minutes of the november 29,2004 council meeting 2004-nov-29 page 2 3. receiving of delegations: it...

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TWENTY-SECOND COUNCILOF THE CITY OF NANAIMO HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL,

ON MONDAY, 2004-NOV-29 COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.

PRESENT: His Worship Mayor G. R. Korpan, Chair

Members: Councillor M. D. BrennanCouncillor R. A. CantelonCouncillor W. J. HoldomCouncillor L. D. McNabbCouncillor C. S. ManhasCouncillor L. J. SherryCouncillor D. Tyndall

Absent: Councillor T. K. Krall

Staff: G. D. Berry T. P. SewardA. C. Kenning A. MillwardA. W. Laidlaw R. ReimerB. N. Mehaffey K. L. BurleyB. E. Clemens L. MitchellChief R. Lambert C. ScottE. C. Swabey

1. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:

(a) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Twenty-Second Council of the City ofNanaimo held in the Council Chamber, City Hall on Monday, 2004-NOV-15at 7:00 p.m.

It was moved and seconded that the Minutes be adopted as circulated. The motioncarried unanimously.

2. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS:

(a) Ms. K. L. Burley, Deputy Manager of Corporate Administration advised that a list ofsupplemental delegation requests had been distributed prior to the meeting:

(b) Mayor Korpan advised that he would be bringing forward an update regarding thePremier’s Task Force on Homelessness, and an update regarding burning.

COUNCIL2004-NOV-29PAGE 2

3. RECEIVING OF DELEGATIONS:

It was moved and seconded that the Delegations be permitted to address Council.The motion carried unanimously.

(a) Mr. Kenneth Godfrey, #204 – 13485 108th Avenue, Surrey, B.C., regarding628 Hillcrest Avenue and 340 Bruce Avenue, Nanaimo, B.C.

Mr. Godfrey was previously authorized to address Council.

Mr. Godfrey stated that:

- he addressed Council two months ago about his situation and because of newdevelopments, he will now be appealing each house individually.

- his house at 340 Bruce Avenue was evacuated by order of the Bylaw Department.- the house was vandalized as a result of the vacancy; then it was totally destroyed by

fire approximately a month ago.- he received an order from the City to arrange demolition of the house, but is

requesting postponement and that Council order an investigation to provide justreason for the forced vacancy.

- before he bought the house and four months prior to the eviction of the tenants, hehad a professional inspection done, and was told there was nothing wrong with thehouse.

- he would not have bought it if there were any dangerous issues.- the City approved a building permit in 1997 to convert the garage into four bedrooms.- he questioned why the City would issue a building permit on the house and then

condemn it six years later?- the fire marshall said he was unaware that a building permit had ever been issued on

this property.- at the time of the eviction of the tenants, the fire marshall promised to send him a

copy of all the dangerous issues in his house, but he is still waiting for it.- he spent a full day drawing up floor plans for the City in an effort to get his

occupancy restored, but they were rejected.- over the past year, the City has changed what they wanted him to do three times.- his second appeal is in regards to his house at 628 Hillcrest Avenue.- the City inspected this house and has asked that he remove the basement suite.- he wonders if the City’s job is to protect or persecute its citizens?- when the house was inspected in 1997, the basement suite was exactly as it is now.- the original owner was told to remove the kitchen counters, door locks and dividing

door; however, he re-installed them afterwards.- no further inspections have been done by the City to ensure that this kind of thing

doesn’t happen.- he feels that the City could have put a lien on the house so that it could not be sold

unless the previous owner gave proof that it was not reverted back, and that wouldhave protected him from what is happening now.

- he is asking that this order be dismissed.

It was moved and seconded that the presentation be received. The motion carriedunanimously.


(b) Ms. Carolyn McWhinnie, Chair, Safer Downtown Nanaimo Project SteeringCommittee, 19 Commercial Street, Nanaimo, B.C., gave a PowerPoint presentationregarding the Social Planning Advisory Committee Report.

Ms. McWhinnie was previously authorized to address Council.

Ms. McWhinnie stated that:

- she was presenting the final report of the Safety Audit for enhancement andrevitalization for downtown Nanaimo.

- this study was undertaken by a sub-committee of the Social Planning AdvisoryCommittee (SPAC) and a group of community agencies who wanted to becomeinvolved and somehow contribute to the revitalization of downtown.

- they wanted to deal with the perception that downtown Nanaimo is unsafe.- they conducted a telephone survey, a physical audit of the built-in environment, and

analyzed the R.C.M.P. crime statistics.- the telephone survey confirmed that while Nanaimo residents do perceive downtown

as unsafe, their concern was not too deep.- they believe in a strong and vital downtown and continue to shop downtown despite

their concerns.- in general, they determined that mainly women and young people feel unsafe in the

downtown area, primarily during the evening in areas such as Commercial Street,Port Place Mall and the Casino entrance, as well as near the pubs and bars.

- crime occurs relatively equally throughout Nanaimo with property crimes being themajority.

- the summary of findings is that Nanaimo is no safer or no more dangerous than theaverage B.C. community and they can say with some authority that a person is nomore likely to be a victim of crime in downtown than they are in any other area of thecity.

- if people are not coming downtown during the day, it’s not because they’re fearful,it’s because other shopping opportunities are more appealing.

- for many, the concern for personal safety was influenced by the bars and nightclubs.- the guidelines for the physical safety audit included looking at the built-in

environment, the buildings, the lighting and the sidewalks from the perspective ofwomen, seniors or the disabled.

- if we design our community with our most vulnerable people in mind, we design foreveryone.

- they came up with ways to make some of the following areas feel safer:• the China Steps: by cutting down bushes, gating recessed doorways• stairways by the Port Theatre and in the parkade by the library: they should be

open and visible so you can see your route of escape• parkades: by improving lighting, brighter paint, signage, surveillance and

emergency call-boxes to improve the sense of safety• police visibility: move the Community Policing Station to a higher profile area,

and expand the foot and bike patrols.- the parkades are commonly avoided for safety reasons, yet access to parking is a

cornerstone of a vibrant commercial centre.- she pointed out that the existing parkade is going to become considerably larger with

the new conference centre development.- one of the things that is an indicator of whether or not an area is safe to people is

how clean it is and whether it looks cared for.


- the committee recommends that a partnership be formed amongst stakeholders toensure that graffiti is effectively painted out within 24 hours to deter vandalism.

- another recommendation is for the bars to have someone outside at closing time topick up all the garbage.

- there were lots of concerns with lighting, such as:• the parking lot behind City Hall Annex - the lights on the building are burnt out• public walkways with overgrown bushes and poor lighting• businesses should keep their storefronts lit at light• landscaping can block visibility and provide hiding places

- they hope that Council will look at crime prevention through environmental designstandards when approving new buildings.

- if the recommendations are implemented, the Committee suggests that a coordinatorbe hired on a short-term basis to work with property owners and businesses, whichcould be funded by a Community Mobilization grant.

- the R.C.M.P. have offered space in their Community Policing Office downtown.- some of the recommended partners would be the Downtown Nanaimo Partnership,

the City, the R.C.M.P., business and property owners, bar and nightclub owners,social agencies, and citizens.


It was moved and seconded that the SAFER Downtown Nanaimo Report be referredto Staff for implementation. The motion carried unanimously.[Note: See Report of the Planning, Environment and Development Standing Committee for

a further motion.]

(c) Mr. Fred Taylor, 204 Emery Way, Nanaimo, B.C., regarding secondary suites.(Supplemental)

Mr. Taylor was previously authorized to address Council.

Mr. Taylor stated that:

- he questions the “history of secondary suites in Nanaimo” as portrayed to the public.- he feels that the statement “two family dwellings were permitted on most single-

family lots until 1982” is misleading and false.- Bylaw 2000 was adopted in 1979, and created an exclusive R-1 Zone for

single-family use only; prior to this, residential lots were required to be larger than8,000 square feet before two dwellings were permitted.

- he also feels that the statement “between 1982 and 1993 two family dwellings werepermitted on single-family lots under certain circumstances” is misleading as the R-1Zone in Bylaw 2370 (adopted 1982-JAN-18), stipulates that “not more than onesingle-family shall be permitted per lot”.

- his interpretation of the bylaws is that two-family dwellings have not been allowed onsingle family lots since 1954-MAR-01.

- the review process also included what other municipalities are doing.- he outlined research that he has conducted regarding secondary suites in various

municipalities, and concluded that the majority of municipalities do not allowsecondary suites in single-family zones; separate zones have been created.


- he does not agree with portraying to the public that one of the drawbacks ofsecondary suites is a perceived loss of neighbourhood character.

- he cannot accept the results of any study or report which is generated withmisleading information or ‘trick’ questions to the public.

- he believes any initiative by the City to encourage existing suites to becomelegalized will fail and that the waiver of normal building permit fees is totally unfair tothose who do abide by our bylaws.

- any new regulation just adds cost to the bylaw-abiding citizen.- many types of housing, such as ranchers, usually do not provide enough space to

develop a secondary unit, and he questioned the fairness of generating extra incomeby those taxpayers.

- he cannot agree with the recommendation that secondary suites be permitted in allsingle-family and rural zones.

- he supports the creation of a secondary suite zone, recognizing our OCP and ZoningBylaw neighbourhood involvement process in this type of density question, alongwith pro-active enforcement.


4. MAYOR’S REPORT:

(a) Driving Conditions

Mayor Korpan reminded citizens to drive with care now that conditions arebecoming more difficult. He also stressed the need for pedestrians to take extracare and cross at pedestrian crosswalks.

(b) Premier’s Task Force on Homelessness

Mayor Korpan gave a verbal report on the Premier’s Task Force on Homelessness,outlining the purpose of the Task Force and advising of some funding that has beengranted by the Provincial Government. He advised that the next meeting of theTask Force is on 2004-DEC-03, and they anticipate some additionalannouncements of longer-term resources to deal with the greater issues ofhomelessness.

(c) “Burn It Smart” Workshop

Mayor Korpan advised that a workshop entitled “Burn It Smart” is being held onTuesday, 2004-NOV-30 from 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. at Beban Park in Rooms 19 & 20.This is an opportunity for people who heat their homes with wood to find out theappropriate way of doing it.


5. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BODIES:

(a) Grants Advisory Committee – 2004 Grants Advisory Committee Recommendations

The Grants Advisory Committee met on 2004-NOV-17. Included in this report arethe Committee’s recommendations on the fifth meeting for this fiscal year.

The Grants Advisory Committee has reviewed in detail the financial data andbackground information provided by the applicants. Recommendations are made inaccordance with the Grants Policy and Guidelines adopted by Council.

The Committee recognizes both the limited funding that the City has available andthe excellent community services provided by the various organizations.The Committee is hopeful that the funds allocated by Council will allow theorganizations in need of assistance to continue to provide their valuable services.

Grant funding is divided into the following categories: Community Service Grants,Travel Grants, Security Grants, and Other Grants.

Community Service Grants are given to social agencies providing advocacy,preventative and self-help services to residents of Nanaimo. Grants are given tofund services required by significant segments of the population and that are notfunded exclusively by other levels of government. Agencies funded by the Cityshould provide service to people who are in some way disadvantaged and needassistance in maximizing their quality of life.

Other Grants are awarded to registered non-profit societies having a large numberof volunteers that demonstrate financial need. These organizations must beaccessible to a large portion of the community and have a broad base of support.Sound financial and administrative management must also be demonstrated.

Travel Grants are awarded in recognition that representatives of local organizationstraveling outside the Province to attend championships become ambassadors forthe City of Nanaimo. In order for an organization to be awarded a Travel Grant,they must have competed in (and won) a Provincial, Regional, or Nationalchampionship (or equivalent) prior to applying for the Travel Grant.

Recommendations: That Council:

award a Community Service Grant to the following applicant:

Nanaimo Men’s Resource Centre (CS-07)(funding conditional upon funds being applied to volunteertraining, that the Executive Director remove himself fromthe Board, and that the Nanaimo Men’s Resource Centreprovide a report back to the Committee as to how thefunds were utilized).

$1,500.00


2. award Other Grants to the following applicants:

The Nanaimo and Area Land Trust Society (OG-09)(funds to be utilized for either a timber cruise or areal estate appraisal for property the Society is consideringentering into negotiations for).

$2,000.00

Nanaimo Concert Band (OG-08)(funds awarded for general activities and as a thank youfor services rendered to the community).

$ 2,000.00

3. award a Travel Grant to the following applicant:

Nanaimo Riptides Swim Team (T-12)(one member to attend 2004 Canadian Olympic SwimmingTrials in Etobicoke, ON, on 2004-JUL-04)

$100.00

4. award Security Check Grants to the following applicants:

Nanaimo Arts Alive Summer School of the Fine ArtsSociety (SC-01)

$300.00

Unity Church of Nanaimo (SC-02) $80.00

Nanaimo Minor Baseball Association (SC-03) $300.00

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Vancouver Island(SC-04)

$200.00

Boys and Girls Club of Nanaimo and District (SC-05) $300.00

5. award Permissive Tax Exemptions to the following applicants:

Unitarian Fellowship (PTE-01)(prorated portion of this year’s taxes, considering thechurch’s occupation at current address did not commenceuntil March, 2004; ¾ of $2226.00)

$1,670.00

Hammond Bay Baptist Church (PTE-87)(prorated portion of this year’s taxes, for proportionateshare of taxes on 2.0 acres of 6.2-acre site (1/3 of$2,361.00) along with being placed on the permissive taxexemption roll for 2006.

$787.00

6. not award a grant to the following applicant:

Santa Club with Nanaimo Association for CommunityLiving (OG-07) (Nanaimo Association for CommunityLiving already receives a permissive tax exemption andfurther grants would exceed the $5,000.00 annual limit forgrants).


Recommendation No. 1:

It was moved and seconded that Recommendation No. 1 of the Grants AdvisoryCommittee be adopted. The motion carried unanimously.


It was moved and seconded that Council award an Other Grant to the Nanaimo andArea Land Trust Society in the amount of $2,000. The motion carried.Opposed: Mayor Korpan, Councillor Sherry

It was moved and seconded that Council award an Other Grant to the NanaimoConcert Band in the amount of $2,000. The motion carried unanimously.









6. PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT STANDING COMMITTEE:

The following items were considered by the Planning, Environment and DevelopmentStanding Committee at its meeting held Thursday, 2004-NOV-18:

Social Planning Advisory Committee:

(a) SAFER Downtown Nanaimo Project:

Committee's Recommendation: That Council receive the SAFER DowntownNanaimo Report and direct Staff to distribute the report to the appropriate agenciesfor their consideration.

It was moved and seconded that the recommendation of the Planning, Environmentand Development Standing Committee be adopted. The motion carried unanimously.[Note: See Delegation 3(b) for a further motion.]


Information Only Items:

(b) Report from Mr. A. J. Tucker, Manager, Community Planning, re: Review ofNeighbourhood Planning Process.

(c) Minutes of the Planning, Environment and Development Standing CommitteeMeeting held 2004-OCT-21.

It was moved and seconded that the Information Only items be received. Themotion carried unanimously.

7. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE COMMISSION:

The following items were considered by the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission atits Meetings held 2004-SEP-29, 2004-OCT-25 and 2004-OCT-27:

Information Only Items:

(a) Minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission Budget and RegularMeetings held 2004-SEP-29, Special Meeting held 2004-OCT-25 and RegularMeeting held 2004-OCT-27.

It was moved and seconded that the Information Only items be received. Themotion carried unanimously.

8. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:

ADMINISTRATION:

(1) Procedure Error on Referendum Bylaw

Mr. G. D. Berry, City Manager, made the following statement:

“I would like to introduce a special item as a supplementary to the CityManager’s Report. It’s a report regarding a procedure error on the recentlycompleted borrowing bylaw and there is a press release that will be released atthis time.

Staff have today made Council aware and we are now making the public aware of aprocedural error with regard to the New Nanaimo Centre Borrowing Bylaw. This is asequencing error respecting the need for the approval of the Inspector ofMunicipalities. Under the Community Charter, the Inspector of Municipalities isrequired to approve any borrowing bylaws prior to referendum. The error occurredin Staff not obtaining this approval prior to the vote. This is purely a technicalsequencing error. It is totally Staff’s responsibility; Council is not involved in anyway. The error pertains only to technical sequencing and not in any way to thereferendum process itself. As the senior staff member, I would like to say that Staff


deeply regrets that this error has occurred and we apologize for the procedure notbeing correctly followed.

I personally apologize on behalf of Staff to both Council and the community.My office is currently reviewing how this error occurred and will be taking steps toensure that it never happens again.

Staff has involved the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services andthe City’s Solicitors today and we are able to advise that all parties believemechanisms exist whereby this error can be rectified. We anticipate this can bedone under the provisions of the Charter as they exist by regulation within the nextseveral weeks.

The Ministry confirms that the bylaw is otherwise procedurally correct and fullyapprovable. Pending receipt of the Inspector’s approval, we are recommending thisevening that Council postpone adoption of the bylaw.

The City’s partner, Triarc, is aware of the City Staff’s error and we do not expect thiserror to affect construction timing as borrowing approval is not required for morethan a year.

In conclusion, Staff would like to acknowledge full responsibility for this technicalerror. We would like to apologize to the Council and to the community and wewould like to assure all parties that this error in no way alters or affects the integrityof the referendum process or the public’s decision to support the New NanaimoCentre initiative.”

It was moved and seconded that the verbal report be received. The motion carriedunanimously.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES:

PLANNING:

(2) Secondary Suites Public Consultation

In February 2003, Council directed Staff to review the issue of secondary suites.A Secondary Suite Task Force was subsequently created to review issues andmake recommendations surrounding the legalization of secondary suites. Afterpresenting their recommendations in the spring of 2004, Council, at its regularmeeting of 2004-MAY-03, recommended that the issue of secondary suites beforwarded to a public consultation process.

This public consultation process has now concluded, and results of this processhave been compiled. Copies of the report by Urban Systems Ltd. have beendistributed and are available for viewing in the Councillors’ office and the CorporateAdministration office.


This consultation consisted of:

• Three open houses held during June 2004 at Bowen Park Auditorium, ChaseRiver School, and Dover Bay High School, of which approximately 133 membersof the public attended these sessions;

• An exit survey distributed to the public at the above-noted public consultationsessions, of which approximately 133 completed surveys were received; and

• A telephone survey totaling 500 completed surveys, as conducted by atelemarketing firm (Malatest & Associates Ltd. of Victoria, BC).

In addition, Staff supplemented this consultation by undertaking an on-line surveyfrom the City’s website, the results of which were incorporated into the reportprepared by Urban Systems.

With the completion of this public consultation, Urban Systems has now prepared areport that summarizes the results of the consultation and identifies support for thelegalization of suites at, or above, 70 percent.

Percentage of Support for the Legalization ofSecondary Suites by Survey

Survey Type Survey Size(# of respondents)

% in Favour ofLegalization

Telephone Survey 500 75%

Open House Exit Survey 124 74%

On-line Survey 87 70%* From Urban Systems final report, Public Input (Table 11)

Once again Council is at a crossroads on the secondary suite issue. In the past,inability to find consensus on this issue has resulted in the current method of suiteenforcement. It is important to note that the current “policy” is not a result of thespecific direction, but could more accurately be described as a system, which hasevolved because of past events and unwillingness to proceed with enforcement.

The current “policy” has resulted in over 1,000 known secondary suites, however, itis estimated that there could be up to 3,000 secondary suites. There is no indicationthat the growth of secondary suites under the current policy will subside and thecontinuation of the status quo will see the number of suites increase.

The reality of the current situation also now limits options for moving forward fromhere. Enforcement of current Bylaws requiring the removal of existing secondarysuites is, in Staff’s opinion, no longer a real option. An active campaign to removethe estimated 3,000 suites would be costly, slow and, if successful, result in ahousing crisis. As such, Staff believe there are now two principle options forCouncil’s consideration:


Option A – A Line in the SandCouncil could elect to take a strong position to enforce the existing Bylaws andprohibit the creation of any new secondary suites. As stated above, given thecurrent situation, enforcement could only realistically proceed from the day of suchdirection forward. Drawing a line in the sand would need to be accompanied withthe resources to ensure compliance, and most importantly, with a strong Councilresolve. The absence of an unwavering commitment to the identification andremoval of all new suites would result, by default, into the current status.

Option B – LegalizationThe Secondary Suites Task Force has produced a series of recommendations,which provide a potential framework for the legalization of secondary suites.

Should Council decide to proceed with legalization, Staff would recommend thatCouncil consider adopting the Secondary Suites Task Force recommendationspreviously received by Council. These recommendations are as follows:

1. Primary Decisions

1.1 Recommend that secondary suites be permitted in all single-familyand rural zones.

1.2 Recommend that secondary suites not be permitted in multi-familydwellings.

2. Occupancy Decisions

2.1 Recommend that owner occupancy not be required as a condition ofhaving a secondary suite and that a Standards of Maintenance Bylawbe adopted.

3. Zoning Decisions

3.1 Recommend that the following definition of secondary suites beincluded in the Zoning Bylaw: “Secondary Suite means a dwellingunit which is clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling”.

3.2 Recommend that secondary suites be limited to a maximum of40 percent habitable floor space of the principal building to amaximum of 90 square metres (968 square feet).

3.3 Recommend that secondary suites be limited to a maximum of twobedrooms and a maximum of two unrelated persons (at present, theZoning Bylaw limits occupancy of a dwelling to five unrelatedpersons).

3.4 Recommend that one additional on-site parking stall be required forthe suite.

3.5 Recommend that all suites be contained with the principal building(i.e.: not in accessory buildings).


3.6 Recommend that homes with suites are required to split theirmaximum of 100 square metres for home-based business betweenthe principal and secondary unit. The unit area of a home-basedbusiness in a principal building will be limited to 60 square metresand the floor area in a secondary suite would be limited to 40 squaremetres.

3.7 Recommend that the home-based business within a suite not bepermitted to have a non-resident employee (the Bylaw wouldcontinue to allow one non-resident employee for any home-basedbusiness within the principal dwelling unit).

3.8 Recommend that the Bylaw continue to require one additionalparking stall for each home-based business and continue to limit thenumber of vehicle trips to / from the property to five per day.

4. Cost Recovery Decisions

4.1 Recommend that sewer and garbage rates be charged at the samerate as the principal dwelling unit.

4.2 Recommend that the Business License Bylaw not be amended inorder to require licensing for suites.

5. Implementation Decisions

5.1 Recommend that Building Permits be required for all new suites andthat the status quo (i.e.: 700 Notice and user rates) for existingsuites.

5.2 Recommend that a Standards of Maintenance Bylaw is adopted.

5.3 Recommend that Building Permit fees for conversion of existingillegal suites be waived for the period of one year following theadoption of the Bylaw.

[Note: Choices related to owner-occupancy and standards of maintenance havebudget implications that are not currently provided for in the Financial Plan.]

Recommendations: That Council:

1. receive the report from Urban Systems Ltd.,

2. proceed with Option B (which includes no owner occupancy requirements)excluding adoption of a “Standards of Maintenance Bylaw”; and,

3. discontinue the moratorium on secondary suites when contained inmulti-family dwellings (Duplex / Triplex / Fourplex) or in secondary buildings.


Recommendation Nos. 1 and 3:

It was moved and seconded that Recommendation Nos. 1 and 3 be adopted. Themotion carried unanimously.

It was moved and seconded that Recommendation No. 2 (Option B) be adopted.

Mayor Korpan requested that Item 2.1 and Item 4.2 of Option B be dealt with separately.Councillor McNabb requested that Item 5.2 of Option B be dealt with separately.

The vote was taken on the motion, with the exception of Option B Items 2.1, 4.2, and 5.2.

The motion carried.Opposed: Mayor Korpan, Councillor Sherry

Recommendation No. 2 - Option B, Item 2.1

It was moved and seconded that owner occupancy not be required as a condition ofhaving a secondary suite. The motion carried.Opposed: Mayor Korpan, Councillor Sherry


It was moved and seconded that the Business Licence Bylaw not be amended inorder to require licensing for suites. The motion carried.Opposed: Mayor Korpan, Councillor Sherry


It was moved and seconded that a Standards of Maintenance Bylaw be referred toBudget discussions. The motion carried.Opposed: Mayor Korpan, Councillor Sherry

(3) Application for Subdivision in the Agricultural Land Reserve - 2453 East WellingtonRoad

The City of Nanaimo has received an application from Albert Fedje and Julie Fedjefor subdivision within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The applicant isproposing to subdivide approximately 6.82 hectares (three parcels of approximatelyfive acres each) from the parent parcel located at 2453 East Wellington Road, withthe intent of utilizing revenues generated from the subdivision to fund thedevelopment of a winery on the remaining parent parcel. Lands located to the northand west of the subject property are also located within the ALR.

Pursuant to the City’s Zoning Bylaw, the subject property is zoned Single FamilyResidential (RS-1), and is one of two properties affected by this zoning within theimmediate area. Residential zoning has been in place since the adoption of BylawNo. 4000, and through the previous Zoning Bylaws No. 2370 (adopted in 1981) and2000 (adopted in 1979). Other properties within the surrounding area are zonedRural Agricultural/Residential Zone (A-1), with the exception of those lands locatedto the immediate north that are located within the Regional District of Nanaimo.


The subject property is also designated Rural Resource Lands as per the City’sOfficial Community Plan, and is located outside of the Urban Containment Boundary(UCB). This designation is intended to protect rural resources and maintain areas ofhigh agricultural and forestry potential.

OCP policies also state that “Rural Resource Lands” will not be rezoned for higherdensity residential development than that permitted by zoning existing at the time ofthe Plan’s adoption. In this case, the RS-1 zoning regulations would takeprecedence, allowing for a minimum lot area of 600 square metres (6,459 squarefeet) where serviced by a community water system, community sanitary sewersystem and a storm drainage system. As the subject property is located outside ofthe UCB, access is only available to a community water system. As a result, theminimum permitted parcel size is 2.0 hectares (4.94 acres) subject to healthapproval from the Ministry of Health.

The applicant has proposed a number of options for subdivision of the subjectproperty, with the provision for three five-acre lots being the preferred method.Where subdivision in the ALR is proposed, Section 25 of the Agricultural LandCommission Act authorizes the Commission to refuse permission, grant permission,or grant permission for an alternative form of subdivision. In addition, an applicationfor subdivision cannot proceed unless authorized by a resolution of localgovernment where the application pertains to land that is zoned to permitagricultural use, or where the application will require an amendment to the officialcommunity plan or zoning bylaw.

However, this requirement for authorization from local government does not apply tothis particular application, as the subject property is not zoned for agricultural use.All farming activities have continued to occur as a lawful non-conforming use.Therefore, Council does not have the authority to withhold this application, and theproposal must be forwarded to the Commission for a decision.

It should also be noted that, at the Regular Meeting of Council held 1988-SEP-26,Council recommended the ALR be notified that “the City does not consider that ithas the necessary expertise to evaluate” ALR applications. As a result, all ALRapplications are reviewed by the Commission to provide a resolution on its outcome.

To summarize, Council can respond to this application with one of three options.Council can: (1) indicate that it does support this application for subdivision in theAgricultural Land Reserve; (2) indicate that it does not support this application forsubdivision in the Agricultural Land Reserve; or (3) indicate that it will provide nocomment with respect to this application for subdivision in the Agricultural LandReserve. Staff would recommend that this application be forwarded to theAgricultural Land Commission with no comment.

Recommendation: That Council indicate that it will provide no comment withrespect to this application for subdivision in the Agricultural Land Reserve.

It was moved and seconded that the recommendation be adopted. The motioncarried.Opposed: Councillor Brennan


PERMITS, BYLAW AND PROPERTY SERVICES:

(4) Unresolved Building Deficiencies/Illegal Suites/Grow Operations

The following property(ies) have been found to have unresolved buildingdeficiencies/illegal suites/grow operations:

(a) 85 Irwin StreetProperty Owner(s): Paul R. Scyrup

Patricia M. Scyrup3095 Cowichan Valley HighwayDuncan, B.C. V9L 6A3

Building Deficiency: Duplex converted to a fourplex

Recommendation: That Council, by resolution, pursuant to Sections 72(2) and73(1) of the Community Charter, order the owner(s) to remove the structure withinthirty (30) days and that any cost incurred by the Municipality be recovered pursuantto the Community Charter.

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the reportpertaining to 85 Irwin Street.

Ms. Scyrup requested permission to address Council respecting the property at85 Irwin Street.

Ms. Scyrup stated that:

- when she and her husband bought the property five years ago, they bought it withfour suites in it.

- they didn’t know they weren’t allowed the two suites in the basement, and would liketo keep it as is.

- they removed the stoves from those suites after receiving the letter asking them to.


It was moved and seconded that the recommendation be adopted for Item (a). Themotion carried unanimously.


(5) Unresolved Building Deficiencies/Illegal Suites/Grow Operations(Authorization to place Section 57 Notice on title)

The following property(ies) have unresolved building deficiencies in contravention of"BUILDING BYLAW 1988 NO. 3220" and "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000":

(a) 852 Howard AvenueProperty Owner(s): Stewart Larry McDonald

Lorena Janet McDonald852 Howard AvenueNanaimo, B.C. V9R 3T2

Building Deficiency: Illegal construction

(b) 3042 McCauley DriveProperty Owner(s): Mustapha Douhaibi

3042 McCauley DriveNanaimo, B.C. V9T 1V8


(c) 262 Juniper StreetProperty Owner(s): Cindy Lou Mackey

262 Juniper StreetNanaimo, B.C. V9S 1X4


(d) 2111 Carmen RoadProperty Owner(s): Amir H. Mehrassa

Simindokht Mehrassa2111 Carmen RoadNanaimo, B.C. V9S 5L3


(e) 430 Victoria RoadProperty Owner(s): Ben R. Wilkinson

c/o 13812 Hill RoadLadysmith, B.C. V9G 1G7

Building Deficiency: Illegal suites

(f) 139 Haliburton StreetProperty Owner(s): Gary Thurber

Louise Thurber1892 Laval AvenueVictoria, B.C. V5P 2M8


Recommendation: That Council, by resolution, instruct the Senior Manager ofCorporate Administration to file a Notice respecting the above property(ies) in theLand Title Office under Section 57 of the Community Charter.

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to thereports pertaining to Unresolved Building Deficiencies/Illegal Suites/Grow Operations.


Mr. Ben Wilkinson requested permission to address Council respecting the property at430 Victoria Road - Item (e).

Mr. Wilkinson stated that:

- he understands the complaint is that the single-family dwelling was convertedwithout a building permit.

- he believes this is based on a form completed in 1977, which he feels is an error.- he applied last year to rebuild the outside stairs to the upper suite because they

were rotten, but the application was refused because of an issue with thebuilding use.

- since he considered the stairs unsafe, he undertook to repair them exactly as theyhad been built.

- he was told by Planning he would not require a permit to repair the stairs if thedesign was kept exactly to the original.

- as the original design was within code, he carried out the repairs without a permit.- he feels there are several documents showing that the building has always been

multiple family RM-2.- he understands that the City’s first Zoning Bylaw was around 1933, and any Zoning

maps that he has seen, show this property as RM-2.- it is the only house within at least 20 houses in any direction that is RM-2.- the application to adapt the porch to a room was filed in 1974/1975, and shows the

stairs labelled as access to the upstairs suite.- since there is no evidence of an indoor staircase ever having existed, it seems clear

that this has always been a separate suite, proving that the building has alwaysbeen a multi-family dwelling.

- the upstairs suite has only one access via the outside stairs.- in conclusion, there is ample evidence to indicate that this building was a triplex

even prior to City records.- this is why there is no record of an application for building permit.- he would appreciate the City recognizing this and stop any further action.- the B.C. Tenancy Act requires that he provide quiet enjoyment of the property for his

tenants.- an inspection was carried out last year and he assures that there has been no

change in the function of the property.- he trusts that this inspection scheduled for tomorrow morning will no longer be

deemed necessary.



Mr. Stewart Larry McDonald requested permission to address Council respecting theproperty at 852 Howard Avenue - Item (a).

Mr. McDonald stated that:

- he bought this house with several things that had been done without permits.- he has now removed the offending parts.- the two-car garage in the front of the house was converted to a rec-room, with a

third bedroom on one side- that was done just after the house was built, and hasn’t been changed.- he believes he fulfilled what the Planning Department asked him to do.


Mr. Gary Thurber requested permission to address Council respecting the property at139 Haliburton Street - Item (f).

Mr. Thurber stated that:

- he and his wife bought this property as a fiveplex in 1993.- he checked with the Zoning department at that time and was told there had been no

complaints, and that it had been zoned as a fiveplex for a while.- when the City inspected the house in September, they brought seven people

through, and the whole process has been quite stressful.- he has been waiting for a copy of the inspection report from the Provincial Fire

Marshall for approximately a month.- he asked that Council withhold putting this Notice on Title because he is cooperating

with the City trying to get this resolved.- he has determined that the building was built in 1925, and the farthest back he’s

been able to find that it was converted sometime around 1973.- there is no evidence that the building is unsafe or unusable, in fact the City’s

inspector said that it’s up to code and the Electrical Inspector said there are noelectrical deficiencies from a safety standpoint.

- he has owned other buildings in Nanaimo and has always complied safety issues.- he has hired a lawyer and is doing his best to find out if or when the building was

converted.- he doesn’t want anything registered on the title unless there is a valid reason.- he asked for more time to resolve this and asked that the notice not be put on title at

this time.


It was moved and seconded that the recommendation be adopted for Items(a) to (f). The motion carried.Opposed: Councillor, Holdom


(6) Unsightly Premises

Councillor Manhas vacated the Council Chamber due to a perceived conflict of interest as hisbrother is a business partner with the owner of Akal Development Ltd.

The following property(ies) have been identified as having unsightly premises:

(a) 1667 Chick-A-Dee CrescentProperty Owner(s): David Z. Johnson

Janet L. Johnson1667 Chick-A-Dee CrescentNanaimo, B.C. V9S 2P6

(b) 275 Nicol StreetProperty Owner(s): Akal Development Ltd.

690 Albert StreetNanaimo, B.C. V9R 2W4

(c) 1351 Stewart AvenueProperty Owner(s): Lawrence Edward Poitras

Pauline Poitras965 Ambassador AvenueVictoria, B.C. V8X 3N3

(d) 101 South StreetProperty Owner(s): Jaspal S. Saroya

690 Albert StreetNanaimo, B.C. V9R 2W4

Recommendation: That Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCEBYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of the aboveproperty(ies) to remove from the premises those items as set out in the resolutionswithin fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at theowner(s) cost.

It was moved and seconded that the recommendation be adopted. The motioncarried unanimously.

Councillor Manhas returned to the Council Chamber.

(7) Nuisance Property - 340 Bruce Avenue

On this evening’s agenda is a request from the owner of 340 Bruce Avenue toappear as a delegation to address his concerns about the demolition order relatedto this property and enforcement action related to the property he owns at628 Hillcrest Avenue. The property owner previously appeared before Council toquestion enforcement action related to his properties.


The owner purchased the property at 340 Bruce Avenue on 2003-JUN-02.Following receipt of a complaint that the building was being used as a roominghouse, an inspection was conducted on 2004-MAR-04 which resulted in animmediate order by the Nanaimo Fire Department to vacate the building due toimmediate life safety concerns including wiring installed without permits. This orderrequired an immediate power disconnection, relocation of a number of tenants, andsecuring of the building.

Since the building was vacated 2004-MAR-04, Staff subsequently returned to theproperty on five occasions to deal with problems associated with an unsecuredbuilding and property maintenance.

On 2004-OCT-17, there was an extensive fire at the property and the building wasdeemed unsafe to enter, due to risk of collapse, even for fire investigators. Theproperty owner has advised us that his insurance company was not prepared tocover the loss nor contribute to the demolition of the damaged structure.

Accordingly, a letter was sent by courier to the property owner 2004-OCT-28advising him that this matter would be on the agenda 2004-NOV-01 seekingCouncil’s direction to demolish the building. Staff contacted the property owner bytelephone that day. He was advised of the content of the letter and the method ofdelivery. The property owner did not make himself available for delivery and allegesthat he did not receive the letter until 2004-NOV-04, three days after theCouncil meeting.

Staff advised the owner that under the provisions of Section 78 of theCommunity Charter, he was entitled to request Council reconsider the matter. Theowner subsequently requested that Council, at its meeting of 2004-NOV-29,reconsider its decision, and will appear before Council with that request.

Recommendation: That Council confirm its Resolution of 2004-NOV-01 ordering thedemolition of the fire damaged house located at 340 Bruce Avenue.


(8) Nuisance Abatement and Cost Recovery - 680 Chelsea Street

At the Regular Meeting of Council held 2003-JUL-14, Council adopted “NUISANCEABATEMENT AND COST RECOVERY BYLAW 2003 NO. 5645”. The purpose ofthis bylaw was to provide Staff and the RCMP with an additional tool to assist inresolving problems at properties causing continual disturbances in theneighbourhood and requiring a high level of enforcement activity.

Staff and the RCMP have identified this property as meeting the criteria for beingconsidered a nuisance property. Since October 2002, Bylaw and animal controlStaff have responded to 20 Calls for Service at this location. These include viciousdog, property maintenance, and noise complaints. One of these calls is still openand the owner is making no effort to rectify the problems.


Additionally the RCMP have attended at this residence 19 times within the lasttwelve months.

In light of the continuing disturbances at this property and the property owner’sfailure to rectify the the disturbances or outstanding bylaw violations, Staff requestthat Council declare this property a nuisance pursuant to City of Nanaimo“NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND COST RECOVERY BYLAW 2003 NO. 5645”, andauthorize staff to record and charge for municipal services including police requiredat this property to resolve the nuisances. Failure to pay these charges will result inthem being added to taxes at the end of the year.

Recommendation: That Council declare 680 Chelsea Street a nuisance pursuant to“NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND COST RECOVERY BYLAW 2003 NO. 5645”, andauthorize staff to record and charge for municipal services including police requiredat this property to abate the nuisances. Failure to pay these charges will result inthem being added to taxes at the end of the year.


(9) Proposed Licence Agreement With BC Hydro at 5445 Dunster Road

The City acquired approximately 5.45 hectares of property at 5445 Dunster Road forpark and road purposes in April 2004. The property was subject to a right-of-way infavour of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority for an existing third phasepower line through the property. As part of the property acquisition, BC Hydroagreed to extinguish its right-of-way to permit the property to be dedicated for parkpurposes. However, BC Hydro agreed to facilitate the Park dedication on thecondition that the City would provide BC Hydro with a licence to continue to maintainits existing power line for as long as it required. It was the expectation of B.C. Hydrowhen it agreed to relinquish its rights that its rights would be reinstated in the form ofa Licence Agreement.

Under Section 175 of the Community Charter any agreement anticipating a termgreater than five years requires the approval of the electors. The proposed licenceagreement with BC Hydro contemplates a term of Agreement “for so long asrequired by the licensee” and the nominal payment of $1.00. The agreementprovides for BC Hydro to continue to maintain its power lines and keep the corridorclear of brush and any other potential obstructions. Accordingly, Councilauthorization for the agreement requires public notice and an opportunity formembers of the public to provide input via an Elector Response Form. If more than10 percent of the electors oppose the Agreement, assent of the electors viaReferendum is required.

Staff advertised the proposed Agreement in the Nanaimo Daily News October 5th,2004 and October 12th, 2004. The deadline to provide feedback on the prescribedElector Response Form was November 16th, 2004. Staff advise that no responseshave been received as a result of the advertising and notices of the proposedagreement.


Accordingly, Staff recommend that Council authorize the proposed licenceagreement. (A copy of the Agreement is available for viewing in the Councillor’soffice and the Corporate Administration office.)

Recommendation: That Council authorize the proposed Licence Agreement withBritish Columbia Hydro and Power Authority at 5445 Dunster Road as outlined inthe report.


(10) Proposed Amendment to St. John Society Lease at 2250 Labieux Road

At the Regular Meeting of Council held 2001-AUG-27, Council adopted“LEASE AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2001 NO. 5512”. This permitted the City tolease municipal property at 2250 Labieux Road (next to the SPCA) to St. JohnSociety (British Columbia and Yukon) for a term of 50 years, for the sum of $1.00.This approval was subsequent to a zoning amendment to permit the use proposedby the Society. The Society requires the 0.31 ha property in order to construct anambulance training facility.

At the Regular Meeting of Council held 2002-SEP-09, Council authorized anextension to the provision respecting construction commencement and amendedthe required start date to 2004-SEP-01. As Council is aware, St. John Society hasbeen actively fundraising and is currently working its way through the DevelopmentPermit process. However, a building permit has not yet been issued andconstruction of the facility has not commenced. Accordingly, the Society hasrequested Council adjust the date for the construction commencement to the end ofDecember 2004 (see letter attached to the report). Staff, however, suggest that theamendment be made to extend the date to 2005-SEP-01 to ensure ample time.

It is the expectation of the Society that construction will be underway very shortly.Accordingly, Staff recommend that the lease be amended to extend the date for thecommencement of construction to 2005-SEP-01.

Recommendation: That Council authorize the proposed lease amendments to allowthe St. John Society until 2005-SEP-01 to commence building construction.



CORPORATE SERVICES:

CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION:

(11) 2004 Referendum Results

The official results as posted by the Chief Elections Officer, for the City of NanaimoReferendum held on Saturday, 2004-NOV-20 which asked the question:

“Are you in favour of adopting “NEW NANAIMO CENTRE LOANAUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2004 NO. 5750” to permit the City toborrow up to 30 million dollars, and carry out the terms of apartnering agreement with Triarc International Inc. for thedevelopment of the New Nanaimo Centre project?”

are as follows:

Yes: ___12,310

No: ___11,335

Voter Turnout: ___50.9%

As the majority of electors who cast their vote answered “Yes”, it is appropriate forCouncil to consider adopting “NEW NANAIMO CENTRE LOAN AUTHORIZATIONBYLAW 2004 NO. 5750”, which appears under the Bylaw section of this evening’sagenda.

There have been concerns raised by members of the public about the accuracy ofthe voting machines. The machines have been used in the last several municipalelections in the City of Nanaimo and are widely used throughout Canadianmunicipalities. Their accuracy has been proven. The machines are extensivelytested in advance of every vote. Staff are completely confident in their reliabilityand accuracy. Control totals are used to ensure the number of votes counted areequal to the number of ballots cast.

Unfortunately, after completion of the count a graph was placed on the City websiteby City Staff that appeared to be misleading. The computer program used to createthe graph automatically adjusted the scale of the graph and made it appear asthough the difference between the "Yes" and "No" vote was greater than it actuallywas. The computer used to create this graph was different and unrelated to thevoting machines. As soon as City Staff realized that the graph was misleading itwas removed. Staff apologize to Council and the community for any confusion thisgraph has caused.

Recommendation: That Council consider giving final adoption to “NEW NANAIMOCENTRE LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2004 NO. 5750”.

It was moved and seconded that the report be received. The motion carried.


FINANCE:

(12) 2005 Temporary Borrowing Requirements

Pursuant to Section 177 of the Community Charter, Council may, by bylaw, providefor the temporary borrowing of funds required to meet current lawful expenditures ofthe City of Nanaimo.

From time to time, there is a need to borrow funds in order to capitalize onshort-term investment opportunities and to more effectively manage the City's cashreserves. As Council is aware, a large percentage of the City’s cash reserves areinvested with the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, which earns anattractive rate of return on money market funds. There is, however, a one-day turnaround on demands for cash withdrawals and temporary funds may be required inthe interim. Historically, $1.0 Million has been authorized annually for this purpose.

As well, the City has an agreement with the Bank of Montreal (BMO) for MasterCardpurchasing cards. As a provision to allow for the use of the cards, $.1 Millionborrowing authority is required to cover the aggregate limit of the cards issued.

Bylaw 5738 provides the authority for the borrowing of up to $1.1 Million, which isexpected to be sufficient to cover the 2005 needs.

Recommendation: That Council consider giving first three readings to“TEMPORARY LOAN BYLAW 2004 NO. 5738” authorizing the City of Nanaimoto borrow up to $1.1 Million to meet the current lawful expenditures of theCity of Nanaimo.


9. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS:

(a) Report from Mr. R. J. Reimer, Revenue Manager / Collector, re: 2004, 2003,1997 and 1996 Assessment Roll Adjustments.

(b) Report from Councillor Cantelon, Chair, New Nanaimo Centre Advisory Committee,re: Status Update Report.

It was moved and seconded that the Information Only Items be received. Themotion carried unanimously.

Item (b):

It was moved and seconded that the New Nanaimo Center Advisory Committee beexpanded to include two additional positions to be filled by two individuals from the Friendsof Plan Nanaimo organization. The motion was defeated.Opposed: Mayor Korpan, Councillors Cantelon, Holdom, McNabb, Manhas, Tyndall


10. RECONSIDERATION OF BYLAWS:

(a) “ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2004 NO. 4000.323” (RA000091 -zoning boundary adjustment to facilitate lot boundary adjustment at4 Rosamond Street.)

It was moved and seconded that “ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2004NO. 4000.323” be finally adopted. The motion carried unanimously.

(b) “NEW NANAIMO CENTRE LOAN AUTHORIZATION BYLAW 2004 NO. 5750”(To authorize the borrowing of up to $30 Million to assist with the development ofthe New Nanaimo Centre project.)

(Bylaw 5750 had been pulled from the agenda earlier in the meeting.)

11. INTRODUCTION OF BYLAWS:

(a) “TEMPORARY LOAN BYLAW 2004 NO. 5738” (To authorize the borrowing of upto $1.1 Million to meet the borrowing needs of the City during the year 2005,if required.)

It was moved and seconded that “TEMPORARY LOAN BYLAW 2004 NO. 5738”pass first, second and third readings. The motion carried unanimously.

12. CORRESPONDENCE:

(a) Letter dated 2004-OCT-28 from Mr. Malcolm D. Brodie, Mayor, City of Richmond,Richmond, B.C., advising Mr. Mike Hunter, MLA, Nanaimo, that Richmond CityCouncil adopted a resolution in support of BC tourism.

(b) Letter dated 2004-NOV-16 from Mr. Bob Elton, President andChief Executive Officer, BC Hydro, 333 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, B.C., seekingCouncil’s input on the “2005 Integrated Electricity Plan” to help facilitate theprovince’s electricity needs for the future.

(c) Letter dated 2004-NOV-17 from Mr. Stephen Hunt, Director, United Steelworkers ofAmerica, District 3, Western Provinces and Territories,#300 - 3920 Norland Avenue, Burnaby, B.C., requesting a meeting with Councilregarding the coastal forest industry.

(d) Letter dated 2004-NOV-22 from Ms. Joyce Brookbank, President,Nanaimo & District Museum Society, 100 Cameron Road, Nanaimo, B.C.,expressing gratitude on behalf of the Nanaimo District Museum to the Council andcitizens of Nanaimo for including an expanded new Museum in theNew Nanaimo Centre and allowing this vision to become a reality.

It was moved and seconded that the Correspondence be received. The motioncarried unanimously.


13. ADJOURNMENT:

It was moved and seconded at 9:42 p.m. that the meeting terminate, with the nextMeeting of Council to be held Monday, 2004-DEC-13, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in theCouncil Chamber, City Hall. The motion carried unanimously.

____________________M A Y O R

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

___________________________DEPUTY MANAGER,CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

minutes of the november 29,2004 council meeting 2004-nov-29 page 2 3. receiving of delegations: it...

Documents