

(f) by deleting section 6.2 and replacing it with a new section 6.2 as follows:

Prior to commencing any Construction authorized by a Permit issued pursuant to this Bylaw the Owner, or his or her Agent, shall give the Building Official written notice of the name, address and telephone number of:

(a) the contractor or other person in charge of the construction; and

(b) the Registered Professional reviewing the construction; and during the course of the construction shall give the Building Official written notice of any change in, or termination of, the services of such person immediately any such change or termination occurs.

(g) by inserting after clause 6.5 and new clauses 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8 as follows:

6.6 Every Owner using an Agent shall provide a letter, in a form acceptable to the Building Official, authorizing the Agent to act on behalf of the Owner with respect all matters pertaining to the Construction, Permits and undertakings that includes, but is not limited to, the following information:

i. the civic address and legal description of property where the Construction is to occur;

ii. the name and company/business (if applicable) of the Agent; iii. the full address and contact information of the Agent; iv. confirmation that the Agent is authorized to act on the Owner’s behalf

with respect to all matters pertaining to the Construction, Permits and undertakings on the property where the Construction is to occur in the District;

v. confirmation that the District is authorized to communicate with the Agent on all matters pertaining to the Construction, Permits and undertakings;

180


Page 10 of 18

vi. the name, address, and other contact information of the Owner(s) signing the letter;

vii. the name and contact information of the Witness to the letter; and viii. the signatures of the Owner (signing officer if the Owner is a

Corporation) and Witness.

6.7 When required to do so by the Building Official, every Owner of a Building subject to an Unsafe to Occupy or Do Not Occupy notice shall provide the Building Official with certification from an appropriate Registered Professional detailing the condition of the Building to continue the Occupancy of the Building for its approved use.

6.8 Every Owner, or his or her Agent, shall:

i. post the form, provided by the Building Official identifying the civic address and Permit number, on the property in conspicuous location that is visible from the street adjacent to the property;

ii. retain the approved Permit plans and all approved supporting documents on the property until issuance of the final Occupancy Permit.

(h) by deleting clause 7.1 (f) and replacing it with a new clause 7.1 (f) as follows:

be accompanied by payment of the non-refundable Permit application fee as are prescribed in section 3 of Schedule "A", to this Bylaw;

(i) by deleting clause 7.1 (g) and replacing it with a new clause 7.1 (g) as follows:

be accompanied by a letter, in a form acceptable to the Building Official, from the Owner or Agent acknowledging the Owner’s responsibility and undertaking with respect to the Construction that includes, but is not limited to, the following information:

i. the civic address and legal description of property where the Construction is to occur;

ii. a statement confirming the Owner is aware of the Construction is to occur;

iii. a statement confirming that the Owner is ultimately responsible for compliance with the Building Bylaw, Building Code and any other regulation or bylaw;

iv. an acknowledgement of the purpose, scope, warranty limitations and conditions contained in the District of Mission Building Bylaw;

v. the name, address, and other contact information of the Owner or Agent signing the letter; and

vi. the signature of the Owner (signing officer if the Owner is a Corporation) or Agent.

(j) by inserting after clause 7.1 (g) and adding new clauses 7.1 (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o) and (p) as follows:

(h) be accompanied by copies in scale, size, legibility and format, as specified by the Building Official, of the specifications and drawings of the Building or Structure showing all aspects of the proposed work;

181


Page 11 of 18

(i) be accompanied by zoning and Building Code analysis, which may be waived, in part or in whole, by the Building Official for agricultural and manufactured buildings;

(j) be accompanied by a copy of a title search made within 30 days of the date of the application together with all supporting documents, including, without limitation, copies of all registered rights of way, easements and covenants;

(k) be accompanied by a site plan showing:

i. the bearing and dimensions of the parcel taken from the registered subdivision plan;

ii. the legal description and civic address of the parcel; iii. the location and dimensions of all statutory rights of way, easements

and the District’s Zoning Bylaw setback requirements; iv. the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed Buildings or

Structures on the parcel, including on-site sewage disposal systems, if applicable;

v. setbacks to the natural boundary of any lake, swamp, pond or watercourse;

vi. the existing and finished ground levels to an established datum at or adjacent to the site and the geodetic elevation of the underside of the floor system of a Building where the District has established floor elevation requirements;

vii. the lot grading information required by the Development and Subdivision Control Bylaw;

viii. the location, dimension and gradient of parking and driveway access, and

ix. the information clearly identifying what is the District’s right of way from the property line to centre line of a Highway, including but not limited to location and labelling of any street lighting, existing curb and paving, street trees, rockpits, and connections and locations of underground District infrastructure, such as water, sewer and storm mains & services, fire hydrants, and electrical conduit associated with street lighting. All over head and underground franchise utilities must also be identified, including power, telecommunication, cable, including associated pole locations, and gas;

(l) be accompanied by floor plans showing the dimensions and uses of all areas; the dimensions and height of crawl and roof spaces; the location, size, swing and performance grade of doors; the location, size, opening and performance grade of windows; floor, wall, and ceiling finishes, including calculations to demonstrate compliance with the energy requirements of the Building Code; Plumbing fixtures; structural elements, including seismic requirements of the Building Code; and stair dimensions;

(m) be accompanied by cross-sections through the Building or structure illustrating foundations, drainage, ceiling heights and Construction systems;

(n) be accompanied by elevations of all sides of the Building or structure showing compliance with spatial separation, and finish details, including colours in cases where a Development Permit specifies the colour of exterior surfaces, roof slopes, windows, doors, roof height and finished grade;

182


Page 12 of 18

(o) be accompanied by cross-sectional details drawn at an appropriate scale and at sufficient locations to illustrate that the Building or structure substantially conforms to the Building Code;

(p) be accompanied by current posting and topographic survey of the land prepared by a British Columbia Land Surveyor.

(k) by deleting clause 7.2 (b) and replacing it with a new clause 7.2 (b) as follows:

the applicant for the Permit has paid the balance of fees and deposits prescribed in Schedule “A" to this Bylaw and any other applicable fees or charges required by bylaw.

(l) by deleting clause 7.3 and replacing it with a new clause 7.3 as follows:

An application for a Permit may be considered to have been abandoned and the Building Official may cancel the Permit application if:

(a) an applicant fails to obtain a Permit within 60 calendar days of being notified in writing that the same is ready for issuance, and any fee(s) paid in respect of such application shall be forfeited and any documentation submitted may be destroyed;

(b) an applicant fails to provide revised plans, documentation or other information to complete the application within 90 calendar days of being notified in writing, and any fee(s) paid in respect of such application shall be forfeited and any documentation submitted may be destroyed or returned to the applicant.

(m) by deleting clause 7.5 and replacing it with a new clause 7.5 as follows:

Upon application by the Owner or his or her Agent, and upon payment of the fees set out in Schedule "A" to this Bylaw, a Permit which has lapsed may be renewed in the same terms, and under the same conditions, as were applicable to a Permit which had been issued under Section 7.2.

(n) by deleting clause 7.7 and replacing it with a new clause 7.7 as follows:

When a Building Official considers that the site conditions, size or complexity of a development or an aspect of it warrant an Applicant for a Permit shall provide a certification by a Registered Professional by means of letters of assurance in form of Schedules A, B, C-A and C-B referred to in subsection 2.2.7, Division C, of the Building Code that the plans submitted with the application for the Permit, or specified aspects of those plans, substantially comply in all material respects with the Building Code and other applicable enactments respecting safety.

(o) by deleting clause 7.9 and replacing it with a new clause 7.9 as follows:

Permit application plans or supporting documentation that must be revised and require new plans or supporting documentation to be submitted which, in the opinion of the Building Official, will result in a new plan check of some or all of the revised material shall be subject to the fees for each iteration of the revised plans or supporting documentation as set out in Schedule “A" to this Bylaw and any other applicable fees or charges required by bylaw.

183


Page 13 of 18

(p) by deleting clause 7.10 and 7.11 and replacing it with new clauses 7.10 and 7.11 as follows:

7.10 As a condition of the issuance of a Permit, any inspection, or the acceptance of any Construction done under a Permit, the Building Official may require the Owner or his or her Agent to provide certification by a registered professional by means of letters of assurance in the form of Schedules A, B, C-A and C-B referred to in subsection 2.2.7, Division C, of the Building Code that the Construction, or an aspect of it, is in substantial compliance in all material respects with the Building Code.

7.11 When a Registered Professional provides certification in accordance with Section 7.7 or Section 7.10, or letters of assurance in form of Schedules A, B, C-A and C-B referred to in subsection 2.2.7, Division C, of the Building Code, the Building Official may require that person to provide proof of professional liability insurance to the satisfaction of the Building Official.

(q) by deleting clause 7.16 and replacing it with a new clause 7.16 as follows:

Authorization to Occupy.

(a) No person may occupy or use a Building or part of a Building until authorization to occupy has been given by a Building Official.

(b) A certificate by a British Columbia Land Surveyor, when required in Section 7.15, must be submitted to the Building Official for acceptance prior requesting for an authorization to occupy a Building.

(c) A Building Official may request the Owner to re-verify the Cost of Construction for the purposes of evaluating Permit fees prior to booking the final inspection, and the issuance of an Occupancy Permit.

(d) The Building Official will authorize the Occupancy of a Building when:

i. Letters of Assurance as determined by the Building Code have been submitted when required, in accordance with this Bylaw;

ii. all aspects of the Construction and acceptance of the Construction have been carried out pursuant to this Bylaw;

iii. all fees related to the Permit, as set out in Schedule “A" to this Bylaw and any other applicable fees or charges required by bylaw are paid in full; and

iv. in the case of a Building that is subject to any flood Construction level imposed by the District or the Local Government Act, the Owner has provided to the Building Official as-constructed drawings indicating the elevation of the lower surface of any floor system or pad that supports any space or room used for dwelling purposes, business or the storage of goods that susceptible to Damage by floodwaters;

(e) The Building Official may provisionally authorize Occupancy for a part of a Building specified in the authorization, for the duration granted, upon the request of the holder of a Permit or the Owner of a Building or his or her Agent for which a Permit has been issued; when:

184


Page 14 of 18

i. that part of the Building is self-contained, and the plumbing, electrical and heating work, for the portion that will be occupied, are completed and accepted by the Building Official;

ii. all fire and life safety items, and Building envelope items, are completed and accepted by the Building Official; and

iii. on payment of fees and security and compliance deposit, as set out in the Schedule “A" to this Bylaw and any other applicable fees or charges required by bylaw.

(f) No such authorization will relieve the Owner from their duty to comply with the conditions to which the provisional Occupancy was issued, the Building Code or this Bylaw with respect to any aspect of Construction of that or any other portion of the Building.

(r) by deleting clause 7.17 and replacing it with a new clause 7.17 as follows:

Revision of Issued Permit plans and supporting documentation.

(a) The plans and specifications for which a Permit has been issued shall not be altered unless such alteration is approved in writing by the Building Official and all fees related to the Permit revision, as set out in Schedule “A" to this Bylaw and any other applicable fees or charges required by bylaw are paid in full.

(b) No person shall do any Construction that is at variance with the description, plans and specifications submitted with the application for a Permit which has been issued pursuant to this Bylaw, unless such change has been approved in writing by the Building Official and all fees related to the Permit revision, as set out in Schedule “A" to this Bylaw and any other applicable fees or charges required by bylaw are paid in full.

(s) by deleting clause 7.18 and replacing it with a new clause 7.18 as follows:

Fees, Charges and Securities.

(a) When a certification has been provided under Section 7.7, and the Building Official has advised the applicant in writing that the Construction covered by the certification was relied on in issuing the Permit, the fee otherwise payable for that Permit under Schedule "A" shall be reduced by 5%.

(b) The fees and charges, based on the Cost of Construction, as prescribed in the Bylaw, are hereby imposed on every person who obtains from the District a Permit, or other service described in the Bylaw, prior to obtaining the Permit or service, and each such fee or charge is payable in accordance with the applicable regulations, requirements and conditions contained in this Bylaw.

(c) An application fee will be charged for all Permit applications, as set out in the Schedule "A", to ascertain the completeness and initial processing of the application. Where a Permit is issued, the Permit fee will be reduced by the application fee amount paid.

(d) The application fee, as set out in Schedule "A", must be paid upon application for a Permit.

185


Page 15 of 18

(e) The non-refundable application fee may only be refunded if the Permit application is withdrawn or cancelled by the Applicant before the plan review has begun, as determined by the Building Official.

(f) Where an Owner or his or her Agent applies, in writing, for the cancellation of a Permit issued under this Bylaw, the Permit may be cancelled and 50% of the portion of the Permit fee which is in excess of the application fee, if any, may be refunded to the holder of the Permit, provided:

i. the Permit had not lapsed at the time the application for cancellation was received;

ii. no construction was commenced under the Permit or an inspection was made.

(g) A re-inspection fee, as set out in the Schedule “A”, may be charged when:

i. an inspection is called prematurely (work not complete or ready for inspection);

ii. the pace of construction is such that multiple inspections of the same inspection type are required pursuant to the construction authorized by the Permit; or

iii. more than two inspections are required because the construction fails to comply with the Building Code or this Bylaw on the first inspection.

(h) The re-inspection fee required pursuant to 7.18 (g) must be paid prior to any further inspections being performed.

(i) The person requesting the inspection must pay an additional fee as set out in Schedule “A” when inspections are requested to be done after the hours during which the offices of the District are normally open.

(j) A Permit that has not expired may be transferred to a new Owner of the property to which it pertains, on payment of the transfer fee, as set out in Schedule "A".

(k) Every person obtaining a Permit must deposit with the District a security and compliance deposit in the form of an irrevocable Letter of Credit, or cash, as set out in Schedule "A".

(l) The District may use the security and compliance deposit to Repair any Damage to District Property occurring as a result of the carrying out of the work authorized by the Permit, or to clear any debris, materials, chattels or equipment that has accumulated or been left on District Property, on the failure of the Permit holder to Repair the Damage or clear the debris, materials, chattels or equipment, or to perform any erosion and sediment clean-up, to pay for any outstanding fees or charges, as set out in the Schedule “A”, against the property and to pay any unpaid, undisputed fine issued pursuant to the "District of Mission Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw 5700-2018”, including all amendments, for violations issued in relation to the Permit. The holder of the Permit is liable to the District for any costs in excess of the amount of the security and compliance deposit.

(m) The security and compliance deposit deposited under Section 7.18 (k) will be returned to the person who provided it after the date of issuance of an Occupancy Permit, other than a provisional authorization issued under

186


Page 16 of 18

Section 7.16 (e), if the Permit holder is not in default of any obligations for which the security and compliance deposit was provided.

(n) If the person who provided the security and compliance deposit under Section 7.18 (k) cannot be located, the security and compliance deposit will be administered in accordance with the Unclaimed Property Act SBC 1999, c. 48.

(o) If a Permit is transferred, the person to whom it is transferred must deposit the security and compliance deposit required by Section 7.18 (k), unless the person who provided that security and compliance deposit authorize the District, in writing, to hold the security and compliance deposit on behalf of the new Permit holder and waives their interest in the security and compliance deposit.

(p) If any work for which a Permit is required under this Bylaw is commenced before a Permit is issued, the Permit fees payable will be increased by 100% of those set out in the Schedule “A”.

(q) A Building Official may request an additional security and compliance deposit against the Construction authorized by the Permit equivalent in value to the security and compliance deposit currently being held pursuant to section 7 of Schedule “A” as security against an approved lot grading or drainage plan, or for any outstanding work that are identified for a provisional Occupancy, including unfinished asphalt paving.

(r) An Occupancy Permit fee as provided in Schedule “A” shall be charged when:

i. no construction requiring a Permit is required to change or confirm a use in a Building; or,

ii. more than 365 days have lapsed since a Permit’s last failed final inspection and the passed final inspection.

(s) An Owner requesting the District discharge a Land Title Notice from a property shall pay the fee as set out in the Schedule “A”.

(t) by deleting clause 7.19 (a) and replacing it with a new clause 7.19 (a) as follows:

(a) for the construction of a storage shed or other similar building that is an accessory building to single family or two-family dwelling units where such buildings do not exceed 10 square meters (107.6 square feet) in floor area.

(u) by inserting after clause 7.20 and new clauses 7.21, and 7.22 as follows:

7.21 When the application is in respect of a Building that includes, or will include, a residential Occupancy, the Permit must not be issued, unless the applicant provides evidence, pursuant to Section 22 of the HomeOwner Protection Act SBC 1998, c. 31, that:

i. the proposed Building is covered by home warranty insurance, and the constructor is a Licensed Residential Builder; or

ii. the Owner has provided an Owner Builder Declaration and Disclosure Notice Authorization, as required by Section 19 of the HomeOwner Protection Act Regulation BC. Reg. 29/99.

187


Page 17 of 18

7.22 An Owner or Agent requesting the District inspect their property to determine the Building Code requirements to upgrade an existing unauthorized suite to become compliant with the Building Code shall first pay the fee as set out in the Schedule “A”.

(v) by deleting clause 8.1 & 8.2 and replacing it with a new clauses 8.1 & 8.2 as follows:

8.1 A Registered Professional shall undertake the design and conduct field reviews of the Construction of a Retaining Structure over 600 mm in height measured from the lowest adjacent grade, or stepped-type retaining structures having an overall slope greater than 2H:1V (2 horizontal to 1 vertical) with each step of the structure exceeding 600 mm in height.

8.2 Any Retaining Structure over 600 mm in height will require a Permit application unless the Retaining Structure has been shown on the initial Building Permit application. The Permit application must be accompanied by a site plan, design drawings for structural and drainage, signed and sealed by a Registered Professional and provide certification from a Registered Professional by means of the applicable letters of assurance in the form of Schedules A, B, C-A and C-B referred to in subsection 2.2.7, Division C, of the Building Code. Schedule C-B from the Registered Professional is required by the Building Official prior to obtaining final approval.

(w) by inserting after clause 8.4 and new clauses 8.5 and 8.6 as follows:

8.5 A Permit is required for a Retaining Structure erected on a property in a geohazard area or a property subject to a geotechnical study.

8.6 Retaining Structures that are 600 mm (2 foot) in height or greater, measured from the lowest adjacent grade, including stepped-type retaining walls having an overall slope greater than 2H:1V (2 horizontal to 1 vertical) despite the height of any individual wall not exceeding 1.0 meter shall be constructed of concrete (poured in place or precast), masonry or rock landscaping products.

(x) by deleting clause 11.1 and 11.2 replacing it with a new clauses as follows:

11.1 Subject to the offence and penalties as provided under the Community Charter or Local Government Act, the following will apply:

(a) a violation of any of the provisions identified in this Bylaw will be subject to the procedures, restrictions, limits, obligations and rights established in the Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw 5700-2018, in accordance with the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act, SBC 2003, c. 60;

(b) a person who:

i. contravenes, violates or fails to comply with any provision of this Bylaw;

188


Page 18 of 18

a. Permits or allows any act or thing to be done in contravention or violation of this Bylaw; or

ii. fails or neglects to do anything required to be done under this Bylaw, has committed an infraction of, or an offence against, this Bylaw; and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00); and

(c) each day such infraction is caused, or allowed to continue, constitutes a separate offence.

11.2 No person shall conduct Construction work on a property on which a Stop Work notice has been posted, as authorized under Section 4.1 (e) until all applicable provisions of this Bylaw have been substantially complied with, and the Stop Work notice has been rescinded, in writing, by a Building Official.

11.3 No person shall occupy or use a Building in respect of which a Do Not Occupy or an Unsafe to Occupy notice, as authorized under Section 4.1 (g), has been posted until all applicable provisions of the Building Code and this Bylaw have been substantially complied with, and the Do Not Occupy notice or Unsafe to Occupy notice has been rescinded, in writing, by a Building Official.

11.4 The Owner of property on which a Work Without Permit notice has been posted, as authorized under Section 4.1 (f), must make a Permit application forthwith upon receiving the notice, or forthwith upon receiving the notice remove the unpermitted work.

11.5 Where the provisional Occupancy, issued under Section 7.16 (e), expires and the outstanding work is not completed, the Building Official may initiate the process for registering a notice in the land title office under Section 57 of the Community Charter on the basis that the inspection of the Permit was not satisfactorily completed.

(y) by deleting Schedule “B” and renaming the existing Schedule “C” as a new Schedule “B”:

READ A FIRST TIME this 19th day of August, 2019

READ A SECOND TIME this 19th day of August, 2019

READ A THIRD TIME this 19th day of August, 2019


189

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5848-2019-5700(2)

A Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw 5700-2018"

WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission did, on the 19th day of February, 2018, enact a bylaw cited as "District of Mission Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw 5700-2018”; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable to amend the said Bylaw; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw Amending Bylaw 5848-2019-5700(2)".

2. "District of Mission Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw 5700-2018”, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows:

(a) by deleting Schedule “4” and replacing it with a new Schedule “4” as follows:

Offence Section

Fine Effective 2018

A1 Penalty

A2 Early

Payment Penalty

A3 Late

Payment Penalty

A4 Compliance Agreement Available

Construction without permit 5(1) $450 $350 $500 Yes

Occupy building without approval 5.2(a) $450 $350 $500 No

Occupy building contrary to Permit 5.2(b) $450 $350 $500 No

Continue noncompliant construction

5.4 $450 $350 $500 No

Tamper with notice 5.5 $450 $350 $500 No

Construction contrary to permit 5.6 $450 $350 $500 No

Interfere with/Obstruction Inspection

5.7 $450 $350 $500 No

Fail to uncover construction 6.4 $450 $350 $500 No

Fail to post civic address 6.5 $450 $350 $500 No

Fail to provide certification 6.7 $450 $350 $500 No

Fail to post Permit form 6.8 i. $150 $100 $200 No

190

District of Mission Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw Amending Bylaw 5848-2019-5700(2)

Page 2 of 2

Fail to retain Approved Plans on site 6.8 ii. $150 $100 $200 No

Wood Retaining Structure over 300 mm

8.6 $450 $350 $500 No

Fail to fence pool 10.2 $450 $350 $500 No

Construction after Stop Work Order 11.2 $450 $350 $500 No

Occupy Building Contrary to Notice 11.3 $450 $350 $500 No

Fail to make Permit Application 11.4 $450 $350 $500 No

(b) by deleting Schedule “5” and replacing it with a new Schedule “5” as follows:

Offence Section

Fine Effective 2018

A1 Penalty

A2 Early

Payment Penalty

A3 Late

Payment Penalty

A4 Compliance Agreement Available

Unauthorized Use 103(A)(1) $450 $350 $500 Yes

Fail to Provide Access/Obstruct Inspection

103(C)(3) $450 $350 $500 No



READ A THIRD TIME this 19th day of August, 2019


191

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5854-2019

A Bylaw to terminate “District of Mission Land Use Contract Bylaw 651-1978” and

“District of Mission Land Use Contract Amendment Bylaw 3569-2003-651(2)” WHEREAS Council of the District of Mission, under Section 137 of the Community Charter, has the power to amend or repeal bylaws; AND WHEREAS Council of the District of Mission, under Section 548 of the Local Government Act, has the power to terminate a land use contract that applies to land within the jurisdiction of the local government; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission did on:

a) the 6th day of March, 1978 enact a bylaw cited as “District of Mission Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 651-1978”; and

b) the 2nd day of June, 2003 enact a bylaw cited as “District of Mission Land Use Contract Amendment Bylaw 3569-2003-651(2)”;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Land Use Contract Repeal Bylaw 5854-2019”.

2. The Land Use Contract 651-1978 between the District of Mission and Wilfred Contzen, for the property located at 32516 – 14th Avenue and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 007-025-211 Legal Description: Lot “A” (P87176) Section 20 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 43652

is hereby discharged.

3. “District of Mission Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 651-1978” and “District of Mission Land Use Contract Amendment Bylaw 3569-2003-651(2)” are hereby repealed.




PUBLIC HEARING held this 3rd day of September, 2019

READ A THIRD TIME this 3rd day of September, 2019

ADOPTED THIS __ day of ___, 2019

PAMELA ALEXIS JENNIFER RUSSELL MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

192

DISTRICT OF MISSION TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TP14-001 (Renewal)

Issued to:

3432 Investments Ltd., Inc. 365227

Ambar Holdings Ltd. Inc. 35477 3909 Investments Ltd., Inc. 480947

(Owners as defined in the Local Government Act, hereinafter referred to as the Permittee)

Address:

307 – 20189 – 56th Avenue Langley, BC V3A 3Y6

2100 – 1075 West Georgia St. Vancouver, BC V6E 3G2

2100 – 1075 West Georgia St. Vancouver, BC V6E 3G2

1. This Temporary Use Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of the Bylaws of the Municipality

applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this permit.

2. This Temporary Use Permit applies to and only to those lands within the Municipality legally described below, and any and all buildings, structures and development thereon: Parcel Identifier: 028-244-834 Parcel A (BEING A CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 17 AND 18, SEE BB1277189) BLOCK 41 DISTRICT LOT 411 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN 594

3. The said lands are zoned Commercial Highway One (CH1) pursuant to “District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009” as amended.

“District of Mission Zoning Bylaw” as amended is hereby supplemented in respect of the said lands as follows:

(a) This permit allows for a post and beam dry storage shed for cedar shakes.

(b) The allowable use, outlined in this permit, shall be permitted to be conducted on the said lands for a maximum of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the permit and the use of the property for those purposes is subject to the following conditions:

ii. No permanent buildings shall be constructed, installed or erected on the property.

iii. Upon expiry of this permit, the Permittee shall remove all structures from the property.

iv. A letter of credit in the amount of $20,000 to ensure removal of any temporary building or structure or accessory building established to accommodate the temporary use and restore the land to a “found” condition within 30 days of the expiry of the permit.

v. This permit may not be renewed. However, the owner may apply for a new 3-year permit.

vi. All proposed signage on the site must be in accordance with the District of Mission Sign Bylaw 1662-1987 and approved by the Development Services Department.

(c) This permit shall lapse three (3) years after the date of issuance or upon breach of its terms and conditions.

(d) The land described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions and provisions of this permit and any plans and specifications attached to this permit shall form a part hereof.

Minor changes to the aforesaid drawings that do not affect the intent of this permit and the general appearance of the buildings and character of the development may be permitted, subject to the approval of the Development Services Department.

4. The land described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions and provisions of this permit and any plans and specifications attached to this permit shall form a part hereof.

5. The terms of this permit, or any amendment to it, are binding on all persons who acquire an interest in the land affected by this permit.

6. This permit is not a building permit. A building permit(s) must be obtained for all buildings to be located on the property associated with this permit.

AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION NO. RC16/036 passed by the Council on the 18th day of January, 2016.

193

TEMPORARY USE PERMIT Page 2 TP14-001

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Temporary Use Permit is hereby issued by the Municipality signed by the

Mayor and Corporate Officer the ____ day of September , 2019.

______________________________ ______________________________ Temporary Use Permit TP14-001 G:\COMDEV\DEVELOPMENT PERMIT & TP WORKING FILES\TP's for signing\SIG TP14-001.docx

194

Corporate Administration Staff Report




FROM: Christine Brough, Executive Assistant

SUBJECT: Resolutions Released from Closed Council – September 3, 2019 Closed Meeting

This report is being provided for information purposes. Council action is not required.

At the September 3, 2019 Closed Council meeting, the following information was released from Closed Council:

Mission Sustainable Housing Committee Appointments

That the following individuals were appointed to the Mission Sustainable Housing Committee for two-year terms, commencing October 3, 2019 and ending October 2, 2021:

• Gerald Heinrichs, as the “housing provider, builder or housing agency” representative; and

• Annie Charker, as the “citizen” representative.

SIGN-OFFS:

Christine Brough, Executive Assistant Comment from Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed.

195

2019/09/16 · regular council meeting agenda september 16, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. council chambers 8645...

Documents