staff report to council - city of prince george · staff report to council . planning and...
Post on 01-Jun-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Document Number: 296971
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
1100 Patricia Boulevard, Prince George, B.C., V2L 3V9
DATE: April 7 2014
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: IAN WELLS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Official Community Plan Amendment Application No. CP100089 (Bylaw No. 8584),
Rezoning Application No. RZ100451 (Bylaw No. 8585) to facilitate an intensive rural
residential subdivision and, Land Use Contract Discharge Application No. LU000030
(Bylaw No. 8117) to discharge the Land Use Contract authorized by Bylaw No. 2950.
Applicant: L&M Engineering Ltd. for Wilmark Homes Ltd., Inc. No. 0199454
Location: 4257 Blackburn Road
ATTACHMENT(S):
- Location and Zoning Map
- Appendix “A” to CP100089, Bylaw No. 8584
- Appendix “B” to CP100089, Bylaw No. 8584
- Appendix “C” to CP100089, Bylaw No. 8584
- Appendix “D” to CP100089, Bylaw No 8584
- Appendix “A” to RZ100451, Bylaw No. 8585
- Appendix “A” to LU000030, Bylaw No. 8117
- Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 2950, 1976
- Land Use Contract Land Title Office Document No. PGM8141
–Official Community Plan Consultation Checklist & Direct Notification Area Map
- Province of BC Information Bulletin: Miscellaneous statutes bill introduced
- Supporting Documents
i CJTYOF
PRINCE GEORGE
Document Number: 296971
PURPOSE:
The 45.5 ha subject property is located along the southern perimeter of the Blackburn neighbourhood. The
applicant is proposing to amend the Official Community Plan (OCP), the Zoning Bylaw, and the Land Use Contract on
title to facilitate a subdivision of the subject property into 84 residential lots, no smaller than 0.4 ha. The proposed
subdivision would feature approximately 2.5 km of new road, 3.6 ha of parkland dedication, and City water and
sanitary services.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT Council Receive Application No. CP100089 to amend City of Prince George Official Community Plan
Bylaw No. 8383, 2011 by:
a) AMENDING Schedule B-6: Future Land Use by re-designating a PORTION of the South East ¼ of
District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan 18283 from Rural B to Parks and Open Space, as
shown on Appendix “A” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;
b) AMENDING Schedule B-6: Future Land Use by re-designating a PORTION of the South East ¼ of
District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan 18283 from Rural B to Rural C, as shown on
Appendix “A” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;
c) AMENDING Schedule B-14: Water Network Improvements to INCLUDE the servicing of the
subject property as future projects – development demand warranted, as shown on Appendix
“B” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;
d) AMENDING Schedule B-15: Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Improvements to INCLUDE the
servicing of the subject property as future projects – development demand warranted, as shown
on Appendix “C” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;
e) REMOVING Water Supply and Distribution Policy 8.8.9 and REPLACING it with a new Water
Supply and Distribution Policy 8.8.9, as shown on Appendix “D” to Amendment Bylaw No. 8584,
2014;
f) REMOVING Sewage Collection and Wastewater Treatment Policy 8.8.11 and REPLACING it with a
new Sewage Collection and Wastewater Treatment Policy 8.8.11, as shown on Appendix “D” to
Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;
2. THAT Council DENY FIRST READING to the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383,
2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014.
3. THAT Council RECEIVE Application No. RZ100451 to amend City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw 7850,
2007 by:
a) Rezoning a PORTION of the South East ¼ of District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan
18283 from AF: Agriculture and Forestry to AR3: Rural Residential, as shown on Appendix “A” to
Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014.
b) Rezoning a PORTION of the South East ¼ of District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan
18283 from AF: Agriculture and Forestry to P1: Parks and Recreation, as shown on Appendix “A”
to Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014.
4. THAT Council DENY FIRST and SECOND READING to City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw No. 7850, 2007,
Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014.
Document Number: 296971
The application to support the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use and growth management
policy direction within the OCP. There is strong policy support to limit the development potential of the subject
property to more moderate rural residential uses (i.e. 2 ha lots), without the expansion of City water and sanitary
services.
Administration recommends that Council deny this application. However, should Council approve this application for
1st and 2nd Reading, Administration recommends that the scheduling of Public Hearing and 3rd Reading be withheld
until a Phased Development Agreement (PDA) bylaw is prepared for Council’s consideration. A PDA is an agreement
between the land owner and the City that locks in rezoning changes and establishes the phasing of a development
over a specified period of time, usually up to 10 years. A failure by the land owner to develop under the terms of the
phased development agreement could result in the repeal of the rezoning changes considered in this report. Most
aspects of the proposed development would be detailed in the agreement, including, but not limited to: phasing,
subdivision design, parkland dedication, servicing standards, infrastructure standards, transportation impacts, and
buffering adjacent to ALR lands. The preparation of the phased development agreement involves significant staff
time and resources and will only be pursued by staff with Council’s direction.
BACKGROUND:
Site Characteristics
Location 4257 Blackburn Road
Current Uses Vacant Rural Land
Site Area 45.5 ha
Official Community Plan
Future Land Use Rural B – Minimum lot size of 2 hectares
Growth Management Rural - On-site private water well and septic systems
Proposed Future Land Use Rural C – Minimum lot size of 0.4 hectares
Existing Growth Management Infill – City water and sanitary servicing systems
Zoning Bylaw
Existing Zone AF: Agriculture and Forestry – Minimum lot size of 15 ha
Supportable Zone at Rezoning AR2: Rural Residential – Minimum lot size of 2 ha
Supportable Servicing On-site private water well and septic systems
Proposed Zone AF: Agriculture and Forestry – Minimum lot size of 0.4 hectares
Proposed Servicing Expansion of City water and sanitary services
Surrounding Land Use Table
North 64 hectare lot in the Agricultural Land Reserve
South 112 hectare lot in the Regional District of Fraser Fort George and in
the Agricultural Land Reserve
East 0.75 to 2 ha rural lots, Blackburn Road, Midland Road
West 2 ha to 12 ha rural lots, Marston Road, Old Cariboo Highway
POLICY ANALYSIS:
The subject property covers 45.5 ha along the southern perimeter of the Blackburn Neighbourhood. Surrounding
land uses include rural resource lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) to the north and south, un-serviced
rural lots to the east and west, and serviced residential lots running north along Blackburn Road. This application is
intended to facilitate the subdivision and development of the subject property into 84 rural residential lots, no
smaller than 0.4 ha, with City water and sanitary servicing. The proposed subdivision would also feature
approximately 2.5 km of new road and 3.6 ha of parkland dedication. The specific amendments that are required to
facilitate the proposed subdivision, and which are considered in this report, are as follows:
Document Number: 296971
Official Community Plan Amendments:
- Re-designate the subject property’s B-6: Future Land Use designation from Rural B (minimum lot area of 2
ha) to Rural C (minimum lot area of 0.4 ha) and Parks and Open Space.
- Amend Utilities and Drainage Policy 8.8.11 and Schedule B-14: Water Network Improvements to add a
future development demand project to upgrade and extend water servicing from Blackburn Road south to
Midland Road and into the subject property.
- Amend Utilities and Drainage Policy 8.8.11 and Schedule B-15: Sewer and Wastewater Treatment
Improvements to add a future development demand project to upgrade the sanitary servicing from Giscome
Road to its terminus along Blackburn Road South and upgrade and extend from its terminus along
Blackburn Road South to Midland Road.
The details of the upgrades and extensions proposed in the OCP Schedules and policies identifies the City
of Prince George preferences for the location of these upgrades and extensions, and actual location and
location can be accommodated through the design phase.
Zoning Bylaw Amendments:
- Rezone the subject property from AF: Agriculture and Forestry (minimum lot area of 15 ha) to a portion of
AR3: Rural Residential (minimum lot area of 0.4 ha) and a portion of P1: Parks and Recreation.
Land Use Contract Amendment:
- Discharge an outdated 1977 Land Use Contract that established conditions and approvals for an urban
318 lot subdivision of the subject property.
Official Community Plan Policy Analysis
The Official Community Bylaw No. 8383, 2011 (OCP) is the overarching statement of objectives and policies to guide
decisions on planning and land use management within the City. The OCP references and incorporates the direction
of many subject specific plans and policies, including the myPG Sustainability Plan, the Active Transportation Plan,
and the current Financial Plan. The collective of this policy direction is not in support of the application.
Land Use Policy
The subject property is designated Rural B on Schedule B-6: Future Land Use of the OCP. The Rural B designation
supports a maximum lot size of 2 ha. Policy 8.3.109 describes the supportive types of uses in these areas: “small
farms, contracting, forestry and similar activities that make good use of the land and rural context,” with “very
limited development, including low-intensity residential use, hobby farms and similar uses.” Rural B areas often
function as a transition between rural resource lots (>15 ha) and more intensive rural residential lots (>0.4 ha).
The applicant would like to re-designate the subject property from Rural B to Rural C to facilitate a residential
development lots no smaller than 0.4 ha.
Urban/Rural Edge
Policy 8.1.5 of the OCP states that the Blackburn area should reflect “a strong urban/rural edge” that supports
“agriculture through [the] integration of urban and rural areas.” The rural edge of the Blackburn neighbourhood
includes the subject property and the adjacent ALR lands to the north regulated for large parcels and zoned for
agricultural and forestry uses. The proposed development presents a sprawling expansion of serviced residential
lots that encroach into the rural edge of the neighbourhood. The proposed development would be isolated from the
rural context that exists west of Blackburn Road; for example, the subject property is sandwiched between two ALR
tracts with farmland potential. Intensive rural residential uses could adversely affect the agricultural pursuits of
these ALR lands due to the increase of dogs, ATVs and nuisance complaints from residents. Therefore, the proposed
rezoning and re-designation of the subject property weakens the strong urban/rural edge in the Blackburn
neighbourhood and the integration of residential and rural uses.
Document Number: 296971
The proposed subdivision would be situated in a rural context
The proposed subdivision, outlined in black, is outside
of the City serviced infill area identified in grey.
Document Number: 296971
Complete Communities
Creating complete communities is also a main principle of the OCP with the aim to “make it easy for people to shop,
play and work close to home” and to emphasize, “a range of attractive mobility choices, including walking, cycling,
and transit.” This land use management approach directs residential growth and capital investment towards priority
areas, as described in Section 8.1.10 and 8.1.11:
8.1.10 The City should prioritize public investments to Growth Priority Areas, including capital investments in
transit, biking/walking infrastructure, streetscape improvements, parks and other public open spaces...
8.1.11 …the City should prioritize neighbourhood planning in and around Growth Priority areas. These plans
should take a “complete community” approach, including situating the plan area in the context of the
surrounding urban structure…and relating residential development and densities to the urban structure and to
design principles for walkable communities.
The Blackburn neighbourhood offers limited services beyond an elementary school and a community hall. The lack
of services results in residents having longer vehicle trips to meet everyday needs. The proposed development
would be considerable distance from common destinations such as highschools (Duchess Park – 12.3km) or
commercial centres (Parkwood Shopping Centre – 12.1 km). Without any conventional public transit routes in the
Blackburn neighbourhood, these longer trips are almost entirely dependent on the private vehicle. There are also no
formalized pedestrian or cycling routes serving the Blackburn area at present. The Active Transportation Plan (2010)
identifies the potential to create a shared Bike/Traffic lane along Blackburn Road and Giscome Road in medium
term forecast, but any trail or cycling connection from the Blackburn area to the Downtown is a low priority.
The Blackburn neighbourhood does not feature the characteristics of a complete community at present. It is
possible that the neighbourhood could see intensive residential growth, commercial development, and improved
amenities in the future. If significant development pressures exceed the capacity for growth, then a rezoning of the
rural subject property for serviced residential lots could be reassessed. However, there is still capacity for residential
growth north of Giscome Road. Rezoning the subject property now is premature as it would displace new growth
from the more urban residential neighbourhoods to the north.
Growth Management
The proposed subdivision would be serviced by an extension of City sanitary and water servicing. The City would
request that the terminus of the water and sanitary systems be extended south to the property frontage at Midland
Road. The developer will be required to upgrade the water system to meet the necessary fire flow standards.
Upgrading the water system to meet the fire flow standards is currently not identified as a capital project for the City,
and the City’s Water Master Plan is underway to address current fire demand deficiencies to set these priorities.
The subject property is designated as Rural on Schedule B4: Growth Management of the Official Community Plan.
Policy 8.1.18 states the “the City should not extend or provide new City water, sanitary or storm services to rural
areas, except where Northern Health considers there would be substantial benefits to local water quality and water
security.” Northern Health has not indicated that there would not be any substantial benefits to local water quality
and water security as a result of this application.
Expanding services beyond the urban/rural edge of Schedule B4: Growth Management requires additional
resources to service, including fire protection, public transit, road maintenance, snow clearing, and refuse collection.
To provide more efficient services, the OCP directs growth towards more established neighbourhood areas that have
been identified for future growth and servicing. For the subject property, being in a rural area adjacent to farmland,
the goal is to “to minimize further infrastructure expansions now and instead focus City spending on addressing
capacity limitations…” Therefore, the long-term cost associated with the indefinite maintenance and operation of
proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s asset management policies.
The applicant has stated a willingness to develop the subject property as bare land strata, where the servicing and
the roads are owned and maintained by the residents of the proposed subdivision through a private strata
corporation. The strata corporation would be responsible to pay for the maintenance of these services indefinitely,
including water and sanitary systems, roads, and snow clearing. The City would still be responsible to service the
subdivision with fire protection, police services and refuse collection.
Document Number: 296971
The bare land strata format would allow the City to avoid maintenance costs; however, whether private or public,
Administration has concerns with the expansion of infrastructure into rural areas. In the case of a bare land strata, if
the costs to maintain the servicing and roads where eventually cost prohibitive for the residents, or if a major failure
in the private infrastructure occurred, the City would likely be looked to for technical or financial support as what
occurs today.
The bare land strata format is more commonly used to facilitate alternative infrastructure standards or innovative
land uses such as clustered housing. Administration does not support bare land strata as an alternative to City
services solely to avoid and download costs to strata corporations. This rationale could establish the precedent for
other bare land strata proposals when the required infrastructure is inconsistent with the City’s growth management
and asset management objectives.
Administration recognizes that there are other Rural C designated areas in the City that are delivered full City
services; however, many of these areas were subdivided before the City was incorporated in 1975 (e.g. North
Nechako, Estate Road, Western Acres). The Valleyview subdivision was created after 1975 because it is adjacent to
an urban neighbourhood and nearby the full-service Hart Commercial Centre. In the case of the Blackburn
neighbourhood, approving serviced residential lots in a previously rural area without essential services nearby could
provide a precedent for similar proposals that involve the outward expansion of service delivery. Therefore, the long-
term cost associated with the indefinite maintenance and operation of proposed development is inconsistent with
the City’s asset management policies.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
Zoning Bylaw
The subject property is zoned AF: Agriculture and Forestry, which has the purpose to “conserve and manage
agricultural and forestry land by providing for a compatible range of uses with regulations that maintain parcels of
at least 15.0 ha. The zone also provides for… complementary residential related uses that are compatible with the
secondary residential role of an agricultural and forestry area.”
The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to AR3: Rural Residential and P1: Parks and Open Space
to facilitate a subdivision of the subject property into 84 residential lots with parkland dedication. The proposed
development aligns with the purpose of the AR3 zone to provide for “suburban lifestyle primarily on properties larger
than 0.4 ha.” The P1 zone would provide approximately 3.5 ha of parkland dedication in the south end of the
proposed development, with the purpose to “to provide for the preservation and enhancement of open space while
supporting limited, complementary secondary uses.”
The proposed AR3 zone is not compatible with the rural character of the area west of Blackburn Road. Land use
management in this area is meant to protect this rural character, to conserve the agricultural potential of the area,
and to limit the sprawl of infrastructure. Therefore, Administration does not support the proposed rezoning of the
subject property from AF: Agriculture and Forestry to AR3: Rural Residential and P1: Parks and Recreation.
Land Use Contract
A Land Use Contract is a contract that exists between the owner of a specific property and the municipality. This
approach was used through the 1970s as a means to negotiate the terms and conditions of subdivision and
development in a City or Regional District. The contract may describe the subject lands, the uses permitted, the
regulations for siting of building, the use of parks, landscaping requirements, and other development criteria. Many
Land Use Contracts are still in effect throughout the City of Prince George.
A Land Use Contract was registered to the legal title of the subject property in 1977, by bylaw. The intent was to
develop a 318 lot subdivision on the subject property with an average residential lot size of 890 m2. The subdivision
plan provided for park space, an elementary school and shopping uses. The residential density of the land use
contract far exceeds the rural uses contemplated by the Official Community Plan (i.e. 2 ha lots). Further, the zoning
assigned to the subject property, both in the 1980 Zoning Bylaw and the 2007 Zoning Bylaw, has been for
agriculture or forestry.
The land use contract supersedes zoning regulations; however, the developer never pursued the development of the
property under the terms and conditions of the contract. Certain conditions have been breached since the adoption of
the land use contract, such as stated in Schedule K: “The Developer shall have available for housing development 50
Document Number: 296971
lots by September, 1979 and shall develop a minimum of 25 lots in each year thereafter.” Also, the proposed servicing
for the land use contract is inconsistent with current development standards for infrastructure such as water servicing
systems. For the reasons above, and because the applicant is proposing a completely different development
concept for the subject property than what is proposed in the land use contract, Administration recommends that
Council approve the discharge of the land use contract.
Section 930 of the Local Government Act provides that a land use contract may be amended (modified, varied or
discharged) by bylaw, “in a manner specified in the land use contract.” The Land Use Contract contains the following
provision:
37. (1.) The City may, by resolution adopted by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of
Council present and eligible to vote at any time, on or after (10) years from the date of registration of
this agreement at the Land Registry Office, unilaterally terminate all or any part of this agreement.
Discharging the land use contract ensures that the subdivision and development controls for the subject property
are clearly under the direction of the Official Community Plan, the Zoning Bylaw, and all other City bylaws. With
respect to development potential and property valuation, Administration has received confirmation from BC
Assessment that the 1977 land use contract is not considered in the property’s assessment. The subject property’s
rural zoning, AF: Agriculture and Forestry, has been used to value the property as single large acreage lot with farm
land potential and that is not in the ALR. The subject property is currently valued on farm class.
Should any land use changes proceed for the subject property, discharging the Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 2950
would be recommended. The land use contract could eventually be terminated through provincial legislation. Bill 17,
2014, the Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act was introduced to the legislature on March 10, 2014, and
provides for the termination of all land use contracts in affected BC municipalities and regional districts on the
“sunset” date of June 30, 2022. It also provides that compensation is not payable with regard to land use decisions
for the termination of land use contracts, which extends the current no-compensation provisions currently provided
under Section 914 of the Local Government Act. Part of the intent of this legislation, as described in an attached
bulletin, is to “allow modern land use policies and practices to replace outdated land use contracts.”
FINANCIAL AND STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS:
Section 1.5 of the Official Community Plan considers how land use issues may impact the financial health of the
City. These issues are as follows:
a) avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be
provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner;
b) settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and efficient
use of public transit;
c) economic development that supports the unique character of this community;
d) reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution;
e) providing adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement, including sufficient
lands and amenities such as public facilities, waste treatment and disposal, parks and recreation;
f) settlement patterns that reduce the risk associated with hazards; and,
g) planning for energy supply and promoting the efficient use, conservation and alternate forms of energy.
Developing serviced residential subdivision on vacant rural land with agricultural potential is a characteristic of
development sprawl. The term sprawl often refers to settlement patterns that feature some or all of the following
characteristics: subdivision of unused agricultural land; large residential lots; tie-in to municipal services; lack of
public transit and pedestrian connections; and, considerable distance to other land uses. The proposed rezoning
and subsequent subdivision has the characteristics of sprawl.
More recent strategic documents reinforce the potentially adverse impacts of urban sprawl. The Core Services
Review Implementation Plan was approved by Council at their regular meeting on July 8, 2013. With respect to
development, Section 2.57 of the Implementation Plan states the Council Decision:
That Administration continue to ensure that recommendations in land use and spending decisions
align with Asset Management Policy and OCP Growth Management Objectives and Policies to prioritize
development within existing urban areas,” with supporting discussion stating that “the City is
Document Number: 296971
experiencing larger deferred maintenance issues as a result of urban sprawl. Further expansions must
be minimized to ensure a high quality of life with adequate levels of service aligned to manageable
fees and taxes.
The 2012-2014 Council Priorities, approved by Council at their regular meeting on January 23, 2012, states the
following asset management goal:
Sustainable Infrastructure: The City efficiently manages the procurement, construction, maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement of its physical assets considering lifecycle cost, risk, and service level
continuity.
The excerpts above demonstrate the City’s financial and strategic commitment to limit the sprawl of servicing and
development into rural edges outside of the growth priority and infill areas where significant capacity for new
development already exists. Based the considerations above, Administration believes that the proposed rezoning,
OCP amendment and subsequent subdivision is not in the financial best interests of the City.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
Community Meeting
A Community Meeting was held on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, with over 20 people attending to receive
public input on the development of the subject property. The applicant summarized the input provided at the
community meeting in the enclosed report. As stated in the report, there were three main issues brought forward at
the meeting:
Transportation: Marston Road terminates at the west perimeter of the subject property. The road provides
access to four residential properties, three of which are duplexes. Residents of these properties were
concerned about traffic into the proposed subdivision if Marston Road were extended. The applicant has
suggested that Marston Road could act as an access for emergency vehicles into the subdivision, with the
main access off of Blackburn Road.
Drainage: Residents along Marston road commented that there have been drainage issues in the area. The
applicants are proposing a storm pond with sufficient capacity to accommodate the drainage from the
property.
City servicing: Residents expressed support for the proposed servicing of City sanitary and water systems.
Some residents lived on Blackburn Road south and were interested in the possibility of a closer connection
to their property.
Seniors housing: the applicant’s letter dated March 31, 2014 suggested that the surrounding residents
expressed interest in having more seniors housing (see Supporting Documents).
Referrals
The application was referred out to internal City Departments and external agencies. The following concerns were
received:
Regional District of Fraser Fort George - The Regional District commented that a significant increase in
residential density of the area, as is proposed, typically has a negative impact on agricultural pursuits from
dogs, ATVs and complaints from residents about agriculture related noise and odors.
City of Prince George Fire Services - Fire Services reviewed the application and expressed concern with
response times. A recent incident near Zilkie Road took over seven (7) minutes to respond to with an engine
responding Code 3 (lights and sirens). Development that encroaches into the rural edges of the City is a
concern for Fire Services as there is more taxing on resource when incidents do occur.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the application
2. Refuse the application
3. Approve the application as amended
4. Defer or otherwise deal with the application
Document Number: 296971
The Department recommends that Council deny this application. However, should Council support this application to
move forward to 3rd Reading and Public Hearing, then giving 1st and 2nd Readings of the corresponding bylaws would
be in order. In this scenario, Administration has the following recommendations:
Phased Development Agreement
Should Council support this application to move forward to 3rd Reading and Public Hearing, then giving 1st and 2nd
Readings of the corresponding bylaws would be in order. Staff recommends that the scheduling of Public Hearing
and Third Reading be withheld until Administration prepares a phased development agreement (PDA) bylaw for the
subject property. As per section 905.1 of the Local Government Act, a local government may enter into a PDA with
the developer by a Council approved bylaw. A PDA may establish terms and conditions for the development,
including, but not limited to the following:
The inclusion of specific features in the development;
The provision of amenities;
The phasing and timing of the development and of other matters covered by the agreement;
The registration of covenants under section 219 of the Land Title Act;
Subject to section 905.4(3), minor amendments to the agreement, including a definition of “minor
amendment” for the purpose of the agreement;
Dispute resolution between the parties;
Early termination of the agreement, either automatically in the event that terms and conditions are not met
or by mutual agreement;
The amount and location of park land to be provided under section 941 [provision of park land] in respect
of land being subdivided that is subject to the PDA.
The maximum term for a PDA is 10 years or, with the approval of the Inspector of Municipalities, for a longer period
up to 20 years. A failure by the land owner to develop under the terms of the PDA could result in the repeal of the
rezoning changes. Administration will not pursue a PDA bylaw for the subject property if Council accepts the
recommendation of Administration to deny the application at 1st and 2nd Reading.
Sequence of Adoption for the Official Community Plan
Pursuant to the Local Government Act, the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8383, 2011 was
adopted by considering the Financial Plan, Solid Waste Management Plan and Strategic Framework. Therefore, any
amending bylaws to the Official Community Plan must also consider these plans.
Section 882 of the Local Government Act identifies the adoption procedures for the development, repeal or
amendment to the Official Community Plan bylaw. This sets in motion the following sequence which identifies the
Local Government Act requirements and the City’s own procedures:
1. After a bylaw has been given first reading the following must occur:
a) Consideration of the plan in conjunction with the current Financial Plan
b) Consideration of the plan in conjunction with the current Regional District Solid Waste
Management Plan
c) Consideration of any other plan and policies that the local government considers relevant
(i.e. Strategic Framework for a Sustainable Prince George)
d) Referral to the Agricultural Land Commission if the Plan applies to Agricultural Land
Reserve land (not applicable to these applications)
e) Second Reading
f) Public notice of the Public Hearing
g) Public Hearing
2. Third Reading of the bylaws
3. Adoption of the bylaw
The Local Government Act requires that each reading of the OCP bylaw must receive an affirmative vote of a
majority of all Council members. The adoption procedures found in Section 882 of the Local Government Act is
required, and should any changes occur to the bylaw, the sequence of steps would be repeated.
Document Number: 296971
Statutory Consultation
The Department recommends that Council approve the consultation plan as outlined in the Official Community Plan
Amendment Consultation Checklist, including:
One Citywide Newspaper advertisement requesting written comments; and
Request for written comment from abutting and adjacent neighbours (see attached map)
This consultation would occur after first and second reading the application’s corresponding bylaws and prior to the
Public Hearing.
Should Council wish to approve Application No. CP100089 to amend City of Prince George Official Community Plan
Bylaw No. 8383, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014 AND to approve Application No. RZ100414 to amend
City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw No. 7850, 2007, Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014 the following
recommendations apply:
a. THAT Council GIVE FIRST READING to the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No.
8383, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8584, 2014;
b. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.
8584, in conjunction with the City of Prince George Provisional Financial Plan;
c. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.
8584, in conjunction with the Regional District of Fraser Fort-George Solid Waste Management Plan;
d. THAT Council CONSIDER the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No.
8584, in conjunction with the City of Prince George Strategic Framework and confirm there are no
issues;
e. THAT Council GIVE SECOND READING to the City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw No.
8584, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 8467, 2014;
f. THAT Council APPROVE the public consultation process to fulfill the requirements of Section 879 of the
Local Government Act as outlined in the attached Official Community Plan Amendment Consultation
Checklist, including:
i. One Citywide Newspaper advertisements requesting written comment; and,
ii. Request for written comment from nearby properties (See Direct Notification Area Map attached
to the Official Community Plan Consultation Checklist).
g. THAT Council GIVE FIRST and SECOND READING to City of Prince George Zoning Bylaw 7850, 2007,
Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2014
h. THAT Council RECEIVE Application No. LU000030 to discharge Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 2950 (Land
Title Office Document No. PGM8141) registered on the legal title of the South East ¼ of District Lot 630,
Cariboo District, Except Plan 18283, as shown on Appendix “A” to Discharge Bylaw No. 8117, 2014.
i. THAT Council GIVE FIRST and SECOND READING to Land Use Contract Bylaw No. 2950 (Land Title Office
Document No. PGM8141), Discharge Bylaw No. 8117, 2014.
j. THAT Council AUTHORIZE Administration to draft a phased development agreement bylaw pursuant to
Section 905.1 of the Local Government Act regarding the phased development of the South East ¼ of
District Lot 630, Cariboo District, Except Plan 18283, in relation to Bylaw No. 8584 and Bylaw No.
8585.
k. THAT Third Reading of Bylaws No. 8584, 8585, and 8117 be WITHHELD until the related phased
development agreement bylaw is authorized to receive Third Reading.
Document Number: 296971
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:
The subject property is located along the southern perimeter of the Blackburn Neighbourhood. The applicant is
proposing to subdivide the subject property into 84 residential lots with City water and sanitary services. The
proposed application would also feature parkland dedication. To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant
has submitted an application to amend the Official Community Plan, the Zoning Bylaw, and the Land Use Contract
registered to the legal title of the subject property.
The application is inconsistent with the land use and growth management policies of the Official Community Plan
(2011). There is strong policy support to limit the development potential of the subject property to more moderate
rural residential uses (i.e. 2 ha lots), as detailed in the body of this report.
Administration recommends that Council deny this application. However, should Council approve 1st and 2nd
Reading for these amendment bylaws, Administration recommends that scheduling of Public Hearing and 3rd
Reading be withheld until a Phased Development Agreement (PDA) is prepared for Council’s consideration.
Respectfully submitted:
_____________________________
Ian Wells, Director of Planning and Development
_____________________________
Report Prepared by Jesse Dill, Planner
Community Planning Division
Planning and Development Department
To: Mayor and Council
~~
fPJJ
top related