PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, February … · Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) APC...

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, February 18, 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. i. Eugene Evanetz (Applicant/Registered Owner) Regarding Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.192 ii. Daren Spithoff (Adjacent Property Owner) Regarding Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.192 iii. Senior Planner – Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.192 Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Verbal

Verbal

Annex A pp 1 - 4

REPORTS

3. GM, Planning & Development – Regional Economic Development Charter and Memorandum of Understanding Economic Development (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All)

Annex B pp 5 - 19

4. Treasurer and Manager of Legislative Services – Economic Development Requisition Limit Increases Economic Development Electoral Areas A, B, D (Voting – All)

Annex C pp 20 - 22

5. GM, Planning & Development – Regional Planning and Rural Planning Allocations (Regional and Rural Planning Services) (Voting – All)

Annex D pp 23 - 32

6. Planner – Invasive Species Technical Working Group – Annual Report (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All)

Annex E pp 33 - 39

7. Senior Planner and GM, Planning & Development – BURNCO Aggregate Proposal Environmental Assessment Update and Bylaw 310.147 – Area F Rec. # 1-3 (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F) Rec. # 4 (Regional Planning Services) (Voting – All)

Annex F pp 40 - 46

8. Senior Planner – Bylaw 310.165 (Narrows Inlet Power Project) Receipt of Public Hearing Report and Consideration of Third Reading and Adoption Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex G pp 47-112

9. Planning Technician – Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.193 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex H pp 113-116

Planning and Development Committee Agenda – February 18, 2016

10. Senior Planner – Hillside - Illegal Waste Dump and Installation of Control Gate Hillside Industrial Park (Voting – All)

Annex I pp 117-120

11. Chief Building Inspector/ Bylaw Enforcement Manger and Manager of Legislative Services – Bylaw Notice Enforcement Ticketing System (BEN) Bylaw Enforcement (Voting – All)

Annex J pp 121-134

12. Electoral Area A (Egmont/Pender Harbour) APC Minutes of January 27, 2016 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex K pp 135-137

13. Electoral Area B (Halfmoon Bay) APC Minutes of January 26, 2016 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex L pp 138-139

14. Electoral Area D (Roberts Creek) APC Minutes of January 25, 2016 Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex M pp 140-144

15. Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) APC Minutes of January 27, 2016 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex N pp 145-146

COMMUNICATIONS

16. Todd G. Stone, Minister, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Regarding Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Study.

Annex O pp 147

17. This is the Coast Newcomer Attraction Pilot Campaign - Project Completion Report and Pilot Phase Summary. Regarding 2015 Economic Development Funding Report.

Annex P pp 148-150

18. Community Resource Centre – Rural Communities Information and Referral (I&R) Hubs Summary Report. Regarding 2015 Economic Development Funding Report.

Annex Q pp 151-159

NEW BUSINESS

IN CAMERA

That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) (a), (e) 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 of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality”, “the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements…” and “negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages…”.

ADJOURNMENT

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Planning and Development Committee – February 18, 2016

AUTHOR: Andrew Allen, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE 310.192 (EVANETZ)

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the report titled Development Variance Permit 310.192 be received; AND THAT Development Variance Permit 310.192 be issued to enable the portion of the fence between the two dwellings to be constructed to 2.44 metres and that the section fence between the front of the house on the subject property to the property line adjacent to Beach Avenue, Electoral Area D be restricted to 2.0 metres in height.

BACKGROUND

The SCRD is in receipt of a Development Variance Permit Application seeking to increase the maximum allowable height of a fence along a portion of a side property line at 3731 Beach Avenue. The specific request is to vary the maximum height of a fence specified in Section 503.4 of Zoning Bylaw 310 from 2 metres to 2.44 metres along a 17.6 metre section of an existing fence. This is a request for an additional 44 cm or 22% of the fence height limit. The intent is to provide privacy between two dwellings located in close proximity on small parcels. A site plan showing the location of the proposed fence is included with this report as Attachment A. DISCUSSION Options and Analysis There are three options at this time:

1. Approve the variance as requested;

2. Deny the variance; or

3. Approve a modified version of the request.

Option 1 can be considered as the lot in question and the neighbouring parcel are quite small and front entrances for each house are in close proximity to the property line. Option 1 is the preference of the applicant who made the application in order to maintain and enhance privacy on either side of the property line.

Option 2 can be considered as the directly affected neighbours do not support the variance request, the APC does not support the request, the shíshálh Nation does not support the

ANNEX A

1

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee – February 18, 2016 Development Variance Permit 310.192 Page 2 of 4

DVP 310.192 2016-Feb-18 PDC Report

request and other residents in proximity have also expressed opposition. Therefore granting of the variance is generally not supported. In many cases variance requests are denied where directly affected neighbours and the APC do not support the application.

Option 3 can be considered to allow an additional 0.44 metre increase in the height of the fence only along that portion of the fence between the buildings. The fence would remain 2 metres in height up to Beach Avenue. This would reduce the amount of view and light tunneling and still provide some measure of privacy to the applicant.

This may be viewed as a compromise, where the applicant can achieve the desired privacy between the two dwellings while not creating an over-height fence all the way to the edge of the property line at Beach Avenue. The immediately affected neighbour does not support this option and prefers to have a solution that can be agreed upon between the adjacent property owners. Agreements between the owners has proven to be a difficult task and staff believe that any further mediation or discussion should be take place at the onus of the property owners rather than from the SCRD.

This compromise option was suggested by staff as a middle ground solution and was presented to the APC as the Planning Department’s recommendation, however it was not accepted. Planning staff continue to believe that this is a valid option and support it.

Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications

Intergovernmental implications could be that if the variance is approved it is done so against the recommendation of the shíshálh Nation. For clarity the shíshálh Nation response refers to the creation of berms on land and structures within 15 metres of the ocean setback. This may refer to the existing portion of the fence, which has previously been deemed to comply with the bylaw, however it is not applicable to the proposed request. Nonetheless, the shíshálh Nation does not support the variance request.

Communications Strategy

As previously noted the application was referred to the Roberts Creek APC and notification of the variance was also mailed and delivered to owners and occupiers within 50 metres of the subject property. The results of the neighbour notification were presented to the APC in the report that was considered on their January agenda. There were three letters of objection, two from neighbours and one from another neighbourhood within Roberts Creek. The applicant also canvassed the neighbourhood for support and provided a series of form letters. The letters were not verified and it has been suggested that perhaps some of the signatories have had a change in opinion. This also has not been verified.

STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

Not Applicable.

CONCLUSION

There are three options presented in this report pertaining to the request to increase the height allowance for a fence from 2 metres to 2.44 metres: approve, deny or approve with modifications.

2



Given the opposition from the directly affected neighbour, Roberts Creek APC and the shíshálh Nation, option 1 of approving the variance, as requested is not recommended.

Option 2 of denying the variance is a strong option and deserves consideration. In most cases if an adjacent and directly impacted neighbour and the APC do not support a variance request then the application is not approved. There certainly is an argument to select this option.

The third option is suggested by the Planning and Development Department Staff as a means to finding a compromise to the fence height consideration. This was presented in the staff report to the APC but was not favoured as an option. In a case such as this where there is desire to create privacy between dwellings in close proximity, perhaps having a fence at 2.44 metres between the dwellings and entrances areas is a suitable solution. Once the fence is in front of the dwellings it could then be reduced to the bylaw height limit of 2 metres.

It is not entirely clear how much extra privacy or blocking of light that 44 cm will create, however it does create some balance or compromise between the property owners who have different perspectives on this issue. Planning staff recommend this option.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X SO Legislative X Al CAO X JL Other

3



Attachment A: Site plan indicating proposed fence location:

4


TO: Planning and Development Committee - February 18, 2016

AUTHOR: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development

SUBJECT: Regional Economic Development Charter and Memorandum of Understanding

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. THAT the report titled Regional Economic Development Charter and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) be received;

2. AND THAT the Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development Charter and Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development MOU be amended to alter the annual funding to $250,000 per year as proposed by the Town of Gibsons and to apportion funding to Electoral Area E on the basis of Assessment only;

3. AND THAT the Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development Charter be endorsed as amended;

4. AND FURTHER THAT the Memorandum of Understanding for Regional Economic Development be endorsed as amended.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to provide background to the review of the amended Regional Economic Development Charter and the proposed MOU between the District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, Sechelt Indian Government District and the SCRD. The report provides a brief overview of the key activities as they relate to the Charter and proposed MOU. At the September 17, 2015 Regional Board meeting the draft Terms of Reference for the Regional Economic Development Steering Committee were received and the committee was given a mandate to complete its work within six months or April 1, 2016. The Steering Committee has met five times – September 29th, October 21st, November 18th, December 2nd and January 19th.

The first meeting focused on refining the terms of reference and discussing the funding model and maximum funding commitment. Overall consensus was reached that the funding model should be based on 50% population/ 50% assessment; recognizing that Electoral Area E concerns regarding this funding model would need to be addressed.

The second meeting continued the discussion on the funding model. The committee recommended a funding model of 50% Assessment, 50% Population based on an overall contribution of $300,000 be used as a starting point until a budget can be developed for the Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development entity. With respect to the organizational structure the committee it was felt that the arms-length non-profit model was the preference. Outstanding issues were acknowledged to include Area E participation and disagreement on the funding model.

Staff were provided direction to work with local government CAOs to develop a memorandum of understanding relating to funding and to amend the draft Sunshine Coast Regional Economic

ANNEX B

5

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee – February 18, 2016 Regional Economic Development Charter and MoU Page 2 of 2

2016-Feb-18 PDC Report - Regional Economic Development Charter and MOU

Development Charter for the regional economic development entity stating that the organizational structure will be an arms-length entity with an initial funding commitment of $300,000 based on the 50% Assessment / 50% Population funding model. The meeting notes from the January 19, 2016 meeting are attached as Attachment A. Copies of the revised Regional Economic Development Charter and draft MOU are attached as Attachments B and C respectively. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

Strategic Priority: Support sustainable economic development

CONCLUSION

Staff recommend that the charter be endorsed with consideration given to amending the charter to reflect the proposed funding revision by the Town of Gibsons and to address the concerns of Electoral Area E

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

6

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES

SCRD Office, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

Tuesday January 19, 2016

PRESENT: Electoral Area B Director, SCRD Garry Nohr Electoral Area A Director, SCRD Frank Mauro Councillor, Town of Gibsons Charlene SanJenko

Councillor, Town of Gibsons Silas White (Chair) Councillor, District of Sechelt Noel Muller Councillor, shíshálh Nation Christ August ALSO PRESENT: SCRD CAO Janette Loveys

GM, Planning and Development, SCRD Steven Olmstead Planning Secretary, SCRD (Note Taker) A. Ruinat

CALL TO ORDER 9:03 a.m. AGENDA The agenda was adopted as presented. MEETING NOTES Recommendation # 1 Meeting Notes of December 2, 2015 THAT the meeting notes of December 2, 2015 be received and accepted as presented. REPORTS AND ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 5.1 Legal Opinion regarding Regional Economic Development Arms-length Non-Profit Society vs. Development Corporation Discussion items included:

Legal opinion is favourable to the non-profit society model, however if the entity wishes to generate profit it could only be achieved by a development corporation.

One caution is that non-profits are having challenges in obtaining charitable status to provided tax receipts for donors.

The entity should start as a non-profit society and if the need arises it could incorporate. Recommendation # 2 Legal opinion regarding Arms-length Non-Profit Society vs.

Development Corporation THAT the report concerning a legal opinion on regional economic development arm’s length- non-profit society vs. development corporation be received;

Attachment AAttachment A

7

Regional Economic Development Steering Committee Meeting Notes – January 19, 2016 Page 2 of 4

AND THAT the non-profit society model be chosen as the governance model for the regional economic development entity; AND THAT the Regional Economic Development Charter be updated to reflect the proposed non-profit society governance model; AND FURTHER THAT the recommendation of the Steering Committee be forwarded to participating local governments for endorsement. 5.2/5.3 Memorandum of Understanding Update and Regional Economic Development Charter SCRD CAO, Janette Loveys provided a verbal update regarding the Memorandum of Understanding and the Regional Economic Development Charter. Discussion items included:

Funding formula added to the MOU and ready for signing. The revised Charter is also ready to circulate. Agreement in principle from the local government partner CAOs to provide collaborative

support to the entity as it establishes itself and in-kind administrative staff support by sharing of responsibilities.

Recommendation # 3 Approval of Memorandum of Understanding and Sunshine Coast

Regional Economic Development Charter THAT Memorandum of Understanding and Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development Charter be forwarded to all local government partners requesting formal approval. Councillor Chris August provided a verbal report regarding the shíshálh Nation’s economic development initiatives. He reported that Chief Doug White has been hired as a consultant for Intergovernmental Relations. 5.4 Criteria for Board Director Selection A copy of the Regional Economic Development Board Director recruitment advertisement and the Final Report on 2014 Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development Workshops dated December 2014 prepared by VannStruth Consulting were distributed at the meeting for background information. SCRD GM, Planning and Development, Steven Olmstead summarized content of the report regarding Board Director selection criteria (in-part, pages 5-7): 2.4 Governance Principles i. The Board of Directors should be comprised of at-large community members who are selected for their expertise in key sectors of the regional economy. xii. 1. The criteria should include a description of the desired skills (which may include sector-specific expertise or knowledge of business functions like marketing, finance or operations), will stress the importance of maintaining a region-wide perspective, and require applicants to indicate their acceptance and understanding of the rights and roles of First Nations in land and resource development.”

8


Discussion items included:

Should be a mix/balance of new and experienced people. Experience working on Committees/Boards. Ability to, at least, at the outset, to “work” as well as govern. Gender and age diversity. Economic sector diversity. Oriented towards action – What have they done on the Sunshine Coast and

accomplishments elsewhere. Steering Committee will select 8 candidates for the open positions and the shíshálh

Nation will appoint 1 candidate. Suggestion to select a core group and then discuss the remaining positions. Suggestion regarding length of term: From the 9 appointed – half are appointed for 1 year

the other half are for 2 years. Develop a shortlist of 11-13. Suggestion to organize a meeting between the Steering Committee and appointed

directors of new entity to assist the transition. Once the group is selected a consultant could help get them organized. The entity should select their own Chair.

Recommendation # 4 Criteria for Board Director Selection THAT the Regional Economic Development Steering Committee select the top eight candidates and the shíshálh Nation appoint one candidate, for a total of nine Board Directors for the entity; AND THAT four of the Board Directors be appointed for a one-year term and the other four Board Directors be appointed for a two-year term; AND THAT the renewal appointments be staggered; AND FURTHER THAT should a Board Director resign mid-term, a new candidate be appointed to fill the remainder of the term. The Steering Committee discussed and determined a list of criteria for Board Director selection:

Experience and Action on the Sunshine Coast Key Economic Sector Representation Work experience on Boards/Committees/Volunteering Desired Skills Diversity (Gender and Demographic) Outreach in Community and Elsewhere Collaboration with First Nations, private & non-profit sector Local and External Contacts/Networks Regional Perspective and knowledge of the Sunshine Coast

Recommendation # 5 ICET Economic Development Grant Application THAT staff be authorized to begin the application process for an ICET Economic Development Grant for the purpose of hiring a consultant to assist with start-up of the Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development entity.

9


IN CAMERA The Regional Economic Development Steering Committee moved In-Camera at 9:43 a.m.

That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) (a) of the Community Charter – “personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality.”

The Regional Economic Development Steering Committee moved out of In-Camera at 11:00 a.m. ADJOURNMENT 11:00 a.m.

10

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHARTER 1

Sunshine Coast Regional Economic

Development Charter

June 2015 Revised January 2016

Prepared by:

Prepared for:

With funding support from:

Attachment B

11


SUNSHINE COAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHARTER

PREAMBLE

The Sunshine Coast Economic Development Charter establishes the parameters

of a regional economic development partnership between communities in the

Lower Sunshine Coast, including the shíshálh Nation, the Town of Gibsons, the

District of Sechelt, and the five Electoral Areas of the Sunshine Coast Regional

District.

The Charter establishes the broad principles on which the partners agree to

cooperate and will be supplemented over time with specific agreements and

policies, which may include Memoranda of Understanding regarding funding,

Articles of Incorporation if and when the partnership manifests in a new

organization, and strategic planning documents that establish more specific

priorities, actions and budgets over a specified time frame.

The Charter recognizes and acknowledges the inherent title and rights of First

Nations peoples, their role in the use of lands and resources, and the need for

government relationships and agreements to be based on recognition.

PART ONE: ECONOMIC VISION

The Sunshine Coast has a sustainable, thriving and diverse regional economy

that is aligned with community values, expands opportunities for all residents

and improves overall community wellbeing.

PART TWO: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The intent of the regional partnership is to fill service gaps and enhance the

work of those agencies currently receiving local funding to undertake economic

development initiatives.

Priority roles and responsibilities that can be effectively undertaken through

regional cooperation include:

Programs to support workforce development and education.

A business retention and expansion (BRE) program.

Lobbying on topics of shared regional interest.

Attracting business investment, including entrepreneurial businesses,

through regional marketing, information provision and other techniques.

New resident attraction.

Regional information collection and dissemination.

12


Working collaboratively on key regional facilities and infrastructure.

Examples may include alternative energy development or tourism-related

developments.

Additional roles and responsibilities, or deletions from the list above, can be

considered through the strategic planning process (occurring at inception and

subsequently at three to five year intervals) or through the annual work plan

and budget approval process.

PART THREE: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development Agency is an arms-length

non-profit society with its own articles of incorporation and independent board

of directors.

It is to be contracted by local governments in the Lower Sunshine Coast to

undertake economic development services of the type generally established

under Part Two above and with specific direction established through a regular

strategic planning process and annual budget approval by the funding partners.

It will be independent from but accountable to its local government funders.

The agency may be newly incorporated or a pre-existing organization. Issues

of corporate structure are to be determined at the time of incorporation (if a

new organization) or when developing terms for an economic development

services contract (if an existing organization).

PART FOUR: GOVERNANCE

The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development

Agency will have 9 directors. Eight directors are at-large community members

who are selected for their expertise in key sectors of the regional economy or

with respect to specific projects and projects being undertaken. The ninth

director is appointed by the shíshálh Nation.

Potential board members are identified through a formal application process

and are appointed by the funding partners. The partners appoint a committee

to establish application criteria, evaluate the applications, and propose a slate

of directors for approval by each Council and the rural area directors on the

Regional District Board. All Councils/Board must approve the slate of directors

and the appointments are formalized at the agency's Annual General Meeting.

The agency undertakes a strategic planning process at its inception and every

three to five years subsequently. The purpose is to expand on the high-level

roles and responsibilities established in Part Two of this Charter and to establish

more specific goals, priorities, projects and ongoing programs. This process

13


also incorporates input from local governments, community stakeholders, the

business community and the general public.

The agency provides regular reports to its funders, including an annual work

plan and budget that must be approved each year. The annual work plan

includes a report on the results of the previous year, using key performance

indicators (KPI) that are established through the strategic planning process. It

also sets out planned initiatives and associated budget requirements for the

coming year.

PART FIVE: FUNDING

Funding for the Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development Agency will

be up to $300,000 per year. The formula to share costs among partner local

governments is based on the following formula, to be calculated on an annual

basis:

50% of funding is based on assessed values (converted) and 50% based on

population.

The total funding allocation on an annual basis must be formally approved by

each funding partner and based on the strategic priorities for that year.

Alternative funding sources may be identified in the future to minimize reliance

on the local tax base.

The initial Memorandum of Understanding between local government partners

should include a four-year funding commitment.

14

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

This Memorandum of Understanding dated for reference the _______ day of _________, 2016.

BETWEEN:

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT 1975 Field Road Sechelt, BC V0N 3A1

(the “Regional District”)

AND: THE TOWN OF GIBSONS Box 340 Gibsons, BC V0N 1V0

(the “Town”)

AND: THE DISTRICT OF SECHELT Box 129 Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0

(the “District”)

AND: SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT DISTRICT PO Box 740 Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 (the “SIGD”)

(referred to collectively as the “Parties)

WHEREAS:

A. The Regional District, the Town, the District and the SIGD have the authority under legislation to provide assistance for the purpose of benefitting the community or any aspect of the community;

B. The Parties have a four year agreement with each other to fund Regional Economic Development as noted in Schedule ‘A’;

C. The Parties wish to provide certainty up to and including the year 2019 regarding the funding under this agreement.

D. The Regional Economic Development agency will be established as an Arms-Length Non-Profit Society.

Attachment C

15

MOU Regional Economic Development 2016-2019 Page | 2 of 5

ECONOMIC VISION The Sunshine Coast has a sustainable, thriving and diverse regional economy that is aligned with community values, expands opportunities for all residents and improves overall community wellbeing. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The intent of the regional partnership is to fill service gaps and enhance the work of those agencies currently receiving local funding to undertake economic development initiatives. Priority roles and responsibilities that can be effectively undertaken through regional cooperation include:

Programs to support workforce development and education. A business retention and expansion (BRE) program. Lobbying on topics of shared regional interest. Attracting business investment, including entrepreneurial businesses, through

regional marketing, information provision and other techniques. New resident attraction. Regional information collection and dissemination. Working collaboratively on key regional facilities and infrastructure. Examples may

include alternative energy development or tourism-related developments. Additional roles and responsibilities, or deletions from the list above, can be considered through the strategic planning process (occurring at inception and subsequently at three to five year intervals) or through the annual work plan and budget approval process. GOVERNANCE The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional Economic Development Agency will have 9 directors. Eight directors are at-large community members who are selected for their expertise in key sectors of the regional economy or with respect to specific projects and projects being undertaken. The ninth director is appointed by the shíshálh Nation. Potential board members are identified through a formal application process and are appointed by the funding partners. The partners appoint a committee to establish application criteria, evaluate the applications, and propose a slate of directors for approval by each Council and the rural area directors on the Regional District Board. All Councils/Board must approve the slate of directors and the appointments are formalized at the agency's Annual General Meeting.

16


The agency undertakes a strategic planning process at its inception and every three to five years subsequently. The purpose is to expand on the high-level roles and responsibilities established in Part Two of this Charter and to establish more specific goals, priorities, projects and ongoing programs. This process also incorporates input from local governments, community stakeholders, the business community and the general public. The agency provides regular reports to its funders, including an annual work plan and budget that must be approved each year. The annual work plan includes a report on the results of the previous year, using key performance indicators (KPI) that are established through the strategic planning process. It also sets out planned initiatives and associated budget requirements for the coming year.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set out herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. The Parties shall provide assistance in the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 to the Regional Economic Development Agency in the amount of $300,000 per annum for the four year period.

Area Annually 2016-2019

Egmont/Pender Harbour Electoral Area A $37,589

Halfmoon Bay Electoral Area B $33,941

Roberts Creek Electoral Area D $30,733

Elphinstone Electoral Area E $28,364

West Howe Sound Electoral Area F $33,089

District of Sechelt $87,826

Town of Gibsons $40,583

Sechelt Indian Government District $7,876

TOTAL $300,000 2. Counterparts

This Agreement may be executed in any number of original counterparts, with the same effect as if all the Parties had signed the same document, and will become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by all the Parties and delivered to each of the Parties. All counterparts shall be construed together and evidence only one agreement, which,

17


notwithstanding the dates of execution of any counterparts, shall be deemed to be dated the reference date set out above, and only one of which need to be produced to any purpose.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporate Seal of the SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT was hereunto affixed in the presence of:

) ) ) )

) ) C/S

Chair )

) )

Corporate Officer ) IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporate Seal of the TOWN OF GIBSONS was hereunto affixed in the presence of:

) ) )

) ) C/S

Mayor )

) )

Corporate Officer )

) )

)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporate Seal of the DISTRICT OF SECHELT was hereunto affixed in the presence of:

) ) )

Mayor

) ) ) C/S

) Corporate Officer

) )

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporate Seal of the was hereunto affixed in the presence of:

18


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporate Seal of the SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT DISTRICT was hereunto affixed in the presence of:

) ) C/S

Chief )

) )

Corporate Officer )

SCHEDULE ‘A’

Description of Services

To be drafted

19


TO: Planning & Development Committee – February 18, 2016

AUTHOR: Tina Perreault, Treasurer

Angie Legault, Manager of Legislative Services

SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REQUISITION LIMIT INCREASES

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Economic Development Requisition Limit Increases be received; AND THAT the Committee provide direction on increased requisition limits for Bylaws 1063, 1064 and 1065.

BACKGROUND

Bylaws 1063, 1064 and 1065 provide for an economic development service in each of Electoral Areas A, B and D respectively. The requisition limit for each of these services is currently $0.05/$1000 and has not been amended since the services were established in March 2006. The current limit and projected tax requirement (as at the start of 2016 base budget) is approximately: Current Limit Est. 2016 Budget Shortfall Area A (BL 1063) $72,300 $80,000 $7700 Area B (BL 1064) $54,653 $55,000 $347 Area D (BL 1065) $43,001 $47,500 $4499

The increased funding requirement relates to the anticipated contributions under the draft Memorandum of Understanding for a regional economic development entity. Projected expenditures exceed the current amount allowable.

DISCUSSION

In determining the appropriate requisition limit, it is important to look at future revenue requirements to ensure sufficient funding is available to meet the needs of the service for the foreseeable future. Increasing the requisition limit by one cent (to $0.06/$1000) may be sufficient for the near term.

Per provincial regulation, if an amendment to an establishing bylaw increases the requisition limit by less than or equal to 25 percent over five years, the bylaw does not require the approval of the

ANNEX C

20

Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee – February 18, 2016 Economic Development Requisition Limit Increases Page 2 of 3

2016-Feb-18 PDC report economic development requisition limits

Inspector of Municipalities. It will, however, require the consent of 2/3 of the participants. In this case, that would amount to the written consent of the Director for the participating area. Financial Implications A summary of the potential increase is as follows: Area A Economic Development Current Requisition

Limit:

$72,310

Estimated 2016 Taxation:

$80,000

% Increase Increase in Requisition

Limit Dollar Limit Rate Limit

(per $1,000)

5% $7,939 $80,249 $0.055 10% $11,761 $84,071 $0.058 13% $14,053 $86,364 $0.060 15% $15,582 $87,892 $0.061 20% $19,403 $91,714 $0.063 25% $23,225 $95,535 $0.066

It is recommended that the requisition limit for Area A (BL 1063) be increased by 25% to $0.066/$1000 threshold to cover the 2016 taxation shortfall as well as any future changes to assessments or needs for the function. Area B Economic Development Current Requisition

Limit: $54,653


$55,000



(per $1,000)

5% $1,901 $56,554 $0.052 10% $4,594 $59,247 $0.054 15% $7,287 $61,940 $0.057 20% $9,980 $64,633 $0.059 25% $12,673 $67,326 $0.062

It is recommended that the requisition limit for Area B (BL 1064) be increased by 20% to $0.06/$1000 threshold to cover the 2016 taxation shortfall as well as any future changes to assessments or needs for the function.

21

Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee – February 18, 2016 Economic Development Requisition Limit Increases Page 3 of 3

2016-Feb-18 PDC report economic development requisition limits

Area D Roberts Creek Economic Development

Current Requisition Limit:

$43,001


$47,500



(per $1,000)

5% $5,839 $48,840 $0.057 10% $8,165 $51,166 $0.059 15% $10,491 $53,492 $0.062 20% $12,816 $55,817 $0.065 25% $15,142 $58,143 $0.068

It is recommended that the requisition limit for Area D (BL 1065) be increased by 25% to $0.068/$1000 threshold to cover the 2016 taxation shortfall as well as any future changes to assessments or needs for the function. Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date

Pending Committee approval, staff will prepare the Bylaw amendment and seek to obtain the necessary consents. The bylaw should be adopted prior to the adoption of the Financial Plan.


Strategic Priority: Support Sustainable Economic Development

Strategic Priority: Ensure Fiscal Sustainability

CONCLUSION

Staff request direction on setting the requisition limit for the economic development services in Electoral Area A, B and D.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance X – TP GM X – SO Legislative X - AL CAO X - JL Other

22



AUTHOR: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development

SUBJECT: Regional Planning and Rural Planning Allocations

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Regional Planning and Rural Planning Allocations be received.

BACKGROUND

At its January 14, 2016 meeting the SCRD Regional Board adopted the following Planning and Development Services Committee (PDC) recommendation:

The Planning and Development Committee recommended that staff bring back the 2006 report regarding the difference between Regional and Rural Planning Services Function to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting.

A scanned copy of the June 9, 2005 PDC report titled Regional Planning Service Review Recommendations is attached as Attachment 1. The report was in response to an April, 2005 Board resolution directing that staff from the District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, Sechelt Indian Government District and the SCRD form a working group to discuss the process around a Regional Planning Service Review. In June, 2005 the PDC considered a staff report which outlined areas of agreement on which activities were regional planning and which were rural planning. The staff working group proposed consideration of the following types of “External Agency Referrals” being allocated to Rural Planning:

All Crown Referrals for residential, commercial, industrial, resource, aquaculture, etc. on the foreshore and on Crown land, except those that impact a RD service serving municipalities

Provincial referrals for Pesticide Permits Quarrying and mining applications outside of community watersheds Water Consumption Licence Applications ALR MoTH [now MoTI] referrals for permits to use rights of way Five Year Forest Development Plans

The Planning and Development Committee considered the report on June 9, 2005 and made the following recommendation:

… THAT the recommendations in the staff report be amended to provide a clear distinction between external agency referrals that affect rural residents and rural businesses and that would be allocated to Rural Planning and external agency referrals that do not impact rural residents and rural businesses, which would be allocated to Regional Planning.

ANNEX D

23

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee – February 18, 2016 Regional Planning and Rural Planning Allocations Page 2 of 2

2016-Feb-18 PDC report Regional Planning and Rural Planning Allocations

Notwithstanding this distinction, a referral which was also made to municipalities would be dealt with by Rural Planning.

The PDC further recommended that:

The Planning and Development Committee recommended that with respect to the Regional Planning Services Review: a) That the proposed policy be forwarded to the three local governments to request

consideration and endorsement;

b) When the new policy is endorsed, staff of the local governments and the SCRD be asked to monitor expenditures and other issues regarding the final policy;

c) When the new policy is endorsed by all governments, an updated Regional Planning

service review be conducted in 2010.

The revised Rural Planning and Regional Planning allocations based on the above area shown in Attachment 2. In response to referral of the above, the District of Sechelt, in a letter dated July 21, 2005, indicated that it considered “the changes to the staff resolution [sic] proposed by the SCRD Board’s Planning Committee regarding funding allocations between Rural and Regional Planning unacceptable.” It appears that, as the new policy was never endorsed, an updated service review was never undertaken in 2010.

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

24

Report

Date: May 30, 2005To: Planning and Development Committee June 9, 2005From: Paul Fenwick, General Manager, Community Services DepartmentSubject: Regional Planning Service Review Recommendations

Recommendation:

That the Planning and Development Committee

a) provide a recommendation to the SCRD Board and three Municipal Councilsregarding the proposed allocation for “Regional Planning”, “Rural Planning”and “Other Planning”,

b) that once the SCRD Board deals with the Planning Committeerecommendation that the proposed policy be forwarded to the three localgovernments to request adoption,

c) that if the proposed new policy is endorsed, staff of the local governments andthe SCRD be asked to monitor expenditures and other issues regarding theselected policy, and

d) that if the proposed new policy is endorsed that an updated Regional Planningservice review be conducted in 2010.

Background:

The SCRD directed staff to prepare a report as follows:

April 28, 2005 SCRD Board Motion #248/05

Recommendation No. 5- Regional Planning Service Review

THAT the staff report dated April 14, 2005, regarding finalising the Regional and Ruralplanning activities, be received;

AND FURTHER THAT staff from the District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, Sechelt IndianGovernment District and the Regional District form a working group to discuss the processand potential policies to finalise the Regional Planning Service Review. The working groupshould provide the Board with the procedural means to change any elements where there isagreement these should be changed, and provide a report focussed on the areas on whichthere is still no agreement.

Staff representatives from the Town of Gibsons, District of Sechelt and the SCRD meton May 17, 2005 and provide the report for the Committee’s consideration. SIGD staffwere also invited to attend. Staff agree on the proposals made in this report and thereport points out what has been contentious in the past for the elected officials.

Report:

Process

Provincial legislative changes in 2000 provided an opportunity for participants inregional district services to initiate a review of service arrangements. The District ofSechelt requested a review of SCRD Regional Planning.

Page 125

steveno

Typewritten Text

Attachment 1

The review to date has been informal and has been managed by the participants and

their staff. Round table discussions have occurred for the elected officials. Staff have

twice been asked to bring suggestions forward to resolve the service review.

Throughout the process, background information and reports have been provided.

The process allows for CAWS to take a more active role if the participants cannot

resolve disputes. CAWS is aware of the review but has not directly intervened to date.

In the case of regional planning, service withdrawal is not an option.

Potential Policies

Staff have reviewed the 2003 proposals and have made some suggested changes

shown on the attached tables.

Changes to the 2003 proposals have been indicated and highlighted. Staff feel that

most of the suggestions previously made by them are still valid. The 2003 proposals

were shaped by legal advice on what the legislation requires.

The area where agreement among elected officials was lacking was for the treatment of

referrals i.e. whether processing them should be funded by Electoral Areas or by all

participants, or some other combination (see below).

There is a series of three tables for:

• Regional Planning• Rural Planning• Other Planning

For Regional Planning, activities that could be contemplated and budgeted include:

Regional Growth Strategy, Other Regional Studies or Policies (usually of cross-

jurisdictional interest), Statistical Data Bases (of benefit to planning in all communities

and for the public), Spatial Data/Mapping (again of universal benefit vs. more localised

planning) and Selected External Referrals (see below).

With the exception of referrals, it is clear what should be allocated under Rural

Planning. These are largely the Part 26 activities for Electoral Areas (OCPs,

Development Permits, Zoning and Subdivision referrals). Unlike municipalities, Regional

Districts are not Subdivision Approval Authorities. Inter-departmental initiatives (for

example SCRD Planning assisting Infrastructure with a rural population forecast) are

funded under Rural Planning.

The third table Other Allocation, recommends that other RD functions e.g. Hillside

Industrial Park, Community Parks etc. pay for planning staff when they work on those

areas. This is a change from Regional Planning or Rural Planning doing this and will

resolve an equity issue in the case of Regional Planning.

Page 226

Procedures

Council and Board resolutions can adopt the new allocation adopted to replace thedisputed one. The recommendations contained in this report potentially commence thatprocess.

If some matters are still in dispute at the completion of the informal review, CAWS couldbe requested to have its staff participate possibly as a formal service review for theoutstanding issues.

Areas on which there is still No Aareement

Staff acknowledges that it is the issue of External Agency Referrals that has causeddispute in the past and is the area where agreement in the Service Review has notbeen reached by elected officials. The municipalities feel that they have been unfairlysubsidising Rural Planning where referrals are funded under Regional Planning.Moreover, municipalities have to pay for their own referrals to Provincial governmentand other external bodies. Conversely it could be said that an operation like majorresource extraction and logging has impacts (visual and otherwise) that causemunicipalities to have concerns and they may wish to support Regional referrals.

Examples of the kinds of referrals at stake are listed in the Rural Planning table.

Staff are suggesting that some referrals may still be funded by Regional Planning andlooked at criteria to determine this (e.g. location, impact, community benefit etc.).

The discussions have lead staff to suggest that referrals for a public water source likeTrout Lake, referrals to the Board under a government to government protocolarrangement like the Islands Trust would be funded Regionally (both as previouslyrecommended by staff in 2003). In addition, staff also now suggest that a “referral thatimpacts a RD service for municipalities or municipal service e.g. affects regional solidwaste or water service, activity within a community watershed, or activity that affectsmunicipal road” would be handled under Regional Planning. Others would be handledby Rural Planning as outlined in that table.

Elected officials may wish to make further changes to this section, as it has beendifficult to resolve who pays for which referrals. The current approach has likely spurredthis service review thus staff have attempted to provide a balanced approach.

Paul Fenwick

K:\WP\2005\06\COMMUNITY SERVlCESRegionaI Planning Service Review Rpt Jun 9.doc

\

Page 327

Staff Working Group: Proposed Regional Planning 2005

Activity Examples NotesRegional Growth Strategy and related • Regional Growth Issuesinitiatives Assessment. I. An example includes the Regional• Regional Growth Strategy policy Issues Assessment community focus(UNCHANGED FROM 2003) development, groups, questionnaire and trends.• Regional Growth implementation 2. Embarking upon a RGS requires localand consultations. and provincial jurisdictional supportand funding by the Province.

Other Regional Studies or Policies • intergovernmental strategic parks 1. To be determined on an annual basis. plan. and agreed upon by all Councils and(ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES • Aquifer Protection Regional District Board.LISTED) • Aggregate/mining impact studies. 2. A non-statutory Regional Vision could• Urban/rural fringe studies/policies, be prepared as an option to a RGS.• Transportation Study.• LRMP• çuniy Benefit Analysig• Others as determined.

Statistical Information • Stats Canada data depository and 1. The individual participants currentlycustomised data runs, fund SCORE. Double dipping is not(‘ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES • Economic data base e.g. SCORE. suggested since Regional PlanningLISTED) • Sustainability indicators i.e. would completely fund SCORE.Community Report Card. 2. Developing Community Sustainability• Land Use data and statistics e.g. indicators is a significant project. Boardabsorption rate, building permit would have to determine howdata, ambitiously this could be funded.

• Analytical and interpretative work 3. Consultants may be required torelated to the above data. augment Regional Planning staff to do

• Land assessment data analytical and interpretative work and• Bc Invest Data to develop web pages.

Regional Spatial Data and Mapping • Sensitive Eco-system inventory I. Charge backs to the service fund GIS.(ortho- photo mapping base). 2. Areas funded here to be of inter-(UNCHANGED FROM 2003) • Habitat Atlas. jurisdictional importance or selected to• Mapping of Statistical information create economies of scale.and trends noted in the previous 3. Infrastructure data could be done as acategory. partnership among functions and

. Infrastructure data. municipalities and therefore have splitfunding.

Selected External Referrals • Referral that impacts a RD service 1. See Proposed Rural P1annngfor municipalities or a municipal Allocation for others.(CHANGED TO ADD SELECTED service e.g. affects regional solid 2. OCP referrals for adjoining localREFERALS OF IMPORTANCE) waste or water service, activity government go to the Board andwithin a community watershed, therefore can’t be funded under Ruralactivity that affects a municipal Planning. ‘.

S.

road.5

5

S • Islands Trust, TOG & DOSS - Community Plans.

-‘

• Trout Lake referrals.-

28

steveno

Typewritten Text

steveno

Typewritten Text

steveno

Typewritten Text

steveno

Typewritten Text

steveno

Typewritten Text

Staff Working GroupProposed Other Allocation

2005

Activity Examples Notes

Corporate Land Activities not Firehall, Ports Divestiture, SPCA 1. Most of these proposed to be allocated

addressed by an existing site to the appropriate Function e.g. Parks,

Function Solid Waste, Cemeteries, HillsideIndustrial Park, etc.

(UNCHANGED FROM2. These take a significant amount of staff

2003)Note: to be re-allocated from regionalplanning to other SCRD functions

K:WP\2OO5\O6COMMUNJTY SERVICES\Regional Planning 2005.doc

29

Staff Working Group Proposed Rural Planning 2005

Activity Examples NotesManagement of Development • Official Community Plans I. Examples Include:

Background Research and • Twin Creeks OCP;(CHANGED TO NOT BE CONFINED Development • Zoning Bylaw to Implement Pender -BYPART26REGARDINGALR • OCP Amendments Egmont OCPAPPLICATIONS) • Zoning Bylaws Policy and • Co-housing OCP and ZoningResearch Amendment

. Zoning Bylaw Amendments • Malibu Club rezoning• Board of Variance • LNG. APCs • Halfmoon Bay OCP Density Amendment• Subdivisions• Permits (Development Permits, 2. Public inquiries and consultation are a

Development Variance Permits, significant part of this activity.Tree Cutting Permits)

. Building Permit Zoning Checks• AL.R. Applctions

External Agency Referrals • All Crown Referrals for Referrals in the past have consumed aresidential, commercial. considerable portion of the regional planning(CHANGED TO MESH WITH ONES industrial, resource, budget. We still have referrals but they areCHANGED UNDER REGIONAL aquaculture, activities, etc. on streamlined.

PLANNING 2005) the foreshore and on crown. land, except those that impact a

.

RD service for a municipality or. affect a municipality.

. -. Referrals Include but are not limitedto:

• I. ProvincialReferrals for.

Pesticide Permits2. Quarrying and Mining

applications outside of.

. community watersheds. 3. Water Consumption Licence

. Applications.

- 4. MoT referrals for permits to userights of way

5. Five Year Forest Development.

Plans unless within aColnmuniW_Watershed.

Inter-departmental Initiatives • Research to support interdepartmental initiatives (e.g.

(UNCHANGED FROM 2003) park and infrastructure projects)

K:\WP\2005\06\COMMUNITY SERVICES’Rural Planning 2005.doc

30

31

steveno

Typewritten Text

Attachment 2

steveno

Typewritten Text

2016-Jan-27 PDC Annual Report Invasive Species Technical Working Group



AUTHOR: Marina Stjepovic, Planner

SUBJECT: INVASIVE SPECIES TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP – ANNUAL REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the report titled Invasive Species Technical Working Group – Annual Report be received; AND THAT SCRD staff bring forward a Regional Planning [500] budget proposal in Round 2 of the 2016 based upon maintaining the current level of SCRD involvement.

BACKGROUND

The Invasive Species Technical Working Group (ISTWG) is comprised of land managers and technical experts whose aim is to coordinate efforts to better manage invasive species on the Lower Sunshine Coast. The ISTWG was initiated on January 22, 2015 by SCRD Board resolution 032/15, Recommendation No. 2.

The Terms of Reference includes a duty to submit an annual report and recommendations (Attachment A), which is the subject of this report.

DISCUSSION

The Sunshine Coast ISTWG provides a forum for collaboration among land managers and experts from different agencies and governments who, with their local knowledge and on-the-ground experience, are well-suited to guide local priorities. The group’s recommendations for 2016 continue to build a foundation for effective management of invasive species on the Sunshine Coast, while recognizing that there are several barriers to overcome before work on the ground can be undertaken with a lasting and positive effect. These include:

sorting out some of the inconsistencies in ‘best practices’ for priority species; accessing adequate funding to coordinate and achieve work on the ground; working in partnership with all landowners affected by invasive species at a site; and taking proactive action to stop the introduction and spread of invasive species.

ANNEX E

33

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee February 18, 2016 Invasive Species Technical Working Group – Annual Report Page 2 of 4


Options and Analysis

Option 1 - Maintain current level of SCRD involvement

This option provides a role for continued, although limited, involvement and control over invasive species management on the Sunshine Coast. SCRD budget implications are minimal, with most of the work being done by staff under their current work plans.

The ISTWG would continue to guide local priorities.

Each member group would continue to manage invasive species on its own lands and coordinate annual work plans through ISTWG meetings.

The ISTWG members would work with existing limited resources to provide guidance to the community groups, businesses and private land owners within their respective jurisdictions.

Mapping and information about sites being treated would continue to be directed to the provincial Report-a-Weed and Invasive Alien Plants Program database. The Province maintains the data and provides general support to local governments, groups and individuals, and the SCRD would act as back up support to ensure local information is being uploaded, users are being assisted, and the information is usable.

The Coastal Invasive Species Committee (CISC) is a non-profit society, located in Victoria, and is the designated regional weed committee encompassing the Sunshine Coast, Powell River region and Vancouver Island. The existence of the ISTWG ensures that local priorities are being heard and addressed. Provincial invasive species funds are funneled through the CISC. The ISTWG should request an annual summary of works done by CISC to be able to determine if this arrangement is efficient.

Given that the SCRD has limited authority, limited resources, and no legal responsibility to control invasive species on private lands, but does have a moral obligation to participate towards solutions, staff recommends that the ISTWG maintain the current service level for 2016.

Option 2 - Increase level of SCRD involvement

This option would entail development of a strategy/action plan with a limited timeframe for achieving results. Resources would be needed to hire contracted services or increase staff hours dedicated to coordinate work on invasive species management. SCRD budget implications would need to be considered.

The ISTWG could form a local regional weed committee, replacing the Coastal Invasive Species Committee on the Sunshine Coast. Provincial invasive species funds (undetermined amount) could be directly applied for and funneled to the SCRD as the ‘banker’.

Each member group would continue to manage invasive species on its own lands and would coordinate annual work plans through ISTWG meetings.

The ISTWG would rely on a paid coordinator to provide clear guidance and assistance to the community groups, businesses and private land owners within their respective jurisdictions.

34



Incentives could be provided to private landowners to remove, treat, control, record and properly dispose of priority invasive plant and animal species. Qualified contractors could be subsidized/paid to provide treatment on lands affected by priority species, and would be responsible for proper disposal, monitoring and reporting.

Although staff considers this more aggressive, well-funded and coordinated approach necessary to achieve tangible results quickly, staff does not support this option until the barriers discussed above have been dealt with.

Option 3 – Eliminate SCRD’s involvement

This option would eliminate the SCRD’s involvement and control over invasive species management on the Sunshine Coast and each land manager would continue to take care of lands under their respective jurisdiction. Works on private lands, public education and guidance could be coordinated by CISC or a dedicated community organization, with or without financial contributions from the SCRD.

Staff does not support this option as it is less consistent with the SCRD’s Strategic Plan and priorities for environmental leadership.


Under current involvement, it is estimated that the SCRD is contributing approximately 40 hours of staff time to participate in quarterly meetings, and an additional 40 hours for coordination of meetings. The ISTWG is a collaborative approach to managing invasive species on the Sunshine Coast, with participation of staff from the member agencies and local governments, as described in the 2015 Annual Report (Attachment A).

Financial Implications

The 2016 Regional Planning [500] budget was moved to adoption in Round 1 of the 2016 Budget review. Staff note that the SCRD budget for Regional Planning does not currently accommodate this expenditure. However, adoption of the Regional Planning budget could be placed on hold and the activities proposed could be brought forward as a budget proposal for Round 2.

The budget for invasive species has been considered on a year to year basis during the annual SCRD budget review. The budget proposal could consider whether this should be continued as part of the base budget or be considered annually.

Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date

Once proposed activities wrap up for 2016, the Board would consider whether to continue in 2017.


A separate communications strategy would be considered as part of the 2016 work plan for the Invasive Species Technical Working Group.

35




SCRD involvement in the Invasive Species Technical Working Group is consistent with the Strategic Priority “Embed environmental leadership”.

CONCLUSION

SCRD Staff supports Option 1 and the ISTWG recommendations for the year 2016, as identified in this report. Staff could prepare a budget proposal for Round 2 regarding continuation of funding for the project.

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

36

2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Sunshine Coast Invasive Species Technical Working Group

The Invasive Species Technical Working Group (ISTWG) is comprised of land managers and technical experts coordinating efforts to better manage invasive species on the Sunshine Coast.

The ISTWG was initiated by the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) on January 22, 2015 (Board resolution 032/15 Recommendation No. 2). Invitations to participate were sent to the organizations listed in the Terms of Reference. School District 46 and Squamish Nation did not participate. Vancouver Coastal Health participated only in the first meeting but remained on the e-mail distribution list.

The Terms of Reference includes a duty to submit an annual report.

2015 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Four meetings were held at the SCRD offices: on April 27, June 15, September 14 and December 2, 2015. During the first meeting staff from the following organizations introduced themselves:

shíshálh Nation, Sid Quinn (voted in as Vice Chair) Town of Gibsons, Wendy Gilbertson District of Sechelt, Perry Schmitt SCRD Planning and Development, Marina Stjepovic (voted in as Chair) SCRD Parks Services, Carolyn Mortensen SCRD Infrastructure, Monte Staats SCRD GIS, Cheryl Trent Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Crystal Chadburn Coastal Invasive Species Committee, Rachelle McElroy Vancouver Coastal Health, Brian McFadyen Note: Robyn Cooper (SCRD Solid Waste) participated in subsequent meetings.

The group then reviewed and suggested minor changes to the Terms of Reference, discussed priorities, and set goals of establishing a list of priority invasive plant species, dealing with disposal challenges, and coordinating efforts with funding, work plans and community engagement. During the course of the next three meetings, the group achieved the following:

Established a current list of priority plant species for the Sunshine Coast.

Began researching and compiling Best Practices for the control, removal, treatment, transport and disposal of priority invasive plants. For the Knotweed species in particular, it quickly became evident that there were gaps in the science and understanding of this plant and inconsistencies in best management practices throughout the province. The

Attachment A

37

2015 Annual Report of the Invasive Species Technical Working Group Page 2 of 3

group attempted to compile the best local options, but recognized that more work would need to be done.

Investigated options for disposal of Knotweed. This presented a challenge, as local composting facility Salish Soils stopped accepting Knotweed waste in 2015 due to concerns of negative impacts to their compost, and began considering a separate stream for Knotweed drop off. Landfilling is not an option, while interim options of burning onsite or leaving cuttings onsite to dry are not ideal. Until a practical local disposal option is identified, outreach materials and public guidance on how to best deal with this plant will remain incomplete.

Initiated proactive planning and sharing of annual work plans among members. It was agreed that the ISTWG would use the provincial Invasive Alien Plant Program’s (IAPP) mapping and database. The SCRD GIS Department attempted to collect information about sites being treated and monitored by member municipalities, however the information lacked the necessary detail for uploading to the provincial database. The proper information requirements were noted and would be uploaded going forward. Maps could then be produced as needed.

Updated the Invasive Species page on the SCRD website. Over the year, the SCRD received approximately 30-35 public requests for information, mostly regarding how to deal with Knotweed, with and without use of pesticides, where to find professional help, and how to dispose of it. The District of Sechelt received 10 public calls, and the Town of Gibsons received about 20. The Coastal Invasive Species Committee reported 45-50 requests from the Sunshine Coast. These information requests relate to the gaps in best practices noted above, and which the ISTWG prioritized as needing to be sorted out and made available to the public.

Initiated a first draft of a strategy/action plan for managing invasive species on the Sunshine Coast, which would need to be further developed and refined.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2016

The ISTWG members agree that there is mutual benefit to each of their respective organizations in continuing to work together in 2016, and recommend the following:

1. Continue with quarterly ISTWG meetings. The first four meetings proved to be valuable for connecting with other land managers and experts, sharing information, assessing barriers, establishing work priorities, and reviewing progress. Two-hour meetings should continue to be held at the SCRD offices, with SCRD support for coordinating and note taking.

2. Develop a short term strategy. Compile and prioritize goals and action items into a concise 3-5 year strategy for the Sunshine Coast, which is generally aligned with each member organizations’ goals. A draft “Invasive Plant Strategy” was commenced in 2015,

38

2015 Annual Report of the Invasive Species Technical Working Group Page 3 of 3

however the Working Group recognizes that the completion of the strategy and implementation of action items would need to be adequately resourced.

3. Facilitate a community meeting. To link in with community needs and efforts, the ISTWG should facilitate a community meeting in the spring of 2016. The meeting would serve to connect landowners, businesses, citizens and organizations interested in invasive species management. The ISTWG should provide an update on its progress.

4. Provide public direction on how to deal with priority invasive plant species. The ISTWG should review and update as necessary the priority invasive plant species list for the Sunshine Coast. In order to provide clear direction to the public and property owners, the group should compile and agree on Best Practices for managing priority invasive plant species. This information should then be actively disseminated to the public, using a variety of communications tools to increase awareness about priority species.

5. Continue to investigate viable options for disposal and destruction of Knotweed and other invasive plant species. Knotweed waste is outside of the scope of the existing SCRD green waste program, and would necessitate a “request for expressions of interest”. Budget requirements would be determined after this step. Viable disposal options should consider accessibility and convenience, costs, the environment, public awareness, and vectors of spread such as transporting plant material, etc.

6. Communicate progress. The SCRD GIS Department should continue to provide support as needed, to ensure local information on invasive plant sites and treatment is uploaded into the provincial Invasive Alien Plant Program database. Maps should be produced as an effective visual snapshot of what has been accomplished locally.

Meeting notes and updates should continue to be posted on the SCRD website, and efforts should be made to boost communication with the public using tools such as social media, signage at treatment sites, printed materials, etc.

7. Each member agency/organization should continue to manage invasive species

on lands under their respective jurisdictions, while coordinating efforts as part of the Invasive Species Technical Working Group.

8. The ISTWG should continue to receive support from the Coastal Invasive Species Committee (CISC). The ISTWG is not set up to deliver programs and therefore relies on outside support from an organization such as CISC. To supplement the ISTWG’s efforts to collaborate and establish local priorities for the Sunshine Coast, the CISC can, at a minimum, provide valuable contributions such as expert advice, updates on research and best practices, as well as links to funding opportunities and initiatives in other parts of the province. The ISTWG should clarify and further explore the potential role for CISC in delivering programs on the Sunshine Coast.

39



AUTHOR: David Rafael, Senior Planner and Steven Olmstead, General Manager Planning and Development

SUBJECT: BURNCO AGGREGATE PROPOSAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE AND BYLAW 310.147 – AREA F

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report titled “BURNCO Aggregate Proposal Environmental Assessment Update and Bylaw 310. 147 – Area F” be received;

2. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.147, 2016 be re-activated;

3. AND THAT Bylaw 310.147 be referred to the following:

a) Squamish Nation b) All Advisory Planning Commissions c) Natural Resources Advisory Committee d) Local Residents/Electors Associations (including any on Gambier Island as

identified by Gambier Island Trustee) e) Town of Gibsons f) Howe Sound Community Forum g) Islands Trust h) Relevant provincial and federal agencies

4. AND FURTHER THAT the SCRD Board establish expectations for the public meetings prior to discussions with the BC Environmental Assessment Office.

ANNEX F

40

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee February 18, 2016 BURNCO Aggregate Environmental Assessment Update and Bylaw 310. 147 – Area F Page 2 of 7

2016-Feb-18 PDC report Bylaw 310.147 and EA update for BURNCO

BACKGROUND

BURNCO Rock Products Ltd is proposing an aggregate mining project in the McNab Valley along Howe Sound (location map in Attachment A). The volume of aggregate proposed to be removed and potential aquatic habitat disturbance has triggered Provincial and Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) processes. The SCRD is a participant in the EA process.

The Regional District received an application from BURNCO in 2012 to rezone approximately 70 hectares of its land holdings in McNab Valley from Rural Two (RU2) to Industrial 5 (I5) to accommodate the proposed processing of mined aggregates.

Bylaw 310.147 considers the processing of gravel only. It does not consider the gravel mine as a whole. The SCRD has authority to regulate processing through zoning; it cannot regulate mining through zoning.

At the Board meeting of November 22, 2012, the following resolution was adopted:

458/12 Recommendation No 1 Bylaw 310.147 (BURNCO)

1. THAT the staff report dated November 5, 2012 titled “Bylaw 310.147 (BURNCO Rock Products Ltd) to Permit Aggregate Processing in DL 677 and DL 677A” be received;

2. THAT the application be deferred until additional information can be made available in the form of an Application Information Requirement (AIR) which include the Terms of Reference for the Howe Sound project and the maximum annual (and total life cycle) aggregate removal permitted, and be presented in conjunction with the staff report;

3. THAT there be a clear definition of the permitted uses being applied for within the proposed I5 zoning;

4. THAT a BURNCO-specific webpage be created on the SCRD website

The BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) approved the Application Information Requirements (AIR) in December 2014. Information was posted on the SCRD website on the following page: http://www.scrd.ca/BURNCO-Aggregate-Mine. This page will be updated as more information becomes available.

The EAO’s working group (made up of representatives from local, provincial, and federal governments, First Nations and the applicant) met on February 10, 2015 and January 20, 2016 to discuss fisheries issues. It is anticipated that the environmental assessment application will be submitted in the first quarter of 2016.

Subsequent to the above Board consideration, the project description was modified and the area that is the subject of the rezoning application was reduced to approximately 55 hectares.

41

http://www.scrd.ca/BURNCO-Aggregate-Mine



DISCUSSION


Option One: Re-activate Zoning Amendment Bylaw 310.147

The EA will provide much of the information the SCRD will need to fully consider the rezoning application. It will set out the environmental, navigation, noise and visual impacts and allow for the public to comment on the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant. Preliminary referrals can take place to gather community and agency input to help inform the SCRD as it participates in the EA. Thus the SCRD will be proactive and not just reacting to the EA schedule.

The advantage of re-activating the rezoning application is that it will allow the SCRD to incorporate aspects of the EA process within the rezoning process (such as public meetings and comments provided by agencies and residents) rather than require a separate process. The SCRD can concurrently run a community engagement process under the rezoning application and provide input from this process into the Environmental Assessment. This is more efficient and effective from a community engagement perspective. It is also more cost effective, as the rezoning costs for this application are recoverable.

Staff recommend that further consideration of Bylaw 310.147 should take place in light of information provided at the EA and run concurrently with the EA process. A copy of draft Bylaw 310.147 is attached for reference.

Option Two: Continuation of deferral of Bylaw 310.147

The November, 2012 Board resolution defers consideration of Bylaw 310.147 until the following information is available:

an Application Information Requirement (AIR) which include the Terms of Reference for the Howe Sound project; and

the maximum annual (and total life cycle) aggregate removal permitted.

As noted above, the Application Information Requirements/Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines were approved by the EAO in December, 2014; fulfilling the first condition of the Board. BURNCO’s current proposal as noted in the AIR would involve an annual average extraction of one million tonnes and a maximum annual extraction of 1.5 million tonnes over a 16 year mine life. The total life cycle production of the mine is thus expected to be approximately 16 million tonnes.

Delaying consideration of Bylaw 310.147 may result in the need for the applicant and SCRD staff to hold a separate rezoning process upon conclusion of the EA process. The opportunity for enhanced public engagement associated with the SCRD’s rezoning process feeding into the EA process will be lost if deferral of the rezoning application remains in place.

Staff do not support the option of continued deferral for the following reasons:

1. the conditions set by the Board for lifting the deferral have been met; and

2. enhanced community engagement can result from concurrent processing of the rezoning application with the Environmental Assessment.

42



Option Three: Bylaw 310.147 be abandoned

Considerable concern about the BURNCO proposal has been expressed by owners of an 18 lot subdivision, residents of Gambier Island and residents and local governments around Howe Sound. The Board could decide not to proceed with this application to rezone the site to allow for gravel processing. However, this will not stop the mining proposal from being considered through the EA process.

Staff believe it would be premature to abandon the rezoning at this time and therefore do not support this option.

Possible Content of Bylaw 310.147

Bylaw 310.147 could propose rezoning the processing area to Industrial Four (I4) as this best fits the proposal in that it allows for mineral, sand and gravel processing. However manufacture of concrete products (a permitted use in the I4 zone) should not be a permitted use.

An alternative could be to draft a site specific zone for the proposal.

The area could also be designated as a Temporary Use Permit Area to allow the SCRD to consider TUPs for activities such as a temporary concrete batch plant for the project.


Participation in the EA process will require staff resources. Merging some aspects of the rezoning process with the EA will help to reduce the impact on staff resources to some degree.


SCRD Bylaw 522 (Procedures and Fees) states that for rezoning applications outside of an official community plan area the processing fee will “comprise a basic fee in the amount of $1,400.00, in addition to other fees required to cover the cost of processing, including professional, technical, and clerical services as follows:

(a) $60/hour - professional staff time; (b) $40/hour - technical and clerical staff; (c) consulting services, including fees for legal services, billed at cost; (d) other related expenses, such as covenant registrations, billed at cost.”

Re-activating Bylaw 310.147 will allow the SCRD to recover cost.


With regard to the rezoning process, SCRD staff suggest that the following groups should be sent a referral:

a) Squamish Nation b) All Advisory Planning Commissions c) Natural Resources Advisory Committee d) Local Residents/Electors Associations (including any on Gambier Island as

identified by Gambier Island Trustee)

43



e) Town of Gibsons f) Howe Sound Community Forum g) Islands Trust h) Relevant provincial and federal agencies

The applicant will be required to arrange a public information meeting (PIM). This could take place in association with the EA process public meeting(s). The format for the meeting(s) will need to be agreed between the SCRD and EAO. If agreement cannot be reached then a separate PIM will be arranged.

SCRD staff will continue to update the SCRD website, including a notice on the front page at key points (such as the start of the EA public consultation period). Staff will also make use of the SCRD’s Twitter and Facebook accounts to provide notifications of updates and how to provide input.


Strategic Plan: Values – Equity and Environmental Leadership

Key Strategic Priorities – Support Sustainable Economic Development Embed Environmental Leadership

CONCLUSION

Staff consider that Bylaw 310.147 should be reactivated. This will allow the SCRD to incorporate aspects of the EA process within the rezoning process (such as public meetings, comments provided by agencies and residents) rather than require a separate process. Merging some aspects of the rezoning process with the EA will help to reduce the impact on staff resources to some degree.

The SCRD Board should establish expectations for the public meetings prior to discussions with the Environmental Assessment Office.

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

44



ATTACHMENT A

45



46



AUTHOR: David Rafael, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: BYLAW 310.165 (NARROWS INLET POWER PROJECT) RECEIPT OF PUBLIC

HEARING REPORT AND CONSIDERATION OF THIRD READING AND ADOPTION –

AREA B

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report titled “Bylaw 310.165 (Narrows Inlet Power Project) Receipt of Public Hearing Report and Consideration of Third Reading and Adoption – Area B” be received;

2. AND THAT The Report of the Public Hearing for Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015 be received;

3. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015 be read a third time;

4. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015 be read adopted.

5. AND FURTHER THAT the SCRD Board send a letter to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations requesting that concerns raised about surveys and the boundary between the project and private properties be investigated and resolved.

BACKGROUND

The SCRD received an application to rezone the sites for the three powerhouses and related laydown area for the Narrows Inlet Hydro Project (NIHP). The project is located north of Narrows Inlet within the Tzoonie River valley, in Halfmoon Bay. The current zoning is RU2 (Rural Two) and the proposed zoning is I9 (Independent Power Project). An area is also proposed for designation as a Temporary Use Permit Area.

The project received an energy purchasing agreement from BC Hydro and an environmental certificate from the province. BluEarth has applied to the province to amend the environmental certificate and to date no decision has been reached.

A public hearing was held on January 19, 2016. It was attended by 22 members of the public, including representatives of the applicant. Also in attendance were SCRD Director Mark Lebbell, shíshálh Nation Chief Calvin Craigan and two shíshálh Nation councilors, Gary Feschuk and Randy Joe. A report of the public hearing is included in Attachment A. The submissions that

ANNEX G

47

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee February 18, 2016 Bylaw 310.165 (Narrows Inlet Power Project) Receipt of Public Hearing Report and

Consideration of Third Reading and Adoption – Area B Page 2 of 3

2016-Feb-18 Bylaw 310.165 report of public hearing and consideration for 3rd reading and adoption

were received for the public hearing and are noted in the report as Appendices A to J. One submission included as substantial document that was previously received by the SCRD as part of the December 10, 2015 staff report. It is not attached to this report but will be made available to Directors and added to the SCRD website that considers the project:

http://www.scrd.ca/Hydro-Power-Projects

A copy of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015 is included in Attachment B.

DISCUSSION


Options

Option One – Bylaw 310.165 receives Third Reading and Adoption

Most of the objections raised at the public hearing were considered during the environmental assessment (EA) process and taken into account by the province in issuing the environmental certificate. The locations for the power houses were known at the time of the environmental assessment.

There are no new issues that were raised at the public hearing that staff consider would lead to rejecting the proposed rezoning and designation of a temporary use permit area.

Staff support this option.

Option Two – Bylaw 310.165 be abandoned

There were a number of objections raised by property owners in the area that they considered were not adequately addressed during the environmental assessment. While most of these were considered during the EA review or are outside of SCRD land use jurisdiction, the proposed rezoning could be abandoned if the SCRD Board wished to object to the project as a whole. The SCRD Board did not take this position during the EA review.

SCRD staff consider that there are no new grounds to make such a statement and do not support this option.

Analysis

A representative from BluEarth Renewables provided a background to the project and the experience of the company’s team. The partnership with the shíshálh Nation was noted. It was also noted that the proposed amendment to the road access alignment, currently under consideration by the BC Environmental Assessment Office, was proposed in response to environmental concerns about the approved alignment. In addition matters that are outside of the rezoning are before other regulators for consideration.

Support for the project was offered in six form letters which were from five residents and one business on the Sunshine Coast (Appendices B to G).

48

http://www.scrd.ca/Hydro-Power-Projects

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee February 18, 2016 Bylaw 310.165 (Narrows Inlet Power Project) Receipt of Public Hearing Report and

Consideration of Third Reading and Adoption – Area B Page 3 of 3

2016-Feb-18 Bylaw 310.165 report of public hearing and consideration for 3rd reading and adoption

Chief Craigan of the shíshálh Nation spoke in support of the project noting it supports the Nation’s commitment to sustainable energy development and provided a submission in support from the shíshálh Nation (Appendix A). Councilor Feschuk, shíshálh Nation, spoke about the history of the area and the rights of the shíshálh Nation and that the community has supported the project as expressed in a community referendum.

Four written submissions that raised objections were received from, or on behalf of, owners of property in the area: Appendices H to K). Each of these were supplemented by verbal representations at the hearing. Objections were raised in a verbal submission by the Policy Director of the Wilderness Committee.

Two of the submissions (Appendices I and K) included copies of submissions made to the BC Environmental Assessment Office for consideration during the environmental assessment and for the application to amend the certificate.

A number of the objections relate to matters that are outside of direct SCRD land use planning consideration (such as the need for the electricity to supply BC, cost of electricity to BC residents arising from this and other similar projects) or were considered during the environmental assessment (such as impact on fish habitat). Other issues considered impact on water for the Ramona Creek properties, impact of noise and introduction of industrial activity in a natural area. These were also considered during the environmental assessment process.

Concerns regarding technical matters such as potential impact of failure of lake storage/ drainage equipment were also raised. Concern was raised about the impact of noise from the proposed Lower Ramona Creek power house located near the property line of one of the Ramona Creek properties.

Concern was raised regarding the location of the Lower Ramona Creek powerhouse and associated surveys. It was requested that an independent survey be conducted to ensure the project’s works does not intrude onto private land. SCRD staff consider that this is a matter for the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to resolve and that the SCRD Board could refer this concern to the ministry staff.


Not applicable.

CONCLUSION

Staff consider that Bylaw 310.165 could be forwarded to the SCRD Board for consideration of Third Reading and adoption. The SCRD Board could write a letter to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operation’s regarding concerns about accuracy of surveys and project boundary and that this matter be investigated and resolved .

Reviewed by: Manager Finance X - TP GM X – SO Legislative X - AL CAO X - JL Other

49

ATTACHMENT A

50

APPENDIX A

56

APPENDIX B

58

APPENDIX C

59

APPENDIX D

60

APPENDIX E

61

APPENDIX F

62

APPENDIX G

63

APPENDIX H

64

APPENDIX I

65

1

David Rafael

From: Narrows Inlet Sent: January-17-16 9:36 PMTo: David RafaelSubject: Fwd: Narrow Inlet Water licence correspondenceAttachments: Smith Water Management.pdf; Water management 2002919.docx; Water management

2003015.docx

Hello David, My submission for the Public Hearing on Tuesday will consist of exactly the same group of documents I submitted for the Dec 10 meeting.......except I wish to add the 3 attachments in the below email to James Davies.....they are very old but the points raised still have not been addressed. Do I need to email you in a new email all of the documents as I did before or is it proper if you just add these to that file in chronological order? I will bring a hard copy with me to the hearing and submit it in time. To confirm protocol......I submit my hard copy to the clerk before the hearing begins......anyone can speak.....there is no need to pre-register to speak......the vote will be held immediately following presentations from the public......correct? Thank-you again for the polite and meaningful assistance you are providing to your residents as they try to protect Narrows Inlet by way of valid arguments against this project. Yes, I fully understand the ramifications of Provincial Bill 30.....and I fully realize how the proponent has proceeded as though all approvals will be given without doubt......but.....the board members of the SCRD can use this vote as a platform to illustrate what they truly believe the majority of the electorate wishes to see happen. It is unfortunate the majority of the electorate is not aware of the scope of this project, nor how it will permanently and negatively impact the visuals of our last pristine fjord on the Sunshine Coast . Nor are they fully aware of how it will deplete cash in the pockets of our upcoming generation by way of increased long term debt for BC Hydro. The board members are well aware. Ken Holowanky Forwarded message ---------- From: Narrows Inlet Date: Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:57 PM Subject: Narrow Inlet Water licence correspondence To: "Davies, James W ENV:EX" <[email protected]>

Hello again Mr. Davies, I refer here to my previous request for a schedule of upcoming hearings and/or requests for stakeholder input before the final water licence is issued to BluEarth.......all that I know of to date is your request for comments

APPENDIX J

93

2

from 2012 and your recent one regarding bridge building. I have attached 2012 comments that are already on file with you for ease of reference. I feel all of the points I raised in 2012 are valid to this day. Please advise if you would be responding to these in any way, or if any of the regulatory bodies responsible for each area of concern will be. Thank-you again, Ken Holowanky

94

November 22, 2012-11-22 Stephen J Richards et al 2127 Lyons Crt Coquitlam, BC V3J6R4 James Davies Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations Water Management 200-10428 153st Surrey, BC V3R 1E1 Re: Water Licence Application WLA0Z122790-0001 on Ramona Creek File: 2002919 This letter serves as notice of our extreme opposition to your potential approval of the above mentioned Water Licence Application. A multitude of issues will without doubt adversely affect the quality of our domestic water supply, adversely impact river bank stability of Ramona Creek as it flows through our property, adversely affect fish and marine life habitat and present a quantifiable risk to human safety in the event of failure of project components either during construction or operational phases. 1) In Part 2 “Place of Use” the proponent states they do not hold another water license. This is false. The principals of NI Hydro Holding Corp are the same as Renewable Power Corp, Tyson Creek Hydro Power and Altaqua Renewable Power. They have licences and/or cleared applications on Tyson Lake, Tzoonie River, Wasp Creek, Petersen Creek, Ryan River, Salal Creek, McParlon Creek, ZZ Creek, Ashlu Creek, Taquat Creek, Vancouver River, Red Tusk Creek, Clowhom River, Phantom Lake, Misery Creek, Misery Lake and several others. The Tyson Lake licences are integral to the application on Ramona. Infrastructure for was designed to be shared from the concept stage. The negative cumulative effects are substantial when the proponent’s nearby Tyson Creek licence is coupled with applications for Chickwat, CC, SS and Ramona. 2) In Part 4 “Source of Water” the proponent states Ramona Creek. This is false. There will be no more naturally flowing Ramona Creek. All water will be artificially supplied by pumping out of Ramona Lake via penstock, including the IFR component. The Upper Ramona powerhouse is supplied directly from Ramona Lake via penstock. The proponent states in 2.3.5 “Since the upper and lower components are directly linked and flow is partially supplied by Ramona Lake, both components are subject to the operating regime adopted by the Ramona Creek Upper component”

95

3) In Part 5 “ Works” the proponent states gravity feed. This is false. Pumps are required to supply the Upper Ramona powerhouse which in turn supplies the Lower Ramona powerhouse. Without pumps in Ramona Lake to force water up and over the elevation of the former natural outflow, there would be no gravitational flow through either Upper or Lower Ramona. Ramona Lake level is below the natural outflow for a large percentage of the time. 4) In Part 5 the proponent states they do not require storage. This is inconsistent with the whole premise of damming Ramona Lake and pumping out the required volume of water for power generation and IFR’s. The Lower Ramona component would not be viable if storage in Ramona Lake was not part of the application. 5) In Part 5 the proponent states no part of the works will be shared with another licence. Power transmission lines are an integral part of the works. Interconnection with the Tyson Lake Hydro Power transmission line is part of the design, as is interconnection with the rest of the cluster. 6) In Part 6 the proponent states the works will not occupy or flood another person’s land. This is absolutely false. Our land will be subject to flooding and bank erosion due to unnaturally high water levels year round. There will be no times of low water. Lower Ramona consists of a multitude of channels through the delta. This will create a dangerous situation with undercutting of tree roots. Normally dry tributaries will now always have flow and new channels will form where there were none. Sedimentation in Lower Ramona will be increased greatly not only from lake sources, but from increased flows causing bank erosion and greater disturbance of riverbottom. This is unacceptable for our domestic water supply. This is unacceptable for fish spawning behaviours. The proponent acknowledges 1 or 2 degree temperature differences from natural. The colder temperature combined with higher fresh water composition at the rivermouth will create more of an issue than already exists with freezeup around our dock structures. The year-round higher than natural flows are required solely to make the project profitable for the proponent. 7) In Part 6 no Landowner’s Consent Form has been produced for us to sign. 8) In Schedule 3 “Proposed Works” “Intake” the proponent states there are no fish in stream. This is false and has been documented by correspondence to Dave Bates. 9) 100% of the flow of Ramona Creek would be dependent on operation of electric pumps on a floating barge in Ramona Lake. This includes all water used for power generation as well as all water supplied to maintain IFR’s. Failure of pumps means no water can exit the lake over the 3m dam. This would be a particularly high risk in alpine winter conditions. Ramona Creek and Falls would run dry until the problem was rectified. This is an unacceptable risk. 10) All domestic drinking water is first passed through electric pumps, into a steel accumulator tank and then down steel penstock pipes. There has been no evaluation of hazardous effect of anti-corrosion protections applied to the inside diameter of the penstocks and related equipment, nor of the hazardous effect of rust or corrosion by means of contact with unprotected components. There

96

has been no study of the effects of aeration or lack thereof due to transport of all drinking water in pipes at high pressures and through turbines. The source of water is no longer natural. This is unacceptable in a coastal rainforest setting where water historically flows naturally. 11) Per 10 above, the source of water for aquatic life in Lower Ramona is equally unnatural with respect to nutrients and chemical composition due to high pressure transport of water in penstocks . 12) Typical urban or community water supply piping is not subject to the pressures to be expected in the Ramona component. The BC Safety Authority states they did not inspect penstock pipe welds for the Tyson Creek project. Though pressures in the Ramona component are half of Tyson, it is more of a problem. A head of 371 metres between intake and powerhouse results in potential for 550psi pressures. In the event of equipment malfunction or water hammer, this could rise exponentially. The piping is adjacent to normally travelled hiking trails and picnic areas. In addition to potential for physical injury , welding of pipes will affect the adherence of corrosion resistant coatings... unacceptable for drinking water. Abnormally high sediment levels in high pressure flows will add to the issue of adherence for anti-corrosion and/or wear coatings. 12) The exposed shoreline around Ramona Lake upon exceedingly large 45m drawdowns has been acknowledged by the proponent as a significant source of sedimentation. The proponent states both rainstorm events and natural incision of creek deltas are issues. This sedimentation in itself is unacceptable for both domestic use and for fish spawning streams. The known increased risk for biological contamination in high sediment situations adds to our concerns. 13) Our properties are in an area zoned Rural 2, the proposed works do not conform to permitted use.

97

November 22, 2012-11-22 Stephen J Richards et al 2127 Lyons Crt Coquitlam, BC V3J6R4 James Davies Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations Water Management 200-10428 153st Surrey, BC V3R 1E1 Re: Water Licence Application WLA0Z123472-0001 on Ramona Creek File: 2003015 This letter serves as notice of our extreme opposition to your potential approval of the above mentioned Water Licence Application. A multitude of issues will without doubt adversely affect the quality of our domestic water supply, adversely impact river bank stability of Ramona Creek as it flows through our property, adversely affect fish and marine life habitat and present a quantifiable risk to human safety in the event of failure of project components either during construction or operational phases. 1) In Part 2 “Place of Use” the proponent states they do not hold another water license. This is false. The principals of NI Hydro Holding Corp are the same as Renewable Power Corp, Tyson Creek Hydro Power and Altaqua Renewable Power. They have licences and/or cleared applications on Tyson Lake, Tzoonie River, Wasp Creek, Petersen Creek, Ryan River, Salal Creek, McParlon Creek, ZZ Creek, Ashlu Creek, Taquat Creek, Vancouver River, Red Tusk Creek, Clowhom River, Phantom Lake, Misery Creek, Misery Lake and several others. The Tyson Lake licences are integral to the application on Ramona. Infrastructure for was designed to be shared from the concept stage. The negative cumulative effects are substantial when the proponent’s nearby Tyson Creek licence is coupled with applications for Chickwat, CC, SS and Ramona. 2) In Part 5 “ Works” the proponent states works are partially constructed. Please advise under what authorization works have already been started when the project is still at the EAO review stage.

98

3) In Part 6 the proponent states the works will not occupy or flood another person’s land. This is absolutely false. Our land will be subject to flooding and bank erosion due to unnaturally high water levels year round. There will be no times of low water. Lower Ramona consists of a multitude of channels through the delta. This will create a dangerous situation with undercutting of tree roots. Normally dry tributaries will now always have flow and new channels will form where there were none. Sedimentation in Lower Ramona will be increased greatly not only from lake sources, but from increased flows causing bank erosion and greater disturbance of riverbottom. This is unacceptable for our domestic water supply. This is unacceptable for fish spawning behaviours. The proponent acknowledges 1 or 2 degree temperature differences from natural. The colder temperature combined with higher fresh water composition at the rivermouth will create more of an issue than already exists with freezeup around our dock structures. The year-round higher than natural flows are required solely to make the project profitable for the proponent. 4) In Part 6 no Landowner’s Consent Form has been produced for us to sign. 5) In Schedule 3 “Proposed Works” “Intake” the proponent states there are no fish in the lake. There is a high likelihood this is false as fish have been noted above the defined barrier in Lower Ramona. The fish found above the barrier have been documented by correspondence with Dave Bates. 6) In Schedule 3 the tailrace discharges into Ramona Creek. There will be no natural Ramona Creek as all flow is via pump out of Ramona Lake. Ramona Lake will be below the natural outflow. 7) 100% of the flow of Ramona Creek would be dependent on operation of electric pumps on a floating barge in Ramona Lake. This includes all water used for power generation as well as all water supplied to maintain IFR’s. Failure of pumps means no water can exit the lake over the 3m dam. This would be a particularly high risk in alpine winter conditions. Ramona Creek and Falls would run dry until the problem was rectified. This is an unacceptable risk. 8) All domestic drinking water is first passed through electric pumps, into a steel accumulator tank and then down steel penstock pipes. There has been no evaluation of hazardous effect of anti-corrosion protections applied to the inside diameter of the penstocks and related equipment, nor of the hazardous effect of rust or corrosion by means of contact with unprotected components. There has been no study of the effects of aeration or lack thereof due to transport of all drinking water in pipes at high pressures and through turbines. The source of water is no longer natural. This is unacceptable in a coastal rainforest setting where water historically flows naturally. 9) Per 10 above, the source of water for aquatic life in Lower Ramona is equally unnatural with respect to nutrients and chemical composition due to high pressure transport of water in penstocks . 10) Typical urban or community water supply piping is not subject to the pressures to be expected in the Ramona component. The BC Safety Authority states they did not inspect penstock pipe welds for the Tyson Creek project. Pressures in the Upper Ramona are similar to Tyson. With a community directly below, this is more of a problem. A head of 896 metres between intake and powerhouse results in potential for 1300psi pressures. In the event of equipment malfunction or water hammer,

99

this could rise exponentially. The piping is on a watercourse that leads directly to residential property. In addition to potential for physical injury , welding of pipes will affect the adherence of corrosion resistant coatings... unacceptable for drinking water. Abnormally high sediment levels in high pressure flows will add to the issue of adherence for anti-corrosion and/or wear coatings. 11) The exposed shoreline around Ramona Lake upon exceedingly large 45m drawdowns has been acknowledged by the proponent as a significant source of sedimentation. The proponent states both rainstorm events and natural incision of creek deltas are issues. This sedimentation in itself is unacceptable for both domestic use and for fish spawning streams. The known increased risk for biological contamination in high sediment situations adds to our concerns. 12) Our properties are in an area zoned Rural 2, the proposed works do not conform to permitted use. 13) The proposed dam structure presents an unacceptable safety risk to the community directly below. 14) Construction of the works on slopes between 50% and vertical directly above and adjacent to a community presents unacceptable risks.

100

APPENDIX K

101

ATTACHMENT B

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW No. 310.165

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. 310.165, 2015". PART B – AMENDMENT 2. Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended

by rezoning unsurveyed Crown land from RU2 (Rural Two) to I9 (Independent Power Project), as depicted on Appendix ‘A’ to this Bylaw.

3. Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended

by rezoning unsurveyed Crown land from RU2 (Rural Two) to I9 (Independent Power Project), as depicted on Appendix ‘B’ to this Bylaw.

4. Schedule A of Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended

by rezoning unsurveyed Crown land from RU2 (Rural Two) to I9 (Independent Power Project), as depicted on Appendix ‘C’ to this Bylaw.

5. Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is amended by designating

unsurveyed Crown land as a Temporary Use Permit area, as depicted on Appendix ‘D’ to this Bylaw.

PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015 READ A SECOND TIME AS AMENDED this 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this 19th DAY OF JANUARY 2016 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF MONTH YEAR ADOPTED this DAY OF MONTH YEAR

Corporate Officer Chair

108

APPENDIX A to

Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.165, 2015

Chickwat Creek

Legal Description: Unsurveyed Crown Land Existing Zoning: RU2 (Rural Two) Proposed Zoning: I9 (Independent Power Project)


109

APPENDIX B to


Upper Ramona Creek



110

APPENDIX C to


Lower Ramona Creek



111

APPENDIX D to


Construction Camp and Laydown Area

Legal Description: Unsurveyed Crown Land Proposal: Designation as a Temporary Use Permit area


112


TO: Planning Development Committee – February 18, 2016

AUTHOR: Sven Koberwitz, Planning Technician

SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT 310.193

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Development Variance Permit 310.193 be received; AND THAT Development Variance Permit 310.193 to vary Section 507.1(e) of Zoning Bylaw 310, to relax the minimum required setback from the top-of-bank of Chaster Creek from 15.0 metres to 12.4 metres to permit the construction of a barn, be issued.

BACKGROUND

The SCRD has received an application to vary Section 507.1(e) of Zoning Bylaw 310 to relax the minimum required setback from the top-of-bank of Chaster Creek from 15.0 metres to 12.4 metres to permit the construction of a barn.

Owner/Applicant: Ross and Rachel Dempster

Legal Description: Lot 7 Blocks A and B District Lot 690 Plan 12885

P.I.D.: 008-776-237

Electoral Area: Elphinstone

Civic Address: 1193 Reed Road

Land Use Zone: RU3 (Agricultural Land Reserve)

OCP Land Use: Agricultural A

Proposed Variance: Reduce Chaster Creek top of bank setback from 15.0 m to 12.4 m.

Parcel Area: 20,234 m2 (5 acres)

The subject property is located south of Reed Road between Henry Road and Payne Road. While the property is located within the Agricultural Land Reserve it is primarily used for residential purposes along with some equestrian related uses. The property is quite large, relatively flat, and existing development is limited to the central portion of the property.

The applicant is proposing to construct a 199 m2 equestrian barn adjacent to several existing buildings and within the vicinity of Chaster Creek. A 15.0 metre building setback from the top of bank of Chaster Creek applies, however, in this case, only the southeast corner of the proposed barn will fall within the setback area. The applicant is seeking a reduction of the minimum top of bank setback from 15.0 metres to 12.4 metres to allow for the construction of the barn as illustrated in Attachment A.

ANNEX H

113

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.193 Page 2 of 4

DVP 310.193 PDC Report.docx

DISCUSSION


The intent of the Chaster Creek top-of-bank building setback is to protect the environment of the riparian area as well as to protect development from creek related hazards such as bank erosion. In this particular area however, the bank is not nearly as steep as it is in other places, especially further down the Elphinstone slopes. Additionally, the applicant has obtained a Riparian Area Assessment from a qualified environmental professional (QEP) which supports the proposed development and provides recommendations to mitigate any negative effect on Chaster Creek. Particularly, the QEP has recommended that an existing fence be moved further west to increase protection for the riparian area.

While the applicant could move the barn several metres to the north in order to avoid the setback area, they have stated that doing so would negatively impact the use of the existing buildings adjacent to the proposed barn.

It should be noted that to the east, between the proposed barn and Chaster Creek, is an existing trail / undeveloped road that will provide access to the barn. Located next to the trail, near the top-of-bank, is a wood fence which acts as a barrier to the riparian area near Chaster Creek. The Riparian Assessment recommends relocating a portion of this fence further away from the top-of-bank in order to increase the amount of protected riparian area.

114



While some comments were received expressing concern about runoff getting into the creek from the barn area it is important to note that the use of the building falls within permitted uses as regulated by Bylaw 310 and the Agricultural Land Commission.

Taking into account the scale of the proposed development, site specific conditions, and comments received through the referral process planning staff present the following options:

Option 1 – Denial, based on neighbour concerns regarding run-off.

Option 2 – Approval, noting that

(a) only a small part of the building projects into the setback area; (b) a top-of-bank setback of 12.4 metres will be maintained; (c) a QEP has determined there are no impacts on the stream.

Organization and Intergovernmental Implications

The SCRD Building Department noted they had no concerns with this application.

The application was also referred to the Squamish Nation, however no comments have been received.


Neighbouring owners and occupants within 100 metres of the subject parcel were notified of the consideration of the Development Variance Permit. One letter of support was received. Two neighbours expressed concern regarding animal waste entering Chaster Creek via rain water run-off.

This application was referred to the Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission and reviewed at their January 27, 2016 meeting. A motion was passed supporting the application.


Not Applicable

CONCLUSION

The SCRD has received an application to vary the minimum required setback to the top-of-bank of Chaster Creek from 15.0m to 12.4m in order to allow for the construction of an equestrian barn. The applicant has submitted a Riparian Area Assessment in support of the proposed development that includes recommendations to mitigate any impacts on Chaster Creek.

Due to the presence of existing development, a Riparian Assessment that supports the development, and the minimal nature of the encroachment planning staff support this application.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X – S. O. Legislative CAO X – J. L. Other

115



116



AUTHOR: David Rafael, Senior Planner

SUBJECT: HILLSIDE - ILLEGAL WASTE DUMP AND INSTALLATION OF CONTROL GATE

RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT the report titled “Hillside - Illegal Waste Dump and Installation of Control Gate” be received; AND THAT SCRD staff bring forward a budget proposal in Round 2 of the 2016 budget to allocate up to $5,000 from Hillside [540] for installation of a control access gate to the property identified in this report; AND FURTHER THAT the Board send a thank you letter to BC Hydro for the contribution of the gate and the work voluntarily undertaken to clean up the illegal dump site.

BACKGROUND

In December 2015, BC Hydro was conducting vegetation clearing and control under the power lines in the Port Mellon area. During this work an illegal dump site was found on property owned by the SCRD within the Hillside Industrial Park (Attachment A). BC Hydro worked with Infrastructure Services and Planning and Development staff to arrange for the material to be collected and transported to the Sechelt Landfill.

The SCRD Solid Waste Management Coordinator provided a summary of material received from the illegal dump site:

Total Received 5.13 metric tonnes Scrap Metal 0.35 metric tonnes Commercial 4.78 metric tonnes (included mostly conduit covering, as well as

some wood, scrap metal, rope, miscellaneous debris)

Based on the condition of the dumped material, it appears that the site has been used for some time as a location to illegally dump. BC Hydro has voluntarily cleared similar sites in past and in this case arranged the collection and transportation of the material to the Sechelt landfill.

BC Hydro has volunteered to provide a gate and lockbox (value of approximately $2,500) to control access to the site to deter future dumping. The SCRD would arrange and pay for the gate’s installation. BC Hydro has worked with Indian Isle Construction for similar gate installations and has delivered the gate to Indian Isle’s location in Madeira Park. SCRD staff recently contacted staff at Indian Isle Construction to discuss installation. The estimated cost of installing the gate, which would include welding the gate parts together and using concrete to secure the gate posts, is between $3500 and $5000 depending on the site characteristics.

ANNEX I

117

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee – February 18, 2016 Hillside - Illegal Waste Dump and Installation of Control Gate Page 2 of 4

2016-Feb-18 Hillside Illegal Dump and Installation of Control Gate

DISCUSSION


Option 1 – Install Controlled Access Gate

There is a drivable access from Port Mellon Highway to and through the site. Staff consider that the installation of a controlled access gate could reduce illegal dumping at this location. The efforts of BC Hydro to voluntarily clear the material and provide a gate is welcomed. The SCRD Board could send a letter thanking BC Hydro for actively demonstrating a tangible benefit to the community.

Staff support this option as it will allow continued access to the site as needed and discourage illegal dumping.

Option 2 – Deactivate Access

The site is not currently used by the SCRD and it is vacant. The access is a drivable dirt road that is not required by the SCRD. Works could be undertaken to block the access, such as dig a ditch across the road as close to Port Mellon Highway so that vehicles could not cross into the site. This would likely be a less expensive alternative. However, it would be a permanent solution that would not allow access into the site at a later date without additional work.


The Hillside Budget was moved to adoption in Round One of the 2016 Budget review. Staff note that that the SCRD budget for Hillside [540] does not currently accommodate this expenditure. However, adoption of the Hillside budget could be placed on hold and the project could be brought forward for consideration in Round 2 of the 2016 budget.


Strategic Plan: Values - Collaboration and Environmental Leadership.

Solid Waste Management Plan: Residuals Management Initiative – Illegal Dumping Program

CONCLUSION

Staff recommend that a budget proposal be prepared for this installation and if approved, that a contractor be retained to install the gate.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance X - TP GM X - SO Legislative CAO X - JL Other X - RC

118



ATTACHMENT A

119



120


TO: Planning and Development Committee – February 18th 2016

AUTHOR: Paul Preston, Chief Building Inspector / Bylaw Enforcement Manager

Angie Legault, Manager of Legislative Services

SUBJECT: BYLAW NOTICE ENFORCEMENT TICKETING SYSTEM (BEN)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Bylaw Enforcement Notice Ticketing System (BEN) be received; AND THAT the BEN Ticketing System be fully implemented and include the remaining SCRD regulatory bylaws; AND THAT SCRD Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 638.5, 2016 be forwarded to the Board for readings and adoption; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to conduct a review of all designated bylaw contraventions and penalties from Regional District bylaws and provide a recommendation on the potential amendment of both the Municipal Ticket Information and Bylaw Notice Enforcement bylaws for future consideration.

BACKGROUND

On 22nd October 2015 the SCRD Board passed the following resolution:

412/15 THAT the Bylaw Notice Enforcement System be referred to the rural area Advisory Planning Commissions and Roberts Creek OCP Committee for comment…

Staff subsequently prepared a report titled “Bylaw Notice Enforcement Ticketing System (BEN)” dated 2nd November 2015 for the rural area Advisory Planning Commissions and the Roberts Creek OCP Committee. Two options were proposed in the report to the SCRD Board, as well as to the APC’s and OCPC as follows:

1. Introduce the BEN system into the remaining regulatory bylaws for all the electoral areas of the Regional District.

2. Introduce the BEN system into the remaining regulatory bylaws for selected electoral areas of the Regional District.

ANNEX J

121

Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee

Bylaw Notice Enforcement Ticketing System (BEN) Page 2 of 2

2016-February-18 BEN report to PDC

DISCUSSION

Comments received in response to the referrals were generally supportive of option 1 (implementation of the Bylaw Notice Enforcement Ticketing System into the remaining regulatory bylaws of the Regional District). Motions of support for Option 1 were passed by the Area B, D and F Advisory Planning Commissions and the Roberts Creek OCPC. Area A provided general support of option 1, while Area E provided comments only. Implementation of the BEN system for all regulatory bylaws across all participating areas will allow for better use of resources, improved efficiency, consistency and fairness within the bylaw compliance service. Staff have prepared a bylaw amendment for the Committee’s consideration (Attachment 1). The proposed bylaw would implement the BEN system across the regional district and is largely consistent with the offenses and penalties under the Municipal Ticket Information bylaw (a notable exception would be that a penalty under the BEN system cannot exceed $500). It also contains housekeeping amendments with regard to position titles. Provisions for escalating penalties for multiple offenses were removed (with the exception of water regulations) as the practical application of the escalation is currently challenging. This could be re-visited in the future.

In some cases, penalties for bylaw contraventions have not been revised in quite some time and staff recommend that a review be conducted to determine whether changes are required. A further bylaw amendment may be necessary at that time.


If a decision to support the staff recommendation is made, staff will prepare a news release and post information on the SCRD website STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

N/A

CONCLUSION

As the comments received from the Advisory Planning Commissions and the Roberts Creek OCP Committee were favourable, staff recommend proceeding with full implementation of the BEN system (option 1) by incorporating the remaining regulatory bylaws in to Bylaw 638. Staff also recommend that a full review of designated bylaw contraventions and penalties for various bylaws be undertaken as time permits.

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

122

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO. 638.5

A Bylaw to amend Sunshine Coast Regional District Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 638

The Board of the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. Citation

This Bylaw may be cited as “Sunshine Coast Regional District Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 638.5, 2016".

2. Amendment

“Sunshine Coast Regional District Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 638, 2011” is hereby amended as follows:

a. Section 5.b. is deleted.

b. Section 6 is deleted and replaced with a new Section 6 as follows:

6. Offence and Penalty 6.1 The penalty for a contravention referred to in Part 5 is as follows:

6.1.1 subject to subsection 6.1.2, 6.1.3 and 6.1.4, the Penalty amount

set out in column A1 of Schedule A, 6.1.2 if payment is received by the District within 14 days of the person

receiving or being presumed to have received the notice in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, the Early Payment Penalty set out in column A2 of Schedule A,

6.1.3 if more than 28 days after the person received or is presumed to

have received the bylaw notice, is subject to a late payment surcharge in addition to the penalty under subsection 6.1.1, and is the Late Payment Penalty set out in column A3 of Schedule A,

6.1.4 if continued and ongoing bylaw infractions occur within the same

calendar year, is subject to an escalating penalty set out in column A5 (second contravention) or A6 (third or further contravention) of Schedule A as applicable.

c. Section 9.2.2 is deleted and replaced with a new Section 9.2.2 as follows:

9.2.2 General Manager of Planning and Development

d. Section 11.1.2 is deleted and replaced with a new Section 11.1.2 as follows:

Attachment 1

123

SCRD Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 638.5, 2016 Page 2

11.1.2 General Manager of Infrastructure Services, Manager of Transportation and Facilities, Manager of Utility Services, Utilities Superintendent, Water Conservation Assistant;

e. Section 13 is deleted and replaced with a new Section 13 as follows:

13. Schedules

Schedule A attached hereto forms part of this Bylaw.

f. Schedules A and B are deleted and replaced with a new Schedule A attached hereto.

READ A FIRST TIME this day of

READ A SECOND TIME this day of

READ A THIRD TIME this day of

ADOPTED this day of

___________________________________ CORPORATE OFFICER

___________________________________ CHAIR

124


Schedule A

Designated Bylaw Contraventions and Penalties

The penalties shown in Column A2 below include a ten percent discount for early payment in accordance with section 6.1.2 of this bylaw. The penalties shown in Column A3 below include a ten percent surcharge for late payment in accordance with section 6.1.3 of this bylaw.

Bylaw Section Description A1 Penalty

A2 Early Payment Penalty

A3 Late Payment Penalty

A4 Compliance Agreement Available

A5 Second Infraction

A6 Third (or more) Infraction

SCRD Water Rates & Regulations Bylaw No. 422, 1995

19.1 Unauthorized Sprinkling

$50 $45 $55 No $100 $200

21.1 Increasing Supply of Water

$50 $45 $55 Yes $100 $200

21.2 Wasting Water

$50 $45 $55 Yes $100 $200

21.3 No Rain Sensor for Irrigation System

$50 $45 $55 Yes $100 $200

Bylaw Section Description A1

Penalty A2 Early Payment Penalty



SCRD Ports Regulation Bylaw No. 518, 2000

4, 29 Failure to leave dock

$100 $90 $110 No

5 Obstruction of authorized personnel

$100 $90 $110 No

8, 9 Disorderly conduct $100 $90 $110 No 10 Noisy Activities $100 $90 $110 No 11 Liquor Possession $100 $90 $110 No 12 Unauthorized Sign $50 $45 $55 Yes 13 Damage to Dock $100 $90 $110 No 14 Sign Removal $50 $45 $55 No 15 Leaving Refuse $50 $45 $55 No 16 Unauthorized

Storage $50 $45 $55 Yes

17, 18 Moorage in Loading Zone

$50 $45 $55 No

19(1)(2) Unauthorized Vehicle on Dock

$50 $45 $55 No

125






SCRD Ports Regulation Bylaw No. 518, 2000 cont.

20, 21 Unauthorized Commercial Activity

$50 $45 $55 Yes

22 Unauthorized Construction

$100 $90 $110 Yes

23 Over Time Limit $50 $45 $55 No 24, 25 Dangerous Goods $250 $225 $275 No 31 Abandonment $100 $90 $110 Yes 36(1)(2) Impeding Dock $50 $45 $55 No 37(2)(a) (b)

Contravening Order

$100 $90 $110 No

SCRD Civic Addressing Regulations and Fees Bylaw No. 673, 2013

4.1 Failure to post civic number

$100 $90 $110 Yes

4.8 Failure to display addressing schema

$100 $90 $110 Yes

4.11 Display civic number not provided by Regional District

$100 $90 $110 Yes

SCRD Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987

502 (2) (a)(b)

Keeping Poultry or Rabbits

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (3) Keeping Poultry or Rabbits

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (4)(a)(b)

Keeping Livestock $100 $90 $110 Yes

502(9)(a) – 502 (9)(e)

Unauthorized Occupancy During Construction

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (10) (a)

Visible Home Occupation

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (10) (b)

Home Occupation Not Enclosed

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (10) (d)

Home Occupation Exceeding Allowed Area

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (10) (e)

Home Occupation - Unauthorized Employees

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502(11)(a) – 502 (11)(f)

Unauthorized Bed & Breakfast

$100 $90 110 Yes

502 (13) Unauthorized Sign $100 $90 $110 Yes 502 (14) (a)

Signs Exceeding Allowed Number

$100 $90 $110 Yes

126






SCRD Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 cont.

502 (14) (c)

Sign Exceeding Allowed Area

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (14) (d)

Over Height Sign $100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (15) (a)

Sign Exceeding Allowed Area

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (15) (b)

Sign Exceeding Allowed Height

$100 $90 $110 Yes

502 (16) (2)

Landscaping Not Provided

$100 $90 $110 Yes

503 (1) Over Height Structure

$100 $90 $110 Yes

503 (4) Over Height Fence $100 $90 $110 Yes 505 (1) Structure Within

Setback $100 $90 $110 Yes

507 (1)(a) - 507 (1)(f)

Unauthorized Siting of Building

$100 $90 $110 Yes

508 (a) Storage of Junk $100 $90 $110 Yes 508 (a) Motor Vehicle

Wrecking $100 $90 $110 Yes

508 (b) Storage of Un-Licenced Vehicle

$100 $90 $110 Yes

SCRD Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990

503(1)(2)(3)

Keeping of Farm Animals

$100 $90 $110 Yes

507(a) Visible Home Business

$100 $90 $110 Yes

507(b) Home Business Not Enclosed

$100 $90 $110 Yes

507(e) Home Business Exceeding Allowed Area

$100 $90 $110 Yes

507(f) (i)-(ii)

Home Business Unauthorized Employees

$100 $90 $110 Yes

509(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)

Unauthorized Bed & Breakfast Homes

$100 $90 $110 Yes

510(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)

Unauthorized Bed & Breakfast Inns

$100 $90 $110 Yes

511(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)

Unauthorized Occupancy during Construction

$100 $90 $110 Yes

513(1) Over Height Structure

$100 $90 $110 Yes

513(4) Over Height Fence $100 $90 $110 Yes

127






SCRD Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990 cont.

601.3(a) - 601.3(d)

611.4(a) - 611.4(d)

621.6(1)(a)-621.6(1)(d) 621.6(2),

701.4, 711.3, 721.3,

801.2(1), 811.2,

821.2(1)(a)-821.2(1)(d) 901.2(1)(a)-901.2(1)(c) 911.4(1)(a)-911.4(1)(c) 921.2(1)(a)-921.2(1)(c)

931.3 1001.3(a)-1001.3(c) 1011.5(a)-1011.5(c) 1021.5(a)-1021.5(c)

1031.3(1)(a)-

1031.3(1)(c) 1041.2(a)-1041.2(c) 1051.2(a)-1051.2(c)

1101.2, 1111.3

Structure Within Setback

$100 $90 $110 Yes

801.2(2), 811.2,

821.2(2), 901.2(2), 911.4(2), 921.2(2),

931.3, 1101.2, 1111.3

Parking Area / Loading Area / Storage Area within Setback

$100 $90 $110 Yes

1031.3(2) Intensive Agricultural Use Within Setback

$100 $90 $110 Yes

516(1)(a)-516(1)(f)

Unauthorized Siting of Building

$100 $90 $110 Yes

517(1) Unenclosed Storage

$100 $90 $110 Yes

517(2) Auto Wrecking $100 $90 $110 Yes 517(2) Salvage Yard $100 $90 $110 Yes

128






SCRD Noise Control Bylaw No. 597, 2008

3a Noise Which Disturbs

$100 $90 $110 Yes

4a Construction Noise Which Disturbs (outside of permitted construction hours)

$100 $90 $110 Yes

4b Machine Noise Which Disturbs

$100 $90 $110 Yes

SCRD Building Bylaw No. 687, 2014

2.1 No Building Permit $150 $135 $165 Yes 19.4 Fail to Obey Stop

Work Order $100 $90 $110 No

2.2 No Occupancy Authorization

$100 $90 $110 No

2.4 Remove Stop Work Notice

$100 $90 $110 No

2.5 Work at Variance with Plans

$100 $90 $110 Yes

2.6 Obstruct District Employee

$150 $135 $165 No

SCRD Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 376, 1994

II.2 No Dog Licence $50 $45 $55 Yes II.8 Fail To Affix

Licence Tag $50 $45 $55 Yes

III.11 Dog At Large $50 $45 $55 Yes III.12 Fail To Contain

Bitch In Heat $50 $45 $55 Yes

III.13 (i) Vicious Dog Not Muzzled

$150 $135 $165 No

III.13 (ii) Vicious Dog Not Confined

$150 $135 $165 No

IV.26(a) Failure to Control a Noisy Dog

$100 $90 $110 No

IV.26(b) Harbour More Than 3 Dogs

$75 $67.50 $82.50 Yes

Keats Island Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 691, 2014

4.1 a) ii. Dog Causing Injury $200 $180 $220 No 4.1 a) iii Dog pursuing or

harassing $100 $90 $110 No

5.1 a) Aggressive dog not on leash

$100 $90 $110 No

5.1 b) No enclosure for aggressive dog

$100 $90 $110 Yes

129






6.1 a) Vicious dog not confined or on leash

$100 $90 $110 No

6.1 b) Vicious dog not muzzled in public place

$100 $90 $110 No

SCRD Regional Parks Regulations Bylaw No. 356, 1991

14 Damaging Park Property

$100 $90 $110 No

16 Unauthorized Camp Fire

$100 $90 $110 No

17 Littering in Park $100 $90 $110 No 19 Creating Fire

Hazard $100 $90 $110 No

20 Unauthorized Tree Cutting

$500 $450 $500 No

25 Permitting Animal to Roam at Large

$100 $90 $110 No

28 Unauthorized Use of Firearms

$100 $90 $110 No

34 Unauthorized Use of Motorized Vehicle

$100 $90 $110 No

36 Unauthorized Overnight Camping

$100 $90 $110 No

39 Unauthorized Commercial Activity

$100 $90 $110 Yes

SCRD Kennel Regulation Bylaw No. 554, 2006

6(a)(c)(d) (e)

Improper Care of Dog

$50 $45 $55 Yes

6(b)(f)(g) Unsanitary Conditions

$50 $45 $55 Yes

6(h) Unattended Dog $50 $45 $55 Yes 6(i) Noisy Dog(s) $50 $45 $55 Yes 7 Improper Disposal

of Excrement $50 $45 $55 Yes

10 No Adult Present $50 $45 $55 Yes Roberts Creek Smoke Control Regulations Bylaw No. 598, 2008

6 Burning without a permit

$100 $90 $110 No

4 Burning when Ventilation Index is rated below “Good”

$100 $90 $110 No

4 Burning material not originating on site

$100 $90 $110 No

130






4 Unattended fire $100 $90 $110 No 3 Burning

Construction Waste $100 $90 $110 No

3 Burning Toxic Material

$100 $90 $110 No

Halfmoon Bay Smoke Control and Airborne Emissions Regulations Bylaw No. 622, 2013

9 Burning without a permit

$100 $90 $110 No

5 Burning when ventilation index below good

$100 $90 $110 No

6(a) Burning material not originating from site

$100 $90 $110 No

6(b) Unattended fire $100 $90 $110 No 11 Nuisance airborne

emissions stemming from burning

$100 $90 $110 No

SCRD Fire Protection Bylaw No. 631, 2011

5.1 Unauthorized fire on Regional District property, park or public space

$250 $225 $275 No

5.2 Discard of lighted match, cigar, cigarette or other burning material

$250 $225 $275 No

5.3 Burning without permit

$250 $225 $275 No

5.5 Burning prohibited materials

$500 $450 $500 No

5.6 Failure to have competent person supervising fire; or failure to extinguish fire

$100 $90 $110 No

5.7 Failure to meet permit conditions

$250 $225 $275 No

5.8 Enter or burn in restricted area

$500 $450 $500 No

5.9 Obstruction of fire services personnel, vehicle or equipment

$500 $450 $500 No

131






SCRD Fire Protection Bylaw No. 631, 2011 cont.

5.11, 5.12

Campfire in prohibited area

$250 $225 $275 No

5.15 Failure to extinguish campfire

$250 $225 $275 No

5.16 Tamper with operation of fire hydrant

$250 $225 $275 No

5.18 Improper activation of fire alarm/false alarm

$250 $225 $275 No

6.1(b) Allow accumulation of combustibles

$250 $225 $275 Yes

6.1(f) Obstruction of means of egress

$250 $225 $275 No

6.2 Failure to keep property or structure in safe condition

$250 $225 $275 Yes

6.3(a) Class B Burn when prohibited

$250 $225 $275 No

6.3(b) Failure to maintain minimum distance from buildings and property line for Class B burn

$250 $225 $275 No

6.3(c) Fire exceeding permitted Class B burn size

$250 $225 $275 No

6.3(d) Failure to have competent person in charge of Class B burn

$250 $225 $275 No

6.4(a) Failure to obtain permit for Class A burn

$250 $225 $275 No

6.4(b) Failure to maintain minimum distances from buildings and property lines for Class A burn

$250 $225 $275 No

6.4(c) Failure to have competent person in charge of Class A burn

$250 $225 $275 No

6.5 Failure to adhere to permit conditions

$250 $225 $275 No

132






SCRD Fire Protection Bylaw No. 631, 2011 cont.

6.8 Failure to maintain private fire hydrant

$250 $225 $275 Yes

6.9 Failure to display signage identifying each floor level in buildings of three or more storeys

$250 $225 $275 Yes

6.10 Failure to display required signage at elevators

$250 $225 $275 Yes

6.11 Improper location or storage of commercial refuse containers

$250 $225 $275 Yes

6.18(a) Allow accumulations of combustible or flammable materials

$250 $225 $275 Yes

6.18(b) Failure to secure vacant premises

$250 $225 $275 Yes

6.21 Failure to secure fire damaged building

$250 $225 $275 Yes

9.6 Burn during restricted period

$500 $450 $500 No

9.7 Enter closed area $250 $225 $275 No Egmont and District Fire Protection Bylaw No. 578, 2000

7(a) Failure to display required signage at elevators

$250 $225 $275 Yes

7(b) Failure to display signage identifying each floor level in buildings of three or more storeys

$250 $225 $275 Yes

7(c) Unauthorized fire on Regional District property, park or public place

$250 $225 $275 No

7(d) Discard of lighted match, cigar, cigarette or other burning material

$250 $225 $275 No

7(e) Improper location or storage of

$250 $225 $275 Yes

133






Egmont and District Fire Protection Bylaw No. 578, 2000 Cont.

commercial refuse containers

7(f) Allow accumulation of combustibles

$250 $225 $275 Yes

7(h) Class B Burn when prohibited

$250 $225 $275 No

7(h) Failure to maintain minimum distance from buildings and property line for Class B burn

$250 $225 $275 No

7(i) Failure to meet permit conditions

$250 $225 $275 No

7(i) Failure to obtain permit for Class A burn

$250 $225 $275 No

7(i) Failure to maintain minimum distances from buildings and property lines for Class A burn

$250 $225 $275 No

7(i) Failure to adhere to permit conditions

$250 $225 $275 No

7(j) Burning prohibited materials

$500 $450 $500 No

7(k) Failure to have competent person supervising fire

$100 $90 $110 No

7(m) Burn during restricted period

$500 $450 $500 No

10(j) Hindering fire services personnel

$500 $450 $500 No

SCRD Sanitary Landfill Site Bylaw No. 405, 1994

3(g) Depositing waste outside the boundaries of a permitted landfill site

$100 $90 $110 No

SCRD Tree Cutting Permit Bylaw No. 350, 1991

3(2)(a)(b) Unauthorized cutting of tree

$500 $450 $500 No

5(2) Failing conditions of permit

$100 $90 $110 Yes

** Maximum penalty is $500 per day for each continuing contravention.

134

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

AREA A - EGMONT/PENDER HARBOUR ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

January 27, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA ‘A’ ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE LIBRARY AT PENDER HARBOUR SECONDARY SCHOOL, 13639 SUNSHINE COAST HWY, MADEIRA PARK, BC PRESENT: Chair Geoff Craig Members Dennis Burnham Janet Dicken Jim Hall Jane McQuat Catherine McEachern Gary Park Tom Silvey Alan Skelly Alex Thomson ALSO PRESENT: Area A Director Frank Mauro Recording Secretary Kelly Kammerle Public 1 REGRETS: Sean McAllister Randy Picketts

CALL TO ORDER 7:05 p.m.

AGENDA The agenda was adopted as presented.

DELEGATIONS

2.1 Seamus Pope, Surveyor for Subdivision Application MOTI 2015-03931

MINUTES

3.1 Area ‘A’ Minutes

The Area ‘A’ APC minutes of November 25, 2015 were approved as circulated.

ANNEX K

135

AREA A Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2016 Page 2

3.2 Minutes

The following minutes were received for information:

Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, November 24, 2015 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, November 30, 2015 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 West Howe Sound (Area F) Minutes, November 24, 2015 Agriculture Advisory Committee Minutes, November 24, 2015 Natural Resources Committee Minutes, November 18, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, December 10, 2015

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

REPORTS

5.1 Subdivision Application MOTI 2015-03931

The APC discussed Subdivision Application MOTI 2015-03931 and is in support of the proposed subdivision subject to the applicant’s compliance with the conditions pertaining to Bylaw 337 and to the OCP as identified by the Planning Department in their report. Furthermore, we recommend that consideration be given to establishing legal access for all lots on the existing roadway and to eliminate the panhandles shown on the plan. The APC would like to see the boathouse indicated as being adjacent to Lot D, be moved off the Crown Foreshore to the foreshore of the said proposed Lot D.

Recommendation No. 1 Subdivision Application MOTI 2015-03931

The APC recommended that Subdivision Application MOTI 2015-03931 be supported subject to the applicant’s compliance with the conditions pertaining to Bylaw 337 and to the OCP as identified by the Planning Department in their report;

AND THAT consideration be given to establishing legal access for all lots on the existing roadway and to eliminate the panhandles shown on the plan;

AND FURTHER THAT the boathouse indicated as being adjacent to Lot D, be moved off the Crown Foreshore to the foreshore of the said proposed Lot D.

5.2 Crown Referrals – Investigative Use Licences For Independent Power Projects In Jervis Inlet (Sigma Engineering) – Electoral Area A

Recommendation No. 2 Investigative Use Licences For Independent Power Projects In Jervis Inlet (Sigma Engineering)

The APC recommended supporting the SCRD recommendations with the following concerns/points:

Applicant to remove all equipment and debris when completed.

136

AREA A Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2016 Page 3

NEW BUSINESS

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Economic Development Committee started Starting budget process APC roles and functions being reviewed

NEXT MEETING February 24, 2016

ADJOURNMENT 8:20 p.m.

137


AREA B - HALFMOON BAY ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

January 26, 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: Chair Frank Belfry Members ALSO PRESENT: Area B Director Garry Nohr Recording Secretary Katrina Walters Public 2 REGRETS: Members CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.

Nomination for Chair and election of Chair: Frank Belfry by acclamation.

Nomination for Secretary and re-instatement of Secretary: Katrina Walters.


DELEGATIONS

MINUTES

3.1 Area B Minutes

The Area B APC minutes of November 24, 2015 were approved as circulated.

Ray Moscrip Bruce Thorpe Barbara Boulding Alda Grames Elise Rudland Lorn Campbell Wendy Pearson Eleanor Lenz

REGRETS Len Pakulak Eleanor nz Joan Harvey

Len Pakulak Joan Harvey Walter Powell

ANNEX L

138

AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - January 26 2016 Page 2

3.2 Minutes


Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, November 30, 2015 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, November 24, 2015 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, November 24, 2015 Natural Resources Committee Minutes, November 18, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, November 12, 2015 and December 10,

2015


REPORTS

5.1 Subdivision Application by Kent Lindsey of Lot 3, DL.2309 Plan 10602, PID 009-362-207 located at 10066 Lost Lane, Halfmoon Bay, BC

Kent Lindsay and Majorie Lindsay were present for the discussion of the Subdivision Application.

The APC discussed the staff report regarding Subdivision Application by Kent Lindsay of Lot 3, DL.2309 Plan 10602, PID 009-362-207 located at 10066 Lost Lane, Halfmoon Bay, BC. The following concerns/points/issues were noted:

Why do they require a waiver when there appears to be more than 10% on the road allowance?

Recommendation No. 1 Subdivision Application by Kent Lindsey of Lot 3, DL.2309 Plan 10602, PID 009-362-207

The APC recommended that Subdivision Application by Kent Lindsey of Lot 3, DL.2309 Plan 10602, PID 009-362-207 be supported.

NEW BUSINESS

The APC notes that it discussed the new format for the taking of minutes.

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Garry Nohr presented his report.



139


AREA D - ROBERTS CREEK ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

January 25, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA D ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE ROBERTS CREEK LIBRARY AT 1044 ROBERTS CREEK ROAD, ROBERTS CREEK, BC. PRESENT: Chair Bill Page Members Denise Woodley Gerald Rainville Heather Conn Marion Jolicoeur ALSO PRESENT: Area D Director Mark Lebbell Recording Secretary Peggy Martin Public 3 REGRETS: Members Jeffrey Abbott Barry Morrow ABSENT: Members Dana Gregory CALL TO ORDER 7:01 p.m.


DELEGATIONS

2.1 Suzanne Evanetz and Eugene Evanetz regarding Development Variance Permit 310.192 for 3731 Beach Avenue, Roberts Creek, BC

Mr. and Mrs. Evanetz explained that their house was originally built to straddle the property line between two properties that they owned. The property line was moved to make their house legal, and in so doing they created a very small lot (Lot G) to the east. This property was sold without conditions to Mr. and Mrs. Spithoff and they have built a two story house on it. The Evanetz’s felt that their privacy was now threatened by having neighbours. They have built a ‘temporary construction barrier’ (over 2 m high) covered with black plastic to keep dirt from neighbouring house construction drifting into their yard. This temporary barrier was located at the Beach Ave. end of the shared property line. They also discussed the over-height fence in their ‘front yard’ that was not over-height, because SCRD had decided that the bottom 0.45 m (1.5 feet) could be considered a retaining wall. Further discussion revealed that this fence was at the waterfront end of the shared property line.

ANNEX M

140

Area D Advisory Planning Commission Minutes -January 25, 2016 Page 2

The Evanetz’s felt that people entering the Spithoff’s house could look into their house, thus impacting their privacy. Various photos (photo 1 to 6) and line drawings (schedules 2 and 3) in the application were discussed. The solution, they believed, was to construct a 17.6 m long, 2.44 m high privacy fence from the front (Beach Ave. side) to the outer limit of the Spithoff’s entry deck (replacing the temporary fence). Since this was 44 cm higher than the allowable height permitted by Bylaw 310, a variance was needed.

Mr. Evanetz came with a multi-page document that he wanted to pass out to the members of the APC Committee for their consideration. APC noted that he had adequate time to submit this information to SCRD since the Nov. 20 postponement of this application. The APC-Chair explained that APC only receives items of business from SCRD or the Director, not from the public. As well the APC could not possibly give proper consideration to this document in the short time of the meeting, so the document was declined by APC.

The APC Chair requested that Mrs. Evanetz stop audio-recording the meeting; however she did not. Two APC members left the meeting.

The Evanetz’s left after Recommendation No. 2 was read and did not stay for the discussion of their application that followed.

MINUTES

3.1 Area D Minutes

The Area D APC minutes of November 30, 2015 were approved as amended as follows: On page 3 under item 5, Directors Report, the phrase “There’s a mobile hospital behind the Fire Dept.” be changed to read “There are medical supplies stored behind the Fire Dept.”

3.2 Minutes


Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, November 24, 2015 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of November 24, 2015 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, November 24, 2015 Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes, November 18, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, November 12, 2015 and December 10,

2015


APC noted that the Development Variance Permit 310.192 application deferred from the Nov. 30, 2015 APC meeting was the Nov. 4, 2015 version. The application that was provided to the January 25, 2016 APC meeting was dated Jan. 11, 2016. Since this version was more up to date, this discrepancy was not considered a serious problem, but it did cause some initial confusion.

141

Area D Advisory Planning Commission Minutes -January 25, 2016 Page 3 REPORTS

5.1 Subdivision application by Torrance located at 1835 Hanbury Road, Roberts Creek, BC

Recommendation No. 1 Subdivision Application at 1835 Hanbury Road, Roberts Creek

The APC recommended that the Subdivision application by Torrance located at 1835 Hanbury Road, Roberts Creek, BC, be supported for the following reasons:

It was a simple subdivision and gave easy access to one house from Hanbury Road and the second house from Gibb Road.

Prior to subdivision approval the applicant must obtain a Development Permit from SCRD.

5.2. Development Variance Permit 310.192 (Evanetz) at 3731 Beach Avenue, Roberts Creek, BC

Site Visit November 5, 2015: APC members (BP, DW, BM, DG, HC & JA) conducted a site visit of 3731 Beach Ave (Evanetz) and 3725 Beach Ave (Spithoff), with permission of owners. APC had copies of the Oct 7, 2015 SCRD letter to neighbours concerning the over-height fence variance request and the site map provided by Mr. Evanetz. Both owners were told that APC would conduct an outdoor site visit, but some members of APC were invited into the Evanetz home, to observe sightlines of concern to the owners.

Recommendation No. 2 Development Variance Permit 310.192 (Evanetz) The APC recommended that the Development Variance Permit 310.192 for Eugene and Suzanne Evanetz for Lot H District Lot 1321 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP52041 be denied, for the following reasons:

It was not supported by the neighbours in the 50 m SCRD notification radius nor by the Shishalh Nation.

A petition circulated by Mr. Evanetz was initially supported by four neighbours in the SCRD notification area. However, these neighbours rescinded their support when they learned that the over-height fence was a contentious issue between Mr. Evanetz and his next door neighbour Mr. Spithoff. They preferred to remain neutral in this matter.

Mr. Evanetz created a very small lot (Lot G, 613 sm) for sale. This was much smaller than the normal minimum lot size of 2000 sm in Roberts Creek. It was entirely predictable that the purchaser would build a house on it and as a consequence Mr. Evanetz would have neighbours close to his own property. It was entirely normal and predictable that neighbours or guests entering either house would see each other and could glance towards each others house. Such normal activity should not constitute a privacy concern.

In the area where the over-height fence was requested, there were only garage windows in the Spithoff house and a glass-paneled entry door, 5.5 m from property line.

The ‘raised entry deck’ at the Spithoff house (shown in the ‘Site Plan Submitted by Applicant’ and in ‘Appendix C’ of the variance permit application of January 11, 2016) was one step (17.8 cm) off concrete pavers at ground level. The ‘elevated entry deck’ was shorter than shown and should be reduced by one-third. This deck was at approximately the same level as the entry deck on the Evanetz house and did not overlook the Evanetz house.

There were no ground floor residential windows on the west side of the Spithoff house

142


facing the shared property line. The east side yard of the Evanetz property, along the common property line, contained a

number of ornamental trees that partially screened the house from side-view. A deep overhang of the roof also screened part of the side deck and windows from side-view.

Drawings and photos were submitted by the applicant intended to show how the neighbours could see into the applicant’s house. In fact, these photos only proved the opposite - that the applicant can see the Spithoff’s house from various points within their own home. APC members observed that it was very difficult to see into the applicant’s house in the daytime, since the house was relatively dark and windows were reflective. At night, side-views were limited to the dining area.

The APC did not observe curtains or blinds on the windows of the Evanetz house. Installation of curtains, blinds or screens should have been explored before making this variance request.

Recommendation No. 3 Development Variance Permit 310.192 (Evanetz) The APC recommended that any application for an over-height fence variance should only be considered by SCRD when there is mutual agreement between neighbours for the following reasons: SCRD and APC have been drawn into a dispute between neighbours. It is not the role of

APC to serve as mediators. There was an initial verbal agreement between the neighbours about fence construction,

but one acted unilaterally and has built an over-height fence that the other finds unacceptable. In addition, that person wants SCRD to legitimize their side of the argument by approving an over-height fence variance.

If there is a group to mediate and propose an alternative path it should have been the SCRD working with both neighbours, but this should have happened before the application for variance was made.

Recommendation No. 4 Development Variance Permit 310.192 (Evanetz) The APC recommended that the front property markers of 3731 Beach Ave. be determined by legal survey and marked with iron pins, before any permanent fence is built for the following reasons: The front property line of the Spithoff property was clearly marked with an iron pin and

white marker near Beach Ave. This was about 4 to 5 m back from the front fence and entry gate on the Evanetz property. Since all site plans provided by SCRD showed that the property lines of houses east and west were contiguous along Beach Ave, it was expected that the front of the Evanetz property would be in line with the Spithoff’s front property marker. Since this was not the case, the exact location of the front corners of the Evanetz property need to be confirmed and marked.

Recommendation No. 5 Development Variance Permit 310.192 (Evanetz) The APC recommended that Bylaw 310 be amended to include a definition of ‘retaining wall’ for the following reasons: Mr. Evanetz drew the APC’s attention to the over-height fence he has constructed at the

waterfront end of the shared property line. He explained this was not over-height, because SCRD had approved the bottom 1.5 feet as a retaining wall. When APC visited

143


the site, this area of the fence appeared to have dirt pushed up against it and the dirt sloped away from the fence to form a garden bed. There also were narrow planters for bamboo constructed beside the fence.

A definition of ‘retaining wall’ should agree with the Canada Building Code or other recognized authority and should indicate functionality – that the retaining wall is designed to resist lateral pressure of the retained material. In the situation here, there was minimal lateral pressure exerted by dirt sloping away from the fence and no indication that the fence itself was designed to resist penetration of bamboo roots.

As noted in Recommendation 3, the SCRD has been drawn into a dispute between neighbours and in this case has acted unilaterally to legitimize an over-height fence without considering the impact on the other neighbour.

NEW BUSINESS

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mark Lebbell (the Area D Director) directed the members to his website, particularly in regard to the widespread concern that last summer’s drought may become the norm. The Housing Committee has had its last official meeting and one of the recommendations for rural areas is to have the housing near services, like transportation. In regard to affordable housing, the models with the most energy behind them are a combined co-housing/smart farming approach. There is a workshop scheduled to be held on Sunday February 21st on ecology/emergency preparedness/forest fires at the Roberts Creek Hall.

NEXT MEETING Monday, February 29, 2016


144


AREA E - ELPHINSTONE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

January 27, 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 Lynda Chamberlin Rob Bone Rod Moorcroft REGRETS: Members Brenda Thomas Dougald Macdonald Jim Gurney Raquel Kolof Jenny Groves ABSENT: Members Patrick Fitzsimons Bob Morris ALSO PRESENT: Area E Director Lorne Lewis Alternate Director Laurella Hay Recording Secretary Diane Corbett Public 1 CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m.


DELEGATIONS

MINUTES

3.1 Elphinstone (Area E) Minutes

The Elphinstone (Area E) APC minutes of November 25, 2016 were approved as circulated.

3.2 Minutes


Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, November 24, 2015

ANNEX N

145

Area E Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 2016 Page 2

Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, November 30, 2015 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, November 24, 2015 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, November 24, 2015 Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes, November 18, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, November 12 and December 10, 2015


REPORTS

5.1 Development Variance Permit 310.193 (Dempster, 1193 Reed Road)

The APC discussed the staff report regarding Development Variance Permit 310.193. Rachel Dempster, applicant, was present and described a diagram of the development variance proposal. Ms. Dempster stated that the variance was for a single post that would be supporting a pergola, not the building. She further clarified that the fence would be straightened out and moved away from the creek; this would result in the horses being further away from the creek than they are now.

The following points were raised in discussion by the APC:

Inquiry as to whether there were any concerns about horse feces on the creek side of the new building;

Encourage applicant to put in plantings when the fence is moved back.

Recommendation No. 1 Development Variance Permit 310.193 The APC recommended that Development Variance Permit 310.193 be approved for the following reasons:

the encroachment is extremely small; the property owners are taking mitigating action to ensure that the riparian zone be

maintained.

NEW BUSINESS

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Lewis discussed recent and upcoming activities.



146

ANNEX O

147



AUTHOR: Autumn Ruinat, Planning Secretary

SUBJECT: THIS IS THE COAST – 2015 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING REPORT

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled “This is the Coast – 2015 Economic Development Funding Report” be received for information.

BACKGROUND

The Sunshine Coast Regional District Board adopted the following resolution at the July 23, 2015 Board Meeting (excerpt):

314/15 AND THAT given the funding commitments from the Town of Gibsons of $1,230, District of Sechelt of $2,190 and SIGD of $195, that the SCRD fund the balance of the $7,500 request for the “This is the Coast” Digital Campaign Pilot Project as follows:

Economic Development Area A (01-2-531-214) $922.50 Economic Development Area B (01-2-532-214) $832.50 Economic Development Area D (01-2-533-214) $765.00 Economic Development Area E (01-2-534-214) $510.00 Economic Development Area F (01-2-535-214) $855.00.

DISCUSSION

A funding agreement was signed between the SCRD and Promote the Coast for the This is the Coast.ca Digital Campaign Pilot Project on August 19, 2015. Funding in the amount of $3885.00 was issued in September 2015.

As per the funding agreement, organizations are required to provide a written report to the SCRD with a description of the organization’s activities, a summary of how the funds were allocated and an annual financial statement.

The 2015 Economic Development Funding Report submitted on January 18, 2016 from This is the Coast is enclosed at Attachment A.


Support Sustainable Economic Development and Facilitate Community Development

CONCLUSION

Requirements of the 2015 Economic Development Funding agreement have been met and no funding request for 2016 has been made at this time.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X – SO Legislative CAO Other

ANNEX P

148

PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Project Name & Sponsor ThisistheCoast newcomer attraction Pilot Campaign Promote the Coast Project Timeline May 15 to August 31, 2015 $7,500 in Funding Received from: Sunshine Coast Regional District District of Sechelt Town of Gibsons Shíshálh Nation

Use of Funds

Activity Expense Connect with potential newcomers

Respond to site inquiries from potential newcomers

Connect potential newcomers with volunteer coastie ambassadors

Professional services: $2,300

Digital reach Curate social media community contributed

content Generate new social media content

Professional services: $1,500

Community Engagement Recruit and support local community

ambassadors Organize pilot phase wrap meetup for newcomers

and volunteers

Professional services: $800 * Wrap meetup supplies (paid by Community Futures) * excludes contributed hours

Campaign Communication Correspondence with regional governments Presentation to intergovernmental meeting Media releases and media interviews Campaign rack card design and placement

Professional services: $800 Rack card printing cost: $315

Campaign Evaluation Create detailed inquirers survey Run inquirers survey Gather qualitative and quantitative data for

campaign pilot analysis Preliminary data analysis

Professional services: $1,500 * * excludes contributed hours for survey design and analysis, campaign evaluation

Fixed Costs Website hosting for thisisthecoast.ca and related

technical software subscriptions

Fixed costs: $285

www.thisisthecoast.ca | [email protected] | Twitter @thisisthecoast | Hashtag #FreeRangeLivingSC

Attachment A

149

http://www.thisisthecoast.ca/



AUTHOR: Autumn Ruinat, Planning Secretary

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRE – 2015 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDING REPORT

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report titled “Community Resource Centre – 2015 Economic Development Funding Report” be received for information.

BACKGROUND The Sunshine Coast Regional District Board adopted the following resolution at the March 26, 2015 Board Meeting:

148/15 Recommendation No. 6 Economic Development – Community Resource Centre (Information and Referral)

THAT the Community Resource Centre (CRC) - Information and Referral be funded for maintenance of the CRC “Hub” website $250 from [534] Economic Development Area E and $250 from [535] Economic Development Area F.

DISCUSSION A funding agreement was signed between the SCRD and the Community Resource Centre for Rural Communities Information and Referral Hubs website maintenance on May 20, 2015. Funding in the amount of $500.00 was issued in July 2015.

As per the funding agreement, organizations are required to provide a written report to the SCRD with a description of the organization’s activities, a summary of how the funds were allocated and an annual financial statement.

The 2015 Economic Development Funding Report submitted on February 1, 2016 from the Community Resource Centre is enclosed at Attachment A.

STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES Support Sustainable Economic Development and Facilitate Community Development

CONCLUSION Requirements of the 2015 Economic Development Funding agreement have been met and no funding request for 2016 has been made at this time.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X - SO Legislative CAO Other

ANNEX Q

151

5520 Trail Avenue, Box 1443, Sechelt BC, V0N 3A0 ● 604.885.4088 [email protected] ● www.resourcecentre.ca

Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road Sechelt, BC V0N 3A1 February 1, 2016 Re: Economic Development Funding Agreement 2015 – Summary Report: Rural Communities Information and Referral (I&R) Hubs

Information and Referral: Building strong and economically viable communities by helping to bring people and services together. The Community Resource Centre is a regional hub for information & referral. We serve all demographics from all communities in the SCRD. We:

provide information and referral services to community, government and social services provide pro bono legal clinics and legal information offer opportunities for learning such as Home Alone – Safety for Children and Older Adults and

Money Skills Financial Literacy program bring together key stakeholders to address community issues based on community needs engage in community development projects based on regional issues such as the Progress

Plan for Economic Well-being, Connecting Self-Employed Women for Success and the Seniors Planning Table.

The Resource Centre received $500.00 of economic development funds for the maintenance of the Community Resource Centre “Hub” Website. We are pleased to advise that we allocated the funds to our new and improved website which we have just launched www.resourcecentre.ca that will better serve the Sunshine Coast communities.

Thank you for supporting the delivery of exceptional Information and Referral services on the Sunshine Coast.

If you require additional information please contact: Christabelle Kux-Kardos, Program Manager at 604 885 4088 or [email protected]

Respectfully submitted, Pat Hunt Co-chair, Resource Centre Board of Directors

Attachment A

152

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.resourcecentre.ca/

http://www.resourcecentre.ca/

mailto:[email protected]

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, February … · Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) APC...

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, February … · Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) APC...