planning and community development committee … · staff report to planning and community...

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, December 8, 2016 SCRD Boardroom, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, B.C.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 a.m. AGENDA

1. Adoption of Agenda

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

2. Larry Penonzek, Applicant for Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 (BYL00001). Regarding Development Proposal.

Verbal

REPORTS

3. Planner and Manager, Planning and Development – Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 (BYL00001) - Electoral Area E Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex A pp. 1 - 15

4. Senior Planner – BURNCO Aggregate Environmental Assessment – Proponent’s Responses to SCRD Board Resolution 367/16 Recommendation No. 4 – Electoral Area F (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All)

Annex B pp. 16 - 24

5. Senior Planner – Crown Referrals 2409428 (SS Creek) and 2409550 (CC Creek) for Investigative Use Permits for Power Projects in Tzoonie River Area – Electoral Area B Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex C pp. 25 - 36

6. Manager, Planning and Development – Board of Variance: Review of Opportunities (Rural Planning Service) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex D pp. 37 – 40

7. Manager, Planning and Development – Update Boat Ramp at Wood Bay, 10605 Sunshine Coast Highway Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Service) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex E pp. 41 - 43

8. Electoral Area B (Halfmoon Bay) APC Minutes of November 22, 2016 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex F pp. 44 - 46

9. Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) APC Minutes of November 23, 2016 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex G pp. 47 - 50

10. Electoral Area F (West Howe Sound) APC Minutes of November 22, 2016 Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex H pp. 51 - 53

Planning and Community Development Committee Agenda – December 8, 2016

COMMUNICATIONS

11. Peter Luckham, Chair, Islands Trust Council, dated November 18, 2016. Regarding Islands Trust Council Feedback on Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Feasibility Study.

Annex I pp. 54 - 56

NEW BUSINESS

IN CAMERA

That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1)(a) and (k) of the Community Charter – “personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent..” and “negotiations and related discussions regarding a municipal service..”.

ADJOURNMENT

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Planning and Community Development Committee – December 8, 2016

AUTHORS: Lesley-Ann Staats, Planner Andrew Allen, Manager of Planning and Development

SUBJECT: SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 310.168, 2016

(BYL00001) – ELECTORAL AREA E

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the report titled Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 (BYL00001) – Electoral Area E be received; AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 be forwarded to the Board for First Reading; AND THAT the SCRD accept the proposed park dedication and request that the applicant renews the irrevocable letter of credit for $15,000, or cash equivalent, to contribute toward future bridge construction, per the covenant registered on title; AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 be referred to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, and the Squamish Nation for comment;

AND FURTHER THAT after referral comments have been received, Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 be considered for the scheduling of a public hearing.

BACKGROUND

The Regional District received a zoning amendment bylaw (“rezoning”) application to separate one parcel of land from a future bare land strata subdivision and mobile home park at 1327 Fitchett Road and to donate one other piece of land, on the west side of the ravine, as part of a larger park dedication.

At its meeting on November 24, 2016, the SCRD Board adopted resolution 430/16, Recommendation No. 12 as follows:

THAT the report titled Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 (BYL00001) – Electoral Area E be received; AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 be referred to the Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission for comment; AND FURTHER THAT consideration of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 be postponed to allow for the applicant to request to

ANNEX A

1

Staff Report to Planning and Community Development Committee – December 8, 2016 Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016 Page 2 of 12

2016-Dec-08 BYL00001 Report to PCD FINAL

attend as a delegation to a future Planning and Community Development Committee meeting to present the proposed changes to the development plan.

Site and Surrounding Uses

The subject property is 10.88 hectares (26.88 acres). It is currently being used as a gravel pit and concrete production site, which is a non-conforming industrial use in a rural residential neighbourhood.

Chaster Creek, surrounded by its steep ravine, flows along the west side of the property. The southern and eastern portion of the lot is cleared where the gravel pit is located. There is a treed buffer along Chaster Creek ravine, which meanders through the property on the northwest corner.

Figure 1 below provides a location map of the subject property.

Figure 1: Location Map

Table 1 on the following page provides a summary of the application.

2



Owner / Applicant: 0734692 BC LTD / Larry W. Penonzek

Legal Description: South ½ of DL 908 Plan 15254, PID 015-955-362

Location: 1327 Fitchett Road, Elphinstone, BC

Existing Zoning: R2 (Residential Two), R2A (Residential Two A) and RM3 (Residential Multiple Three)

Existing Subdivision District:

A (min. 1000 m²), C (min. 2000 m²), RM3 (Comprehensive Development Cluster Housing)

Proposed Zoning: R2A (Residential Two A), RM3 (Residential Multiple Three) and RU1 (Rural Residential)

Proposed Subdivision District:

A (min. 1000 m²) and RM3 (Comprehensive Development Cluster Housing)

OCP Designation: Comprehensive Development Cluster Housing / Residential C

Parcel Area: 10.88 hectares (26.88 acres) Table 1: Application Summary

History of Subdivision Application (Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.123, 2008)

In 2007, the SCRD received the initial proposal for the cluster-development bare land strata subdivision and mobile home park, which proposed 19 bare land strata lots on the north, 60 mobile home spaces on the south, and park dedication and covenanted greenspace along Chaster Creek to the west. This development was consistent with the Elphinstone Official Community Plan (OCP), which was adopted at this time.

The proposed mobile home park development met the OCP density conditions of 15 units per hectare; however, the SCRD supported rezoning to a density bonus of up to 20 units per hectare in order to:

acquire 50% of the lot for dedicated park land for public use (rather than greenspace protected by a covenant, owned by the mobile home park);

ensure an engineered on-site stormwater retention and detention plan is implemented at the time of development;

ensure a pedestrian bridge is constructed across Chaster Creek; and

implement a density bonus allowance if the applicant volunteers a covenant on title that guarantees that a housing agreement is implemented to secure 20% of the homes within the mobile home park for affordability.

Housing agreements, enabled by Section 483 of the Local Government Act, are registered on title and provide a way for local governments to influence type and cost of housing in exchange for greater density.

3



A covenant was registered on title in 2009 as a condition of third reading and adoption of Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.123. A summary of the covenant is as follows:

that the development substantially complies with the subdivision plan (19 bare land strata lots, 60 mobile home spaces, and 4.84 hectares of park dedication and greenspace);

that the proposed community sewage treatment system be designed and constructed to SCRD and Municipal Sewage Regulations standards;

that the engineered stormwater management plan be implemented;

that a statutory right-of-way be registered over the strata roads to permit:

o SCRD access to maintain water mains and sewer system

o public pedestrian and vehicle traffic through the parcel

o public access to the park and use of the common greenspace

that the developer enter into a housing agreement with the SCRD should the net density of the mobile home park exceed 15 mobile home spaces per hectare (up to 20 spaces per hectare); and

that the developer submits an irrevocable letter of credit in the sum of $15,000 for the construction of a pedestrian bridge across Chaster Creek.

The SCRD accepted the letter of credit which expired in June 2010. The bridge was intended to be built in partnership with the SCRD at the time of subdivision with the $15,000.

The registration of the covenant is an indication that the SCRD Board chose to accept the park dedication during this initial zoning approval.

Since the original rezoning approval, the development has been on hold and at this time the owners wish to proceed with the subdivision application and combined with the additional proposed zoning amendments.

Current Application

The subdivision plan submitted on September 7, 2016, along with the rezoning application has been revised from the original subdivision plan approved in 2009. The revised subdivision plan provides 19 bare land strata lots on the northern portion of the subject lot, 64 mobile home spaces on the southern portion, additional park dedication along Chaster Creek on the west, two septic fields (one for the strata and one for the mobile home park) and proposed Lot C, a 1400 m² parcel at the southeast corner of DL 908. The revised 2016 subdivision plan is enclosed as Attachment A.

The revised subdivision plan provides space for 83 housing units and 4.83 hectares of green space and park land. The revised plan complies with the spirit of the original plan.

4



The applicant is requesting to:

rezone proposed Lot C, the 1400 m² parcel at the southeast corner of DL 908, in order to exclude the existing house, garage and shed from the bare land strata and mobile home development proposal;

add 2400 m² of park from the northwest corner of DL 908 to the proposed adjacent park; and

develop two septic systems: one for the strata development and one for the mobile home park, rather than combining the system into one as initially presented.

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the rezoning application and obtain direction.

DISCUSSION

Elphinstone Official Community Plan (OCP)

The Elphinstone OCP outlines potential for increasing density in certain areas, including this subject parcel. Specific policies in the OCP pertain to DL 908 which has been identified as Comprehensive Development Cluster Housing Area No. 2 OCP text (in part):

1. … site rezonings may be considered to allow a density bonus in subdivisions creating smaller parcels averaging 1000 sq. m. (0.25 acres) (with a minimum parcel size of 700 sq. m. [0.18 acres]) if:

(a) Land comprising 50% of subdivision’s gross area is dedicated as park or is protected as publicly-accessible open space with a covenant and statutory right of way provided this area has a minimum depth of 30 metres (98 feet) adjacent to the top of bank of the Chaster Creek ravine; and

(b) The subdivision is serviced by a local community sewer system within the Regional District.

2. … site rezonings may be considered to allow a density bonus in subdivisions with a flat minimum parcel size of 700 sq. m. (0.18 acres) if there is also:

(a) Installation of systems for on-site clean stormwater retention for irrigation, and stormwater detention to improve nearby riparian habitat; and

(b) Additional road dedication and funding is provided for a road or pathway across Chaster Creek and/or for extending Harry Road.

In addition to the rezoning criteria, the OCP identifies a future neighbourhood park at Chaster Creek at Fitchett Road to be dedicated to the SCRD at the time of subdivision or rezoning. The OCP states that a future park area shall be dedicated within the Chaster Creek ravine setback designated as streamside protection and enhancement area at the time of rezoning following the cluster housing area policies.

5



The rezoning for DL 908 was completed in 2009, in accordance with the above OCP policies, to permit the bare land strata and mobile home park subdivision and park dedication.

Land Use Zoning

District Lot 908 is split zoned:

The northern portion (which applies to the bare land strata portion) is zoned R2A (Residential Two A) which permits one single family dwelling with a floor area ratio, home occupation, and a bed and breakfast home. The maximum permitted height for buildings in this zone is 8.5 metres (27.9 feet).

The northwestern portion (which applies to the proposed 2400 m² area to be added to adjacent park) is zoned R2.

Staff recommend rezoning this portion of park from R2 to R2A, similar to the rest of the northern portion of DL 908. Because it is park dedication, this is not a necessary change but would provide consistency in the zoning cadastral. Amendment Bylaw 310.168 is enclosed as Attachment B.

The southern portion (which applies to the mobile home park) is zoned RM3 (Residential Multiple Three) which permits a mobile home park, home occupation, residential auxiliary and service buildings, and park and recreational areas.

Proposed Lot C falls within the RM3 zone, which does not reflect the proposed use of an independent single family dwelling. Staff recommend rezoning Lot C from RM3 to RU1, similar to the lots surrounding it, as it is intended to be a rural residential lot.

Overall, the subdivision proposal is consistent with zoning, except for proposed Lot C.

Subdivision District

The northwestern portion of DL 908 is in subdivision district ‘C’ as specified in SCRD Zoning By-law 310 which allows a minimum 2000 m² parcel size. The existing subdivision district for the southern portion of DL 908 is ‘RM3’ which allows:

(a) Not more than 15 bare land strata parcels per hectare shall be permitted in the RM3 Subdivision District under the RM3 Zone Base Density;

(b) Not more than 20 bare land strata parcels per hectare shall be permitted in the RM3 Subdivision District under RM3 Zone Density Bonus Option.

The above is not consistent with a request to create a single property and therefore similar to the land use zoning, staff recommend rezoning Lot C from the ‘RM3’ subdivision district to the ‘A’ subdivision district which allows a minimum lot size of 1000 m². This would enable the applicant to exclude proposed Lot C from the mobile home park proposal.

6



Park Dedication

The OCP states under Policy B-8.4(5)(a) that the land “…is dedicated as park or is protected as publically accessible open space with a covenant and statutory right of way…”, at the time of the rezoning application, the SCRD decided to accept the land as park dedication, rather than maintaining a statutory right-of-way over privately owned land.

There are cost implications and risks associated with accepting park dedication such as the development of park land, maintenance of park land and danger trees, invasive species, ravine erosion, and impacts to parks operation resources.

Parks operations and Planning staff completed a site visit of the proposed park on October 25, 2016, to ground truth the area. The following is a summary of the site visit:

The northern portion on the east side of Chaster Creek has the potential to be developed into a small park along the creek where the existing road is located.

Ravine slopes on both sides of Chaster Creek are very steep and it was difficult to determine a location for a pedestrian bridge.

To ensure safety measures are considered, a tree assessment and slope stability assessment should be completed prior to acceptance of the park.

There were areas with garbage scattered (concrete, metal scraps, cans) that should be cleaned up by the owners.

There were some invasive plants identified: Knotweeds, Scotch Broom, Lamium and creeping buttercup. The Knotweeds and Scotch Broom are located at the access to the existing road; the Lamium was scattered along the ravine with some in the creek bed; and the creeping buttercup was over the existing road.

The following options may be considered.

Option 1: Accept the proposed park dedication and request that the applicant renews the irrevocable letter of credit for $15,000, or cash equivalent, to contribute toward future bridge construction, per the covenant registered on title.

This option implements the 2009 zoning amendment and policies within the OCP. The developer registered a covenant on title to ensure the park dedication would be provided along with a $15,000 letter of credit for the construction of a pedestrian bridge, which has since expired. If the development proceeds a new irrevocable letter of credit, or cash payment of $15,000 must be submitted.

The park dedication will extend to protect a highly valued wildlife corridor as well as provide a future pedestrian link across the ravine.

The pedestrian bridge was proposed to provide access across the creek connecting neighbourhoods separated by the ravine. A location for a bridge has

7



not yet been confirmed and because of the steep ravine slopes, it could be costly.

Due to the increase in building and engineering costs over the years, the $15,000 accepted for the bridge in 2009 is no longer sufficient to build a bridge with appropriate access today. Additional budgeting will be required in the future to construct and maintain this bridge.

In addition to the cost of building a bridge, access to the bridge on the west side of the ravine should be secured to ensure connectivity.

Staff recommend this option.

Option 2: Request money in lieu of park dedication at the time of subdivision.

Another option to consider is money in lieu of park. This option does not specifically implement the policies in the OCP; however, it does provide the SCRD with money in lieu of park dedication, which would be added to a reserve fund for the purpose of acquiring future park land.

Current Board policy when accepting money in lieu of park is to have the applicant commission an appraisal of the property and pay 5 percent of the appraised value. The value is calculated on the value of land and not including buildings or other infrastructure improvements. This is consistent with the requirements of the Local Government Act.

In July 2016, the property had an assessed land value of $606,000. Five percent of the assessed value is $30,300. The July assessment is not necessarily the same as a current property appraisal, but it does provide an estimate. The estimate is approximately double the proposed contribution of the $15,000 payment toward a future bridge.

This option will require an amendment of the covenant on title.

Option 3: Accept the proposed park dedication and negotiate with the applicant to amend the existing covenant to use money in lieu of the pedestrian bridge for future on-site park development.

This option implements most of the zoning amendment bylaw that was approved by the Board, and implements most of the policies in the OCP, except for the road or pathway across Chaster Creek policy.

The park dedication will extend to protect a wildlife corridor.

The pedestrian bridge was proposed to provide access across the creek connecting neighbourhoods separated by the ravine. A preliminary estimate of the cost of a pedestrian bridge could be upwards of $65,000 depending on the location, engineering and construction factors. A detailed cost assessment has

8



not been conducted to date. However, a connection across the creek is noted as a priority in the OCP.

The preliminary pedestrian bridge estimate is more than what the developer provided to the SCRD due to the increase in building fees and standards, maintenance requirements, and access considerations on the other side of the ravine. This option, therefore, suggests using money-in-lieu of the pedestrian bridge for the development of the park. The development may include trail building and structures (such as picnic tables, benches, garbage cans, etc).

It is important to note that this option does not preclude future development of a bridge across Chaster Creek.

There are operating and capital replacement costs associated with the development of the park, including trail development and on-going maintenance (such as trail maintenance, tree assessments, garbage collection, bench maintenance, etc).

In order to pursue this option, there must be an agreement with the property owners to amend the covenant on title.

Affordable Housing

Recent steady increases in housing prices on the Sunshine Coast make affordable housing a concern. Small lot subdivision developments and mobile home parks often provide affordable housing options.

The 2009 zoning amendment was approved with the developer’s commitment to enter into a housing agreement covenant if the bonus density option of the RM3 zone is implemented (more than 15 mobile home spaces per hectare). This commitment has been secured through Covenant BB1085551.

This application supports affordable housing.

Agency Referrals

Following first reading, Amendment Bylaw No. 310.168 and related information will be referred to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Squamish Nation for the opportunity of early and ongoing consultation.

At its meeting on November 23, 2016, the Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission reviewed the application and made the following recommendation:

Given that the APC has approved the rezoning and subdivision prior to the proposed changes, the APC recommends approval. However, as the SCRD has agreed that it is not reasonable to build a bridge, and the $15,000 in funds to do so is therefore not required for this purpose, the APC considers the gift of the park as enough of an exchange.

9



Financial Implications

The subdivision will provide Development Cost Charge revenue and service related implications. It will also increase the tax base and related apportionment to those services.

Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date

Upon first reading, referrals will commence to the technical agencies. Following receipt of referral comments, a report will be written for the Planning and Community Development Committee to consider next steps and public hearing.

STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

SCRD Strategic Plan Priorities

Embed Environmental Leadership

Ensure Fiscal Sustainability

Facilitate Community Development

We Envision

The following are quotes from the We Envision regional sustainability plan, which lend support to the creation of affordable housing:

We envision all people on the Sunshine Coast having access to high-quality drinking water, locally grown and produced food, and a wide selection of affordable housing options to meet present and future demands.

We envision a wide selection of housing options, including access to affordable housing, that meet the present and future needs of all Sunshine Coast residents, while demonstrating sustainable building practices.

CONCLUSION

The Regional District received a rezoning application to separate one parcel of land from a future bare land strata and mobile home park subdivision at 1327 Fitchett Road and to add one other piece of land as part of a larger park dedication. The initial proposal for this subdivision was submitted to the SCRD in 2007, and the zoning amendment bylaw was approved in 2009.

This rezoning application is to exclude proposed Lot C, the 1400 m² southeast corner of DL 908, from the mobile home development proposal. In addition to excluding proposed Lot C, the applicant proposes to add 2400 m² of park from the northwest corner of DL 908 to the existing adjacent park.

Staff propose a zoning change on the park dedication that has no direct impact on land use but creates consistency in the zoning cadastral. Staff also propose a zoning change to proposed Lot

10



C to exclude it from the rest of the development. Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168 is enclosed as Attachment B.

Staff recommend supporting this amendment bylaw and forwarding the amendment bylaw to the Board for First Reading; referring it to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, and the Squamish Nation for comment. Following receipt of referral comments, staff recommend scheduling a public hearing.

With respect to the park dedication, staff recommend that the SCRD accept the proposed park dedication and a renewal of the irrevocable line of credit, or cash equivalent, for the future construction of a pedestrian bridge.

The provision of affordable housing is a benefit to the community, which can be achieved through implementation of this development plan.

Reviewed by: Manager X - AA Finance GM X - IH Legislative CAO X - JL Other

Attachments

Attachment A – 2016 Subdivision Plan showing highlighted park dedication, proposed septic site, and proposed Lot C

Attachment B – Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168

11



ATTACHMENT A

2016 Subdivision Plan showing park dedication, proposed septic site, and proposed Lot C.

12

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 310.168, 2016

A bylaw to amend the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987.

The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: PART A – CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited as the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment

Bylaw No. 310.168, 2016. PART B – AMENDMENT 2. Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is hereby amended as

follows:

a) Amend Schedule ‘A’ by rezoning two parts of The South ½ of District Lot 908, Group 1 New Westminster District, Except Part in Plan 15254 from R2 to R2A and RM3 to RU1 as shown on Appendix A to this bylaw;

b) Amend Schedule ‘B’ by rezoning two parts of The South ½ of District Lot 908, Group1 New Westminster District, Except Part in Plan 15254 from Subdivision District C to Subdivision District A and RM3 to Subdivision District A as shown on Appendix B to this bylaw;

PART C – ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR APPROVED PURSUANT TO SECTION 52 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF MONTH YEAR ADOPTED this DAY OF MONTH YEAR

Corporate Officer Chair

Attachment B

13

RM3

R2A

KIN

G R

D

KEARTON RD

CASTLE RD

FITCHETT RD

JUDITH PLJUDITH RD

µ

Chair Corporate Officer

Change fromR2 to R2A

Rezoning the northwest part of subject property from R2 to R2A and the southeast part RM3 to RU1, as shown on hatched portions below

Change fromRM3 to RU1

Appendix A to Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.168, 2016

Zoning Landuse

Amendment Area

14

CA

RM3

G

KIN

G R

D

KEARTON RD

CASTLE RD

FITCHETT RD

JUDITH PLJUDITH RD

µ

Chair Corporate Officer

Change fromRM3 to A

Rezoning the northwest part of subject property from Subdivision District C to A and the southeast part from RM3 to A, as shown on hatched portions below

Change fromC to A

Appendix B to Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.168, 2016

Subdivision District Boundary

Amendment Area

15



AUTHOR: David Rafael, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: BURNCO AGGREGATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – PROPONENT’S RESPONSES TO SCRD BOARD RESOLUTION 367/16 RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 - ELECTORAL AREA F

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the report titled BURNCO Aggregate Environmental Assessment – Proponent’s Responses to SCRD Board Resolution 367/16 Recommendation No. 4 - Electoral Area F be received;

AND THAT SCRD send a letter and a copy of this report to the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) and BURNCO noting that:

1. BURNCO has addressed most issues raised by the SCRD in Board Resolution 367/16 Recommendation No. 4;

2. SCRD will review BURNCO’s responses to the complete set of issues when made available by the EAO

3. SCRD requests opportunities to consider subsequent plans and provide input to the approval agency before the plans are approved;

4. SCRD staff will contact representatives of the McNab Creek Strata and provide an update;

5. SCRD will continue to review the mines permitting process;

AND FURTHER THAT this recommendation be forwarded to the December 8, 2016 Regular Board meeting for adoption.

BACKGROUND

The SCRD Board considered BURNCO’s environmental assessment certificate application at two Regular Board meetings (September 8, 2016 and September 22, 2016).

367/16 Recommendation No. 4 BURNCO Environmental Assessment Preliminary Comments

THAT the report titled BURNCO Environmental Assessment Preliminary Comments be received;

ANNEX B

16

Staff Report to Planning and Community Development Committee - December 8, 2016 BURNCO Aggregate Environmental Assessment – Proponent’s Responses to SCRD Board Resolution 367/16 Recommendation No. 4 - Electoral Area F Page 2 of 9

2016-Dec-08 PCD Report re BURNCO EA proponents responses to SCRD submission

AND THAT the list of recommendations proposed as additions be received and referred to staff for consideration to incorporate into the final staff report to the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) to be received at the September 22, 2016 Corporate and Administrative Services Committee meeting;

AND FURTHER THAT the following recommendations be forwarded to the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) Working Group by the comment deadline of September 15, 2016:

A. Fisheries and Habitat Protection:

i. The Fish Habitat Offset Plan needs to be implemented at the outset of the project to allow for mature vegetation cover and for adjustments to be made to ensure the plan functions as expected;

ii. Sufficient funds should be set aside by BURNCO to allow for long term maintenance of the new stream and related infrastructure, such as the overflow gate and a channel from the pit lake, to ensure the plan functions as expected and to include a contingency plan to be followed if the compensation plan fails.

B. Marine Resources:

i. The impact on salmonids of contaminants in the water column due to disturbance of sediment needs to be assessed;

ii. More thorough studies and surveys should be completed on glass sponge reef presence within 200m of any part of the project area, and along any loaded barge transit routes, during the life of the project;

iii. The possible presence and impact on Northern Abalone, a species at risk, needs to be assessed;

iv. If new federal government legislative criteria for acoustic injury or disturbance to marine mammals, or marine birds, becomes applicable during the life of the project then impacts of noise generating activity need to be re-evaluated and updated mitigation measures applied;

v. Vessel operators should receive an appropriate amount of training on how to avoid impact with marine mammals, as part of overall environmental related training, and records need to be kept of any incidents.

C. Terrestrial Wildlife and Vegetation:

i. Consideration to reclamation of other portions of BURNCO’s property should be set out as a means of identifying potential offset areas to mitigate negative impacts, such as the loss of land to the pit lake, and provide habitat enhancements.

17



D. Air Quality:

i. Air quality monitoring stations should be located within or near the McNab Strata community and in the northern part of Gambier Island, and in a location along the Sea to Sky corridor, for the life of the project and these monitoring stations should be established at the outset of the project in order to establish meaningful baseline information;

ii. Information from the air quality monitoring stations must be made publicly available;

iii. The environmental certificate needs to include strong measures to address air quality problems and clearly identify the provincial or federal agency that is responsible for enforcement;

iv. Aggregate composition tests need to be done to ensure that harmful chemicals are not released during processing.

E. Noise:

i. Noise monitoring stations need to be located within or near the McNab Strata community and in the northern area of Gambier Island for the life of the project;

ii. Information from the noise monitoring stations must be made publicly available;

iii. The environmental certificate needs to include strong measures to address noise problems and clearly identify the provincial or federal agency that is responsible for enforcement;

iv. Site operations shall be consistent with Sunshine Coast Regional District Noise Control Bylaw No. 597, 2008.

F. Sustainable Economy:

i. The SCRD supports BURNCO’S commitment to local hiring and procurement;

ii. The SCRD supports BURNCO’S commitment to reaching a benefit agreement with the McNab Strata community;

iii. Marine tourism activities should be incorporated into the Access Management Plan.

G. Marine Transportation:

i. Recreational access to existing anchorages in the area need to be maintained;

ii. Adequate safety lighting needs to be installed on marine facilities.

18



H. Lighting:

i. The SCRD Lighting Guidelines must be followed for the lifetime of the project.

All SCRD input was sent to the EAO in time to meet the close of the public input period (October 3, 2016). The input set out in the September 22 Board Resolution 382/16 Recommendation No. 11 and comments provided by the SCRD’s Natural Resources Advisory Committee will be addressed by BURNCO at a later date when it reviews all comments received from the public comment period. When this review is completed it will be forwarded to the BC EAO after which it becomes publically available. It is anticipated that this will be done by mid-December. SCRD staff will review these when they are available and provide a report to a subsequent committee meeting. Extracts from BURNCO’s issues tracking table showing the SCRD comments provided for the working group deadline and the proponent’s responses are included in Attachment A.

The BC EAO website contains an issues tracking table showing the comments provided by members of the Working Group (including the SCRD) and the proponent’s responses:

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_doc_list_355_r_pro.html

The purpose of this report is to provide information regarding the proponent’s responses to SCRD comments provided to the EAO Working Group and to recommend next steps.

DISCUSSION

Analysis

BURNCO reviewed the comments provided by the SCRD and provided responses to each point raised by the SCRD to the EAO Working Group. BURNCO notes that concerns raised by the SCRD were considered during research for the environmental review (such as investigation of potential impact on Northern Abalone), will be considered in future detailed topic based plans (such as Noise Management Plan), or will be influenced by other agencies (such as Transport Canada requirements incorporated in a Marine Transport Management Plan). BURNCO also commented that some actions identified by the SCRD will take place, such as implementation of the Fish Habitat Offset Plan prior to construction of the project.

One item was partially addressed, (C i – consideration of reclamation outside of the project area). This could be considered as part of the Reclamation and Effective Closure Plan and Wildlife Management (Protection) Plan. The response focused on the project footprint. SCRD asked that areas outside the project footprint be considered for reclamation as compensation for loss of land to the lake. BURNCO noted that effectiveness of wildlife mitigation will be monitored leaving the option open for adjustments based on the results of these studies.

With regard to noise monitoring, BURNCO commits to placing a monitoring station near the McNab Creek Strata and on Ekins Point (Gambier Island). SCRD and Islands Trust staff have liaised regarding the BURNCO proposal. Noise is also a significant issue for the Islands Trust.

19

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/html/deploy/epic_project_doc_list_355_r_pro.html



SCRD staff have informed Islands Trust staff regarding the proposal for Ekins Point to allow Islands Trust to respond directly to BURNCO or the EAO regarding the location’s suitability. BURNCO also stated that the Noise Management Plan will establish a “mutually aggregable mechanism for engaging with the McNab Creek Strata owners regarding issues of mutual benefit”. Staff will contact Strata representatives regarding this item to confirm if the mechanism is suitable and acceptable.

Staff note that BURNCO has addressed most of the comments raised by the SCRD in Board Resolution 367/16 Recommendation No. 4, although there are some gaps due to issues proposed to be addressed in more detail in subsequent plans. Staff note that the BC EAO will establish conditions that will be included in the environmental assessment certificate that will set out most of the requirements. Staff will review the certificate, if it is issued, and provide information to the Board about the conditions and whether these address SCRD concerns. Other conditions may be included in the various permits that are required if the project moves forward, such as possible authorization from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The province recently established a major mines permit review and coordination process through the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Responsible for Core Review. Ministry staff established a review group to identify and review the requirements for the full range of permits that are needed by this project. Staff have attended meetings of this review group via conference calls and will continue to monitor its progress and identify potential issues of concern to the SCRD.

Options

At this point staff note that BURNCO has addressed those issues raised to meet the Working Group deadline. A copy of this report should be sent to the EAO and the proponent for information. Staff recommend that the EAO be advised that the SCRD expects to be sent draft plans that set out details on issues such as noise management to allow for the SCRD to provide input regarding whether its concerns have been addressed in detail.

Staff will continue to review the EA application with a focus on the proponent’s responses to the other issues raised by the Board.

Organization and Intergovernmental Implications

If the project moves forward SCRD staff resources will be required to review the detailed reports that cover issues of concern to the SCRD.

Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date

The BC EAO is under a legislated timeline to review the application. In order to assist the EAO in meeting its timeline, the recommendations need to be considered by the Board as soon as possible. SCRD staff is a member of the EAO Working Group and will be kept informed of progress and opportunities for further input.

Communications Strategy

Staff will update the SCRD webpage regarding the BURNCO project.

20




Participation in the environmental assessment process contributes towards the Board’s key strategic priority to Embed Environmental Leadership.

CONCLUSION

Staff consider that BURNCO’s has responded to the SCRD’s submission to the EAO Working Group. Some items are outstanding as they will be the subject of detailed topic based plans that will be developed if the project moves forward. Staff recommend that the EAO and BURNCO be notified that the SCRD expects to have an opportunity to provide input to these draft plans. Staff recommend that the EAO and BURNCO be informed that SCRD staff will continue to participate in the mines permit review group. The SCRD will provide additional comments when the full set of BURNCO responses to comments provided by the SCRD through the public comment period are made available for review.

Attachments

Attachment A – Extract from Issues Tracking Table


21



ATTACHMENT A

22



23



24



AUTHOR: David Rafael, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: CROWN REFERRALS 2409428 (SS CREEK) AND 2409550 (CC CREEK) FOR INVESTIGATIVE USE PERMITS FOR POWER PROJECTS IN TZOONIE RIVER AREA – ELECTORAL AREA B

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the report titled Crown Referrals 2409428 (SS Creek) and 2409550 (CC Creek) for Investigative Use Permits for Power Projects in Tzoonie River Area – Electoral Area B be received;

AND THAT the SCRD send a letter along with a copy of this report to the Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the applicant (Narrows Inlet Hydro Holding Corp.) noting no objections to the issuance of investigative use permits subject to the following being conditions of the permit:

i. remediation of any disturbed land;

ii. removal of any unnecessary equipment or material used for the investigation;

AND THAT the proponent apply to rezone each powerhouse site and temporary use areas;

AND FURTHER THAT this recommendation be forwarded to the December 8, 2016 Regular Board meeting for adoption.

BACKGROUND

The SCRD received referrals for two applications for investigative use permits for lake storage hydro projects on tributaries to the Tzoonie River. The applicant is Narrows Inlet Hydro Holding Corp., the company that owns the Tyson Creek project and is developing three power projects on creeks in the area (Narrows Inlet Hydro – Chikwat, Upper and Lower Ramona creeks). The subjects of these permit applications are known as SS Creek and CC Creek and are fed by high elevation lakes. The map below shows the location of the investigative use areas and the application summary is provided in the table that follows. Supporting information was provided by the applicant which includes information about the activities that would take place (Attachment A).

The two creeks were originally part of the Narrows Inlet project that underwent an environmental assessment. However part way through the process the two creeks were removed from the project at the applicant’s requests. Thus SS and CC creeks were not included in the environmental assessment certificate or the rezoning of the powerhouse sites. Prior to the environmental assessment the sites were the subject of investigative use permits in 2008.

ANNEX C

25

Staff Report to Planning and Community Development Committee - December 8, 2016 Crown Referrals 2409428 (SS Creek) and 2409550 (CC Creek) for Investigative Use Permits for Power Projects in Tzoonie River Area – Electoral Area B

Page 2 of 12

2016-Dec-08 PCD Report re Crown referrals 2409428 and 2409550 waterpower investigative use

Figure 1 – General Site map

Name (Location) SS and CC Creeks, tributaries to Tzoonie River

File Numbers 2409428 and 2409550

Applicant NI Hydro Holding Corp.

Proposal Investigative Use Licence for Waterpower purposes,

Power Production each site 7 MW, lake storage

Transmission Lines SS: 400m and CC: 5.5 km to interconnect with existing Tyson Creek transmission line and feed into existing Narrows Inlet substation

Penstock length to Powerhouse

SS: 5 km tunnel and penstock CC: 3 km tunnel and penstock

Legal Description That Parcel or Tract of Land in the Vicinity of District Lot 8158, Group 1, New Westminster District

Size (Area) SS: 1024.314 Ha. +/- CC: 1571.422 Ha. +/-

Term 5 years

Response is requested by November 28, 2016 ((Extension to Dec 9 requested)

Table 1 - Application Summary

26


Page 3 of 12


The purpose of this report is to provide information on the application and set out recommendations to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

DISCUSSION

Analysis

Information from the province notes that during the preliminary phase of an independent power project an investigative permit allows proponents to access Crown land and begin studying the area in which they plan to build their project. The permit allows proponents to access Crown land but does not allow the construction of any improvements on the land. If the investigation supports moving forward licences of occupation or leases are required from the province.

As part of the previous investigative use permits and work done to support the environmental assessment certificate application, information was collected over several years. However additional study is needed to provide more detailed design and to eventually support permits for the development of the two projects. The applicant notes that some of the investigations may be intrusive (such as placing/maintaining monitoring equipment and collecting soil and rock samples). Detailed plans have yet to be finalized and the applicant stated that it “intends to comply with all notification and reporting requirements”.

It is likely remediation will take place to address any intrusive activities and that any material/equipment no longer needed for the investigation will be removed. This should be noted in the final investigation plan. Staff recommend that these actions are part of the permit conditions. If the projects move forward Narrows Inlet Hydro Holding Corp. should apply to rezone the powerhouse sites and any temporary use areas.

The two projects are relatively small with respect to power production and would not, on their own or combined, automatically trigger a formal environmental assessment if they move forward. Staff have asked the BC Environmental Assessment Office whether it would consider these projects as extensions to the Narrows Inlet project that recently received an environmental assessment certificate and would this trigger a formal environmental assessment.

If no environmental assessment is required, SCRD staff understand that the various provincial and federal agencies and Ministries would review the projects should either or both move forward past the investigative stage and be the subject of tenure applications. These applications would be referred to the SCRD.

Options

Staff recommend that the investigative use permits be issued as there are no issues to suggest the permits should be refused subject to remediation and removal of material/equipment being permit conditions.

The original deadline for the referral did not allow for a report to be provided to the Board for consideration. Staff requested an extension to allow for SCRD input, however this was not provided. Staff forwarded a copy of this report to FLNRO when the committee agenda was

27


Page 4 of 12


published and will forward the Board resolution when it is available. FLNRO staff noted that this would be acceptable.


Providing comments to the province regarding referrals supports the Strategic Plan Value of Collaboration.

CONCLUSION

SCRD staff have not identified any issues that would raise a concern and recommend that the SCRD send a letter noting there are no objections to the investigative use permits being issued.

The letter should note the need for remediation, removal of any unnecessary material/ equipment and if the projects move forward that rezoning applications are submitted to the SCRD.


Attachments

Attachment A – Application Details

28


Page 5 of 12


ATTACHMENT A

29


Page 6 of 12


30


Page 7 of 12


31


Page 8 of 12


32


Page 9 of 12


33


Page 10 of 12


34


Page 11 of 12


35


Page 12 of 12


36



AUTHOR: Andrew Allen, Manager, Planning and Development

SUBJECT: BOARD OF VARIANCE: REVIEW OF OPPORTUNITIES

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the report titled Board of Variance: Review of Opportunities be received.

BACKGROUND

At the October 27, 2016 meeting the Board adopted the following recommendation:

404/16 Recommendation No. 14 Board of Variance Process

THAT staff provide a report before the end of 2016 regarding opportunities within provincial legislation, SCRD Bylaw or Board policy to consider changes to the Board of Variance process, such as:

a) Broadening public notification of Board of Variance applications;

b) Applying more stringent criteria as to the applicant’s choice of Board of Variance or Development Variance Permit process;

c) Ensuring Board of Variance members receive and consider relevant Official Community Plan policies;

d) Allowing Rural Areas to opt out of the Board of Variance process.

AND THAT following receipt of the report by the Planning and Community Development Committee, the report be referred to all Electoral Area Advisory Planning Commissions and the Roberts Creek Official Community Plan Committee.

This report will provide background on the board of variance process and address the questions of opportunities available to the SCRD.

DISCUSSION

According to Bill Buholzer’s British Columbia Planning and Law Practice Manual the board of variance (BOV) in British Columbia is as old as zoning. Zoning powers were introduced into the Town Planning Act in 1925 and this act contained requirements for local governments to have a BOV. The BOV remained the only method of relaxing bylaw requirements until 1985 which saw the introduction of the development variance permit (DVP) process.

ANNEX D

37

Staff Report to Planning and Community Development Committee – December 8, 2016 Board of Variance: Review of Opportunities Page 2 of 4

2016-Dec-08 PCD - BOV Information and Opportunities Report

The introduction of the DVP process was confusing at the time as the two permit types have overlapping jurisdiction, however no rules or guidelines were provided as to which jurisdiction is senior. Therefore, since 1985 local governments have been utilizing both application processes without clear regulatory guidance pertaining to applicability. Existing regulatory guidance pertains to process of each rather than hierarchy. Local government staff are advised not to steer applicants into one application type or the other. Planning staff can provide examples of precedents of what has been considered minor in other applications; however only the BOV can determine what is and is not minor and within their jurisdiction. This is a question for the BOV itself to determine, rather than local government or other interested parties. The BOV has jurisdiction to order only a minor variance and only if it finds that compliance with the bylaw would cause undue hardship. Again, this is a decision for the BOV to make. Planning staff do advise applicants to take this into account when making an application. Neither the BOV nor DVP is considered senior; therefore neither can consider an appeal from the decision of the other in respect of the same application. If an application is refused by one body the applicant may make the same application to the other body. However, this would be considered a new application rather than an appeal. Options and Analysis

Analysis of factors including notification, application selection criteria, OCP conformance and opting out of the BOV follows below.

Notification:

Section 541 of the Local Government Act indicates that owners and occupiers of the subject site and land that is adjacent to the application be notified of the variance request. SCRD Board of Variance Bylaw 380 has similar terms and also includes a specification that adjacent properties expand to properties across a private or public right of way or road. A bylaw shall be consistent with the Local Government Act and therefore Bylaw 380 was created with consistent notification requirements. In his law practice manual, Bill Bulholzer argues that there is room for latitude in this area and the term adjacent can be considered as reasonably adjacent. There could be an argument to amend this section of Bylaw 380 or re-visit it in a larger scale bylaw re-write. Procedures and Fees Bylaw 522 contains a notification radius of 50 metres in the R1 & R2 zones and 100 metres for other zones. An opportunity for increased notification could be considered in a revision to Bylaw 380 and could potentially be based on this scale as a transparency opportunity. There is also an opportunity to highlight up-coming BOV applications on the SCRD web page and to post minutes of the meetings. This can increase the transparency of the process and enable neighbours and other interested parties an opportunity to be apprised of applications and decisions.

38



Application Selection Criteria:

When requesting a variance an applicant is free to choose either application process. Planning staff outline the differences between the two applications and specifically highlight the need to indicate hardship and minor variance request when applying to the BOV. An information brochure is available to applicants for each process and the SCRD website includes an explanation of the different options. Best practice, based on professional development opportunities provided by the Planning Institute of British Columbia and advice from the law practice manual, is that it is the applicant’s choice as to which application process to pursue. However, local government does not have a veto opportunity or final decision. Based on accepted application practice, there are no new opportunities to vary the process selection criteria. SCRD staff will continue to provide professional and accurate information. OCP Conformance: When considering setback variance requests there are a number of factors to consider such as building code compliance, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure concerns, development permit areas, beach accesses and other internal / inter-departmental considerations. At the most recent BOV meeting in September, Planning staff used the SCRD report template which is designed to capture organizational requirements and considerations, including OCP conformance. There is an opportunity to increase the cross-functional analysis of BOV reviews and to negotiate improvements to off-site amenities such as beach accesses, as was done in the most recent BOV application. The BOV information pamphlet can also highlight the importance of OCP compliance. Participation in Board of Variance: The Local Government Act is clear that if a local government has adopted a zoning bylaw then it must establish a BOV. Therefore there is no opportunity for the SCRD to opt out of the board of variance process as long as there are zoning bylaws. The one part of the Local Government Act that offers an opportunity for an alternative is a joint board of variance. The SCRD could partner with one or both of the municipalities to share a board of variance if desired. It is not clear if this option is beneficial to the SCRD and to the other local governments. It could potentially be more efficient to have one BOV; however further consideration is required to determine how this might work logistically and financially. The Board could choose to forward this to the municipalities for comment. Bylaw Review: As referenced, there are two SCRD bylaws respecting variance applications and related procedures: Board of Variance Bylaw 380 and Procedures and Fees Bylaw 522. Both of these bylaws are due for review and updating.

39



A review of Bylaw 380 would enable an examination of the notification procedures and the ability to expand from directly adjacent to adjacent within reason – perhaps a set distance such as 50 and 100 metres as in Bylaw 522. A review of Bylaw 522 may be undertaken to examine fees and application information requirements. Staff comment that consistent notification standards for each application type. Consistency would be beneficial for both staff and the community. Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications

Should the Board be interested, this report could be forwarded to the District of Sechelt and the Town of Gibsons for the consideration of a joint BOV.

Communications Strategy

Consistent with Board resolution 404/16 Recommendation No. 14, this report will be referred to all APC’s and the Roberts Creek OCPC. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

A review of the BOV and DVP process is consistent with the strategic objective of ‘Enhance our governance policies, procedures and practices’.

CONCLUSION

A board of variance is required for any local government which has a zoning bylaw.

The review of BOV applications is consistent with SCRD Bylaws 380 and 522 as well as the provisions within the Local Government Act.

The bylaws and Local Government Act are prescriptive and outline requirements for BOV review. There are some opportunities which could be considered such as expanding the notification radius to match that of a development variance permit, utilizing the SCRD report format rather than a less formal memo and approaching and member municipalities to determine if there is interest in creating a joint board of variance.

This report will be referred to advisory planning commissions and the Roberts Creek OCPC for review.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X- IH Legislative X- AL CAO X - JL Other

40



AUTHOR: Andrew Allen, Manager, Planning and Development

SUBJECT: UPDATE BOAT RAMP AT WOOD BAY, 10605 SUNSHINE COAST HIGHWAY

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the report titled Update Boat Ramp at Wood Bay, 10605 Sunshine Coast Highway be received; AND THAT a letter be sent to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources Operations indicating that the property owner at 10605 Sunshine Coast Highway may keep the upland portion of the boat ramp for the sole purpose of removal of the residential moorage structure in the winter, enabling the Ministry to amend the license of occupation to be amended to require the removal of the ramp structure on the public beach.

BACKGROUND

The paved boat launch over the foreshore at a property in Wood Bay, located at 10605 Sunshine Coast Highway remains in place and is subject to a provincial trespass notice.

Planning staff have had recent discussions with Natural Resource Officers from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO) about the possible removal of the ramp projecting onto the beach.

DISCUSSION

Options and Analysis At the Regular Board meeting of the October 23, 2014, the SCRD Board adopted the following recommendation: 523/14 Recommendation No. 20 Crown Application 2410904 (Horst boat launch)

THAT the staff report dated August 14, 2014 titled “Horst boat launch –Area B” be received; AND THAT the SCRD submit a letter of formal complaint to the Crown regarding the boat launch constructed in contravention of Zoning Bylaw No. 310, and that this letter be copied to the shíshálh Nation; AND THAT the letter make note that the contravention may impact the neighbours from obtaining permission for a private moorage due to the location of the boat launch;

ANNEX E

41

Staff Report to Planning and Community Development Committee – December 8, 2016 Update Boat Ramp at Wood Bay, 10605 Sunshine Coast Highway Page 2 of 3

2016-Dec-8 PCD Report Boat Ramp at Wood Bay Update

AND THAT the SCRD request the Crown to take the necessary action to ensure that the boat launch be removed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Ensure that the removal is carried out in accordance with a plan prepared by, and under the supervision of, a qualified environmental professional and include provisions such as equipment/machinery remaining on the launch, removal beginning at the lowest point of the launch, working toward the highest (upland) area, and shoreline remediation is conducted. 2. Ensure that a FortisBC permit has been issued prior to removal of concrete over pipelines.

3. Ensure the qualified environmental professional provides a final letter to confirm that the launch removal is consistent with applicable best management practices. AND FURTHER THAT staff inform the shíshálh Nation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and FortisBC of the Board’s action on this matter.

In 2014, a letter was sent to the Regional Manager-South Coast Compliance and Enforcement Branch Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resource Operations confirming the above resolution. Natural Resource Officers at FLNRO have indicated that in order to act on the trespass enforcement they are asking the SCRD to confirm the upland portion of the ramp can remain. The reason the Natural Resource Officers are asking for confirmation on approval of the upland portion is that the condition of the moorage approval requires that the dock be removed in the winter. The upland portion of the ramp will act similar to a driveway and allow the personal use dock to be removed, per the tenure agreement. A paved portion of ramp on the parcel is neither a trespass nor zoning compliance issue, and FLNRO would like confirmation that the SCRD supports this option. Future use of a commercial moorage or launching facility would be in contravention of the upland and water zoning and if it took place further enforcement would be required. Once the upland ramp is approved, FLNRO will amend the license of occupation for the moorage to require remove of the foreshore ramp, and they will be responsible for enforcement. Removal of foreshore ramp will severely restrict use of the ramp for other than seasonal dock removal. Meanwhile, the property owner continues to seek subdivision approval. The SCRD planning review from October of this year recommends that in order to have subdivision approved the offending portion of the ramp must be removed in order to resolve the notice of trespass against the property. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

N/A

42

Staff Report to Planning and Community Development Committee – December 8, 2016 Update Boat Ramp at Wood Bay, 10605 Sunshine Coast Highway Page 3 of 3

2016-Dec-8 PCD Report Boat Ramp at Wood Bay Update

CONCLUSION

The SCRD can send a letter to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations indicating that the upland portion of the ramp can be maintained to enable the removal of the residential moorage structure in the winter.

Once this letter is received the license of occupation can be amended to require the removal of the portion of the ramp on the beach which is subject to the trespass notice. The Natural Resource Officers of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations will oversee the removal of the ramp.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X - IH Legislative CAO X - JL Other

43

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

AREA B - HALFMOON BAY ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

November 22, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA B ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE COOPERS GREEN COMMUNITY HALL AT COOPERS GREEN PARK, 5500 FISHERMAN ROAD, HALFMOON BAY, BC PRESENT: Acting Chair Eleanor Lenz Members ALSO PRESENT: Recording Secretary Katrina Walters Public 2 REGRETS: Area B Director Garry Nohr Chair Members CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.

1. AGENDA The agenda was accepted as distributed.

2. DELEGATIONS

3. MINUTES

3.1 Area B Minutes

The Area B APC minutes of October 25, 2016 were adopted as presented.

3.2 Minutes

The following minutes were received for information:

Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, October 26, 2016 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, October 17, 2016 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, October 26, 2016

Ray Moscrip Alda Grames Joan Harvey Elise Rudland Bruce Thorpe Lorn Campbell

REGRETS Len Pakulak Eleanor nz Joan Harvey

Frank Belfry Wendy Pearson Walter Powell Barbara Bolding Jim Noon

ANNEX F

44

AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - November 22, 2016 Page 2

West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, October 25, 2016 Planning and Community Development Committee Minutes, October 13, 2016

4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

5. REPORTS

5.1 Development Variance Permit DVP00008 (Torrens)

The APC discussed the staff report regarding Development Variance Permit DVP00008 (Torrens). The following concerns/points/issues were noted:

There are a few concerns that residents have about: the setbacks and root system of the

heritage trees; the trail used by the residents for walking, collecting mail, and putting out garbage cans; and onsite treatment for wastewater.

Think it is important that the residents be consulted and request that they be notified: 50 meters neighbour notification doesn’t seem very much; might not notify everyone who will be affected by this-think it should generally be 100 meters, and in this case extended to all people who use the trail to access their mail.

The big tree (55’) and root system is very relevant; concern for the health of the tree…might need more than a 3 meter buffer from the tree to the building to ensure the tree’s safety.

If the residents are quite concerned about the trail…the laneway should not to be used for parking vehicles.

Support Option 1 with note of (1) contacting neighbours and (2) addressing the various concerns regarding the trail.

Recommendation No. 1 Development Variance Permit DVP00008 (Torrens)

Regarding Development Variance Permit DVP00008 (Torrens), the APC supports Option 1: ‘Support the Development Variance Permit’ with note of the following: A. Request that consultation of neighbours extends beyond the standard required distance

of 50 meters and be inclusive of all neighbours who use the trail to access their mail.

B. That the following points be addressed: 1. The one concern the residences have about the setback variance is the impact on the root system for the “heritage tree” (55” fir marked on the plan). The tree has a sign on it. This tree and its root system should be protected and no change to the ground water regime thru the rocks that feed the tree. Other than that, the variance is not their major concern. Other concerns as follows: 2. A major concern of the residents is that Brooks trail is used daily by the residents on the east side of Brooks Cove ie Brooks Lane and Smuggler Lane. Their mailboxes are located at the end of the pavement on Brooks Road. They walk the trail daily to get mail. Also, the residents of Brooks Lane use the trail to carry their garbage cans along the trail for pick up on Brooks Road. They are concerned about continued access during construction and after completion of construction the obstruction by any vehicles parked on the Brooks Lane part of the new driveway to the new house that may restrict the use of the trail.

45

AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - November 22, 2016 Page 3

3. The 48” fir tree marked on the plan is on Lot 22. The plan shows this tree being retained. This tree should be preserved but there is concern about the impact from the driveway construction 4. The 32” fir tree shown on the plan is on Lot 22 as well. The plan shows it being retained but significant concern about the impact on the tree from the adjacent driveway construction and the elevation difference of the driveway from the base of the tree. 5. The proposed garage floor elevation is about 18 to 20 feet below the end of the existing driveway fronting lot 23 on Brooks Lane. This will be a very steep driveway and have significant impact on the existing Brooks Trail. The plan does not show the cut or fill required to construct the driveway or the final grade. As noted in item 2 above, the residents are concerned about continued trail access during construction and obstruction by any vehicles parked on the Brooks Lane part of the new driveway to the new house that may restrict the use of the trail. 6. The onsite treatment and disposal of wastewater onsite is a concern and needs to be resolved. Nothing is shown on the plan of how this is achieved.

6. NEW BUSINESS

7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Garry Nohr was unable to attend to present the Director’s Report.

8. NEXT MEETING January 24, 2016

9. ADJOURNMENT 7:45 p.m.

46


AREA E – ELPHINSTONE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

November 23, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA E ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT FRANK WEST HALL, 1224 CHASTER ROAD, ELPHINSTONE, BC PRESENT: Chair Mary Degan Members Dougald Macdonald Lynda Chamberlin Bob Morris Rob Bone ALSO PRESENT: Director Lorne Lewis Alternate Director Laurella Hay Recording Secretary Diane Corbett Public 6 REGRETS: Members Brenda Thomas ABSENT: Members Patrick Fitzsimons Jenny Groves Raquel Kolof Rod Moorcroft CALL TO ORDER 7:01 p.m.

AGENDA

Recommendation No. 1

That the date be changed from November 30 to November 23 at the top of page 45 of the agenda.

Recommendation No. 2

That the referral agency be changed from “shishálh Nation” to “Squamish Nation” on page 48 of the agenda.

The amended agenda was adopted as amended.

DELEGATIONS

ANNEX G

47

Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Committee Minutes, November 23, 2016 Page 2 MINUTES

3.1 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of October 26, 2016

The Area E APC minutes of October 26, 2016 were approved as circulated.

3.2 Minutes


• Egmont Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of October 26, 2016 • Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of October 25, 2016 • Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of October 17, 2016 • West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of October 25, 2016 • Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes of October 13, 2016

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

REPORTS

5.1 Subdivision Application SD000007 (Randson Holdings Inc.), 547 Veterans Road

The APC discussed the staff report regarding Subdivision Application SD000007 (Randson Holdings Inc., 547 Veterans Road), to subdivide three lots (total 3.25 hectares/8.0 acres) into 16 new lots of 2003 square metres (0.48 acres) each. The applicant responded to APC inquiries and described plans for the development.

Issues and concerns raised by the APC included:

• Configuration of the properties: eight new driveways coming onto Veterans Road in a very short distance.

• Inquiries about: how the stormwater is going to be handled, the drainage plan, route of the stormwater through Area E; plan for King Road

• There is a need for some smaller lots here; not everyone can afford bigger lots. • It is a good idea, but there is more input required. • Concern: drainage in the future • Concern: frontage waiver

Director Lewis reported that around where the planned subdivision is, is an area where he gets over half of his complaints about drainage.

Recommendation No. 3 Subdivision Application SD000007 (Randson Holdings Inc.)

That Subdivision Application SD000007 (Randson Holdings Inc.) be approved in going forward, although the APC has concerns about the frontage waiver.

5.2 SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.168, 2016 (BYL00001)

The APC discussed the staff report regarding SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.168, 2016 (BYL00001) for 1327 Fitchett Road, to separate one parcel of land from a future bare land strata subdivision and mobile home park and to donate one other piece of land as part of a larger park dedication.

48

Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Committee Minutes, November 23, 2016 Page 3

The applicant gave an overview of the application and described proposed changes to the previously approved and rezoned subdivision. He commented on the $220,000 in development cost charges he had to pay on the mobile home pads, and emphasized that RV parks that are operating as mobile home parks do not have setback requirements or DCCs, as do mobile home parks – the playing field is not level.

Points raised by members:

• There is a huge demand for lower rentals. • There is no impact on the public, no need for a public information meeting. • There is not enough of a change to worry about. The bridge to nowhere at the

applicant’s expense doesn’t make any sense.

Recommendation No. 4 SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.168, 2016 (BYL00001)

Given that the APC has approved the rezoning and subdivision prior to the proposed changes, the APC recommends approval. However, as the SCRD has agreed that it is not reasonable to build a bridge, and the $15,000 in funds to do so is therefore not required for this purpose, the APC considers the gift of the park as enough of an exchange.

5.3 Development Variance Permit DVP00007 (Fabbiano)

The APC discussed the staff report regarding Development Variance Permit DVP00007 (Fabbiano). The architect hired by the owner spoke to the application for a variance to relax the side setback from a public road to allow the construction of a single family dwelling and detached garage. He proposed it was reasonable to request a variance in light of the topographical and setback constraints on this small lot.

There was discussion of the public road and whether it was likely there would be heavier traffic in the future. It was noted that this was not likely as the topography up the hill was quite steep.

Recommendation No. 5 Development Variance Permit DVP00007 (Fabbiano)

That the APC accepts option 1: support the development variance permit.

NEW BUSINESS

6.1 Stormwater drainage impacts on Pratt Road

Vel Anderson discussed impacts of stormwater drainage onto her property from businesses and developments uphill that had been given permission by the Town of Gibsons and the SCRD to drain their stormwater into the roadside ditch. She reported the ditch outside her property is widening; the velocity of water has eroded the soil and rocks, so it is now hardpan clay. The stormwater drainage also had impacted the stability of trees on her property: some had fallen. The situation had impacted her family’s ability to enjoy the property. She recommended that the SCRD put a solid stormwater drainage policy into effect.

A member remarked that stormwater drainage was a problem that would increase in Area E as land is cleared and more people move in. Another commented on her observation of an increase of water on her property; a lot of land is under subdivision and a lot of trees have been lost.

49

Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Committee Minutes, November 23, 2016 Page 4 DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Lewis provided his report.

NEXT MEETING January 25, 2017

ADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m.

50


AREA F – WEST HOWE SOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

November 22, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WEST HOWE SOUND (AREA F) ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT ERIC CARDINALL HALL, SHIRLEY MACEY PARK, 930 CHAMBERLIN ROAD, WEST HOWE SOUND, BC PRESENT: Chair Fred Gazeley Members Maura Laverty Laura Houle Bob Small ALSO PRESENT: Director Ian Winn Recording Secretary Diane Corbett REGRETS: Alternate Director Kate-Louise Stamford Member Doug MacLennan ABSENT: Member Lee Selmes

CALL TO ORDER 7:03 p.m.

AGENDA The agenda was adopted as presented.

DELEGATIONS

The Chair reported that the applicant for the distillery application had planned to attend but had sent regrets and commented by email.

MINUTES

3.1 Area F APC Minutes

The West Howe Sound / Area F APC minutes of October 25, 2016 were approved as circulated.

3.2 Minutes


• Egmont Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of October 26, 2016 • Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of October 25, 2016 • Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of October 17, 2016

ANNEX H

51

West Howe Sound (Area F) Advisory Planning Commission Minutes, November 22, 2016 Page 2

• Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of October 26, 2016 • Planning & Community Development Committee Minutes of Oct. 13, 2016

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

REPORTS

5.1 Application for Non-Farm Use in the ALR (ALR00003) and DVP (DVP00006) for a Distillery, 943 Chamberlin Road

The APC discussed the staff report regarding the applications for Non-Farm Use in the ALR and development variance permit for a distillery at 943 Chamberlin Road, across the road from Shirley Macey Park, that requested relaxation of the requirement that 50% of the farm products utilized in producing distilled spirits are produced on the same farm.

The Chair read aloud an email from the applicant, who emphasized that, “opposed to removing agricultural land,” the applicant would be “adding cultivated land”. The applicant planned to cultivate and utilize the wild berries and had planted blueberries, and an apiary and possibly chickens would be included in the plan. The goal was “to create a field to flask operation” with agriculture playing a major role.

The following concerns and issues were noted:

• Error on the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) application (page 31 of the agenda) regarding adjacent land uses to the west: the land use is residential, not industrial, and it is in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).

• Lack of information about the production, such as a plan for effluent, wastewater, and wasted grain. There are environmental regulations and best practices related to these.

• Concern about solids, high organic loadings, influence of pH, sulphides and other chemicals going into the watershed. Concern about impact of the wastewater and effluent on the well to the west of the property.

• Lack of detail in the application, such as references to parking on land that could be farmed in the instance of holding public assemblies such as weddings.

• Lack of information: need to know how the neighbours feel before the APC can make a recommendation.

• Concern about setting a precedent if this non-farm use in the ALR is approved; most craft breweries and distilleries are in industrial or commercial areas.

• Would this land use go with the title, or is it a temporary use? • The 100-metre consultation area is too small; it means only the people immediately

around the property are consulted. With issues such as odour and noise, there should be a larger “neighbourhood”. There is an area of higher density in Granthams, just down the hill; issues of water and noise going downhill.

• In this case where the proposal includes public assembly, it should be a larger area for consultation.

• SCRD should put this on hold pending Agricultural Land Commission decision regarding Persephone Brewery application for non-farm use.

The APC appreciates that the applicant is going about the process in the right way.

52

West Howe Sound (Area F) Advisory Planning Commission Minutes, November 22, 2016 Page 3

Recommendation No. 1 Application ALR00003 for Non-Farm Use in the ALR and

DVP00006 for a Distillery

That the APC defers recommending on the application until hearing back on the Agricultural Land Commission decision regarding Persephone Brewery application for non-farm use and due to a need for further information related to processing, wastewater, effluent, waste disposal, parking, and neighbours’ views on the proposal.

Recommendation No. 2 Application ALR00003 for Non-Farm Use in the ALR and DVP00006 for a Distillery

That there be a broader public consultation on the non-farm use distillery proposal with owners / occupants of the geographic area outlined by Chamberlin, Reed, Stewart, and North Roads, especially since it is a public assembly type of application.

NEW BUSINESS

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Winn gave his report.

NEXT MEETING January 24, 2017

ADJOURNMENT 8:15 p.m.

53

S

Subject EW: Letter from Islands Trust Council Chair re Sunshine Coast Fixed Link FeasibilityStudy

Attachments: 1762 Letter Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Feasibility Study .pdf sc RDREED El V ED

From: Jas Chonk [mailto:[email protected]] NOV 2 3 2016Sent: November-22-16 3:28 PMSubject: Letter from Islands Trust Council Chair re Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Feasibility Study C H A I R

Hello,

Peter Luckham, Chair of the Islands Trust Council, would like you to have a copy of his recent letter to theSunshine Coast Fixed Link Feasibility Study Team re Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Feasibility Study as thecontent may be of interest to you and/or your organization.

Jas ChonkSecretaryTrust Area Services/Executive OfficeIslands Trust200-1627 Fort St.Victoria BC V8R 1 H8In Victoria 250-405-5164jchonk(ä?islandstrust.bc.caEnquiry BC ToIl1ree call 1-800-663-7867or from the lower mainland 604-660-2421Websites: www.islandstrust.bc.ca I www,islandstrustfund.bc.caPreserving Island communities, culture and environment since 1974

1

ANNEX I

54

200-1627 Fort St. Vioha, BC V8R 1HSTelephone (250)405-5151 Fax (250)405-5155

Toll Free via Enquiry BC In Vancouver 604.660.2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7867

Email [email protected]

Web .isIandstnjst.bc,ca

November 18, 2016 File Number: 0440-20

Via Email: fixedlink(üIucentpuay.ca

Janice KeyesCommunity Consultation CoordinatorSunshine Coast Fixed Link Study Team

Dear Janice Keyes:

Re: Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Feasibility Study

I am writing in response to the consultation on the Sunshine Coast Fixed Link FeasibilityStudy and thank you for the courtesy of the extension to provide feedback on behalf ofIslands Trust Council.

The Islands Trust has a clear legislative provincial mandate: to preserve and protect theecologically-significant and fragile island archipelago between Vancouver Island and theVancouver Mainland on behalf of islanders and of all British Columbians.

The Province has approved the Islands Trust Policy Statement and numerous officialcommunity plans from individual islands, all developed through extensive consultation withislanders, non-resident property owners and visitors. All of these documents oppose fixedconnections between these islands to Vancouver Island, the Mainland or another island.The Policy Statement policy 5.3.2 clearly states:

“It is Trust Council’s policy that no island in the Trust Area should be connected toVancouver Island, the mainland or another island by a bridge or tunnel,notwithstanding the existing bridge between North and South Pender Islands.”

Fundamentally, islanders and non-islanders alike recognize that such connections destroythe very essence of islands; something that, once lost, can never be restored.

Islands Trust also has a strong desire and vision for enduring relationships with FirstNations. As part of that commitment, we copy First Nations on all correspondence, such asthis. While we have not directly heard the positions of affected First Nations on theSunshine Coast Fixed Link Feasibility Study, given our commitment to establishing andmaintaining a mutually respectful relationship with First Nations, we offer the Islands Trustposition while being ready to respectfully consider their positions, as they become known.

/2

Preserving lslund communities, culture mid environmentSowen Denman Rornby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saturna South Pender Thetis

IslandsTrust

55

Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Study TeamNovember 18, 2016Page 2

Islands Trust Council is concerned about the long-term and irreversible effects of fixed

links to the environmental, social and cultural foundation of the island communities in theTrust Area that the Province created Islands Trust to preserve and protect. We strongly

encourage the Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Feasibility Study team to carefully consider and

reflect the effects of any fixed link option on these island communities in its final report.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Peter LuckhamChair, Islands Trust [email protected]

pc: Nicholas Simons, MLA, Powell River — Sunshine CoastGambier Island Local Trust CommitteeBowen Island MunicipalitySunshine Coast Regional DistrictCowichan TribesHalalt First NationHuI’qumi’num Treaty GroupLake Cowichan First NationLyackson First NationMusqueam NationNanwakolas CouncilPenelakut TribeQualicum Indian BandSeabird Island BandSemiahmoo First NationSechelt First NationSkawahlook First NationSliammon First NationSoowahlie Indian BandSquamish NationSto:Io Tribal CouncilStzuminus First NationTeMexw Treaty AssociationTsawwassen First NationTsieil-Waututh NationWeWai Kum

56

planning and community development committee … · staff report to planning and community...

Documents