(PDF) REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO ELECTORAL AREA

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO

ELECTORAL AREA PLANNING COMMITTEETUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008

6:00 PM

(RDN Board Chambers)

AGENDA

PAGES

CALL TO ORDER

DELEGATIONS

MINUTES

3-5 Minutes from the regular meeting of the Electoral Area Planning Committee heldMarch 11, 2008.

BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

COMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE

PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT PERMITAPPLICA TIONS

6-20 Development Permit Application No. 60730 and Request for Acceptance of aCombination of Park Land and Cash in-lieu-of Park Land - Fern RoadConsulting Ltd., on behalf of Pardiac -- Adjacent to Gainsberg and Pearl Roads -Area `H'.

21-27 Development Permit Application No. 60812 and Request for Relaxation - M.Wilson on behalf of Gilchrist - 1458 Raines Road - Area `A'.

28-41 Development Permit Application No. 60815 - Henn - 4307 Eva Road - Area'H'.

OTHER

42-99 Electoral Area `G' Official Community Plan - Bylaw No. 1540, 2008.

100-134 Electoral Area `A' Official Community Plan Land Inventory Results.(Questionnaire Results included as a separate enclosure)

Electoral Area Planning Committee - AgendaApril 8, 2008

Page 2

ADDENDUM

BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS OR COMMUNICATIONS

NEW BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO

Present:

MINUTES OF THE ELECTORAL AREA PLANNING COMMITTEEMEETING HELD ON TUESDAY , MARCH 11 , 2008, AT 6:00 PM

IN THE RDN BOARD CHAMBERS

Director D. Bartram

Director J. Burnett

Director M. Young

Director G. Holme

Director L. Biggemann

Director J. Stanhope

ChairpersonElectoral Area AElectoral Area CElectoral Area EElectoral Area FElectoral Area G

Also in Attendance:

MINUTES

M. PearseP. ThorkelssonG. GarbuttN. Tonn

Senior Manager, Corporate AdministrationGeneral Manager, Development ServicesManager, Current PlanningRecording Secretary

MOVED Director Biggemann, SECONDED Director Young, that the minutes of the Electoral AreaPlanning Committee meeting held February 12, 2008 be adopted.

CARRIEDCOMMUNICATIONS/CORRESPONDENCE

P. & C. Roberts, re Electoral Area `G' Official Community Plan.

MOVED Director Stanhope, SECONDED Director Burnett, that the correspondence from P. & C.Roberts regarding their response to a letter dated November 29, 2007 from the Chairperson with respectto the Electoral Area `G' OCP be received.

CARRIEDPLANNING

DEVELOPMENT PERMITAPPLICATIONS

Development Permit Application No. 60744 - Adjacent to Lions Way and the Island Highway No.19A - Area `H'.

MOVED Director Stanhope, SECONDED Director Holme, that Development Permit Application No.60744 submitted by Fern Road Consulting Ltd., on behalf of A Dorfer, in conjunction with thesubdivision on the parcel legally described as Lot 3, District Lot 20, Newcastle District, Plan 6994,Except That Part in Plan 31190 and designated within the Environmentally Sensitive Features, FishHabitat and Natural Hazards Development Permit Areas, be approved subject to the conditions outlined inSchedules No. I and 2 of the corresponding staff report.

CARRIED

Electoral Area Planning Committee MinutesMarch 11, 2008

Page 2

Development Permit Application No. 60746 - 2180 South Wellington Road - Area `A.

MOVED Director Burnett, SECONDED Director Young, that Development Permit Application No.

60746 to permit the construction of three additional mini storage buildings on the property legally

described as Lot A, Section 11, Range, Cranberry District, Plan VIP76453 be approved subject to the

conditions outlined in Schedules No. 1 to 4 of the corresponding staff report.CARRIED

Development Permit Application No. 60803 - 3668 Horne Lake Caves Road - Area `H'.

MOVED Director Stanhope, SECONDED Director Holme, that Development Permit Application No.

60803, to permit construction of a residential accessory building with a minimum real lot line setback of 3metres (10 feet) from the natural boundary of Home Lake on the subject property located at 3668 Horne

Lake Caves Road, be approved.CARRIED

DEVELOPMENT PERMITAPPLICATIONS WITH VARIANCE

Development Permit Application No. 60804 and Request for 10% Frontage Relaxation - Adjacent

to Northwest Bay Road - Area `E'.

Director Holme left the meeting citing a possible conflict of interest as his son works for the applicant's

agent.

MOVED Director Stanhope, SECONDED Director Burnett, that Development Permit Application No.

60804 submitted by JE Anderson, BCLS, on behalf of Timberstone Developments Ltd., in conjunction

with the subdivision on the parcel legally described as Lot 1, District Lot 68, Nanoose District, Plan 3940

Except for Part in Plan V1P80339 and designated within the Sensitive Ecosystem Protection, WaterProtection and Farm Land Protection Development Permit Areas, be approved subject to the conditions

outlined in Schedules No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the corresponding staff report and to the notification procedure

pursuant to the Local Government Act.CARRIED

MOVED Director Stanhope, SECONDED Director Burnett, that the request for relaxation of the

minimum 10% frontage requirement for proposed Lots 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 24 be approved.

CARRIED

MOVED Director Stanhope, SECONDED Director Burnett, that staff be directed to meet with the

applicant to ensure that subdivision-related issues as outlined in the staff report with respect to proposedLots 23 and 24 concerning septic disposal, minimum parcel size and status of the two existing wells can

be resolved to the satisfaction of the Regional District in conjunction with the subdivision process.

CARRIEDDirector Holme returned to the meeting.

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMITAPPLICA TIONS

Development Variance Permit Application No. 90715 - D'Angelo - 335 Butler Avenue - Area `G'.

MOVED Director Stanhope, SECONDED Director Burnett, that Development Variance Permit

Application No. 90715, to legalize the siting of an existing accessory building with a minimum front lot

line setback of 2.4 m on the subject property legally described as Lot F, District Lot 12, Nanoose District,

Plan 30913 located on Butler Avenue, be approved subject to notification procedure pursuant to the Local

Government Act and that a building permit be obtained.CARRIED

Electoral Area Planning Committee MinutesMarch 11, 2008

Page 3

Development Variance Permit Application No. 90803 - 3680 , 3676 & 3672 Horne Lake Caves Road

Area `H'.

MOVED Director Stanhope, SECONDED Director Burnett, that Development Variance PermitApplication No. 90803, to permit the construction of two separate concrete retaining walls with aninterior side yard setback of 0 metres, on the subject property legally described as Lots 51, 52 & 53,

District Lot 251, Alberni District, Electoral Area `H' located on Home Lake Caves Road, be approved

subject to the conditions outlined in Schedules No. 1 to 3 and the notification requirements of the LocalGovernment Act.

CARRIED

Development Variance Permit Application No. 90805- 1021 Koskimo Road - Area `F'.

MOVED Director Biggemann , SECONDED Director Burnett, that Development Permit Application No.90805 submitted by Fern Road Consulting Ltd., on behalf of Peter and Sandra Carr, in conjunction with

the subdivision on the parcel legally described as Lot 35, Block 359, Newcastle District, Plan 41094, be

approved subject to the conditions outlined in Schedules No. 1 and 2 of the corresponding staff report and

to the notification requirements pursuant to the Local Government Act with respect to the proposed

variance.CARRIED

NEW BUSINESS

Provincial Government News Release on Bill 10.

The Chairperson noted the recent Provincial news release pertaining to Bill 10, which will havesignificant implications for local governments in allowing them to adopt bylaws on green buildings,energy and water. Staff are directed to keep the Board updated on implications and opportunitiespresented by statutory changes resulting from Bill 10.

ADJOURNMENT

MOVED Director Stanhope , SECONDED Director Holme , that this meeting terminate.

TIME: 6:15 PM

CHAIRPERSON

CARRIED

REGIONALDISTRICT

Air OF NANAIMO

AQ-AMP R V L

EApcover

MAR 2 8 2008

RHD-

^3OAC fl

MEMORANDUM

TO: Geoff Garbutt DATE: March 27, 2008Manager , Current Planning

FROM: Susan Cormie FILE: 3060 30 60730Senior Planner 3320 20 27506

SUBJECT: Development Permit Application No. 60730 & Request for Acceptance of aCombination ofPark Land and Cash in-Lieu-of Park Land

Fern Road Consulting Ltd., on behalf of P. Pardiac

Electoral Area `H' - Gainsberg Road

PURPOSE

To consider an application for a development permit in conjunction with the creation of a 4-lotsubdivision within the Environmentally Sensitive Features Development Permit Area and to consider arequest for acceptance of park land dedication and cash in-lieu-of park land on property in the Deep Bayarea of Electoral Area `H'.

BACKGROUND

The parent parcel, legally described as Lot 17, District Lot 27, Newcastle District, Plan 38181, is located

in the Deep Bay area of Electoral Area `H' adjacent to Gainsberg and Pearl Roads and an unnamed road

(See Attachment No. 4for location ofparent parcel).

Surrounding lands uses include Gainsberg Road and residentially zoned parcels to the north; residentiallyzoned parcels, Pearl Road, and a community park land to the east and south; residentially zoned parcels tothe west; and the E&N Railway Corridor to the south. A 6.0 metre wide dedicated lane separates theparent parcel. This lane, which is not built, connects Gainsberg and Pearl Roads and contains a stormwater ditch.

The parent parcel, which currently supports an accessory shop building, is situated outside of an RDNBuilding Services Area.

The property, which total 4.28 ha in size, is currently zoned Residential 2 (RS2) and is within Subdivision

District `M' (2000 m2 minimum parcel size with community water service connections) pursuant to the

"Regional District of Nanaimo Land Use and Subdivision Bylaw No. 500, 1987". As all the parcels are

proposed to be greater than 2000 m2 in size with community water service, the minimum parcel sizes will

be able to be met.

The parent parcel is designated within the following development permit areas pursuant to the ElectoralArea H' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1335, 2003:

• Environmentally Sensitive Features Development Permit Area in this case for the protection ofthe aquifer; and

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark LandMarch 27, 2008

Page 2 of 15

• Fish Habitat Protection Development Permit Area for the purposes of protecting riparian areas

and for the protection of fish habitat, The subdivision application will meet the exemption

provisions of the development permit.

Proposed Development

The applicant is proposing to construct 4 fee simple lots varying in size from 8001 mz to 1.7 ha withcommunity water service connections from Deep Bay Waterworks District and individual septic disposalsystems (see Schedule No. 2 for proposed subdivision layout). As part of the application submissionrequirements , the applicant provided a Hydrogeological Impact Assessment prepared by a professionalengineer.

Park Land Requirements

Where an official community plan contains policies and designations respecting the location and type offuture parks, the local government may determine whether the owner must provide land or cash or acombination of both. In this case, the OCP specifies that park land dedication may be considered at thetime of subdivision subject to meeting the preferred park land criteria set out in the Plan. Pursuant to theLocal Government Act, the maximum amount of park land that the Regional District may request for thisproperty is 2144 m2 (5% of the total area),

Park Land Proposal

The applicants are proposing to dedicate 850 m2 or 1.98% of the total land area, which consists of a 6.0metre wide strip next to the unnamed dedicated lane which currently contains a storm water ditch, a farmfence, and an informal foot path. The applicant's agent has indicated that the existing fence would beremoved. The remaining 3.02 % is proposed to be given as cash in-lieu-of park land dedication.

The park land proposal was referred to the Electoral Area 'Fl' Parks and Open Space Advisory Committeeon February 15, 2008 and presented at a Public Information Meeting held on March 10, 2008.

ALTERNATIVES

1. To approve Development Permit Application No. 60730, as submitted, subject to the conditionsoutlined in Schedules No. 1 and 2 and to accept the offer of the combination of park land and cash in-lieu-of park land in the amount and location as set out in Schedule No, 3.

2. To deny the development permit as submitted and provide staff with further direction and to not acceptthe offer of park land in the amount and location as proposed and instead require the applicant todedicate 5% park land in a different location.

3. To approve the development permit as submitted, subject to the conditions outlined in SchedulesNo. I and 2 and to not accept the park land proposal as submitted and require the applicant to provide5% cash-in-lieu of park land.

DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS

Building Implications

There is an existing shop building on the proposed Remainder of Lot IT As this is considered anaccessory building and there is no principle use on the property , this building is not permitted under the

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-of Park LandMarch 27, 2008

Page 3 of 15

provisions of Bylaw No. 500, 1987 . In order to ensure that bylaw provisions can be met , the building will

be required to be removed as part of the subdivision review process (see Schedule No. 1 outlining

Conditions ofApproval).

Site Servicing Implications

The applicant has applied for an application for septic disposal approval to the Central Vancouver IslandHealth Authority.

The Ministry of Transportation is responsible for the storm drainage. As part of the subdivision reviewprocess, the Regional Approving Officer will examine the storm water management of the parent parceland impose conditions of development as required.

The applicant's agent has indicated that community water service will be provided by Deep Bay Water

Works District.

Development Permit/ Environmental Implications

With respect to the development permit guidelines for protection of the aquifer, the submitted

Hydrogeological Impact Assessment concludes that the proposed subdivision will represent a low risk of

potential environmental impairment to the underlying groundwater aquifer. The report includes a number

of recommendations including rainwater runoff being reintroduced to ground to maintain natural ground

recharge conditions; new septic systems be sited, investigated, designed, constructed and maintained in

accordance with the current BC Sewerage System Regulation; future owners should be made aware of the

underlying aquifer, no underground storage tanks for heating oil should be permitted, and low impact

development practices should be considered to conserve water and support sustainable development. In

order to ensure protection of the aquifer, it is recommended that the development permit conditions of

approval include these recommendations (see Schedule No. I for Conditions ofApproval). It is noted that

at the time of further subdivision of this property, staff would recommend that the required

hydrogeological report include an analysis of these recommendations.

Official Community Plan Implications

The Electoral Area `H' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1335, 2003 contains park land related policieswhich stipulate that park land is desirable for community recreation, nature preservation, linearconnections, greenbelt, and access to the waterfront. In this case, the applicants are offering park land,which includes providing an opportunity to improve a linear connection. Therefore, the proposed parkland meets the preferred criteria set out in the OCP.

Electoral Area `H' Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee

The Electoral Area `H' Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee supports the combined park land /

cash in-lieu-of park land proposal as submitted (see Attachment No. 1 for Advisory Committee comments),

PUBLIC CONSULTATION IMPLICATIONS

A Public Information Meeting (PIM) was held on March 10, 2008. Approximately 21 persons attended

this meeting. (see Attachment No. 2 for Minutes of Public Information Meeting). In addition to the

comments received at the PUNT, additional correspondence following the PIM has also been received (see

Attachment No. 3 for Correspondence Received Following the Public Information Meeting).

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark LandMarch 27, 2008

Page 4 of 15

PARK LAND IMPLICATIONS

Park land related issues raised at the Public Information Meeting included the following:

• concern that the entire 5% provision should be required as dedication rather than cash in-lieu-of

park land and suggestion that a strip of land adjacent to the E&N Railway Corridor be included aspark land dedication to provide future trail corridor;

• concern that there may be a future erosion problem in the park land due to the existing ditch; and

• need for better public notification, including clearer mapping, for park land related proposals.

Following the PIM, correspondence was received which included the following additional park landrelated issues:

Need for a flat, usable park land area for community related events such as picnics; and

Proposed park land should be three times the width in order to have setbacks from the drainage

ditch.

With respect to the suggestion for park land dedication next to the E&N Railway Corridor, it is noted that

this Corridor is being proposed as a regional trail as set out in the RDN Regional Parks & Trails Plan

2005 -2015 which identifies the E&N Railway Corridor as a priority for developing a trail through the

Region as a commuter, recreational, and tourism route. Therefore, park land next to the E&N Railway

Corridor to provide a trail is not required as the adjacent E&N Railway Corridor is identified for this

purpose.

With respect to the concern for future erosion from the existing storm drainage ditch, staff recommends

that the existing drainage system be located entirely within the road right-of-way and outside of the

proposed park land at a minimum of 2.0 metre from the boundary of the proposed park land. This will

involve a portion of the drainage ditch being relocated and will require approval from the Ministry of

Transportation.

With respect to the comments concerning the need for better notification of park land related proposals, it

is noted that as part of the park land acquisition policy, surrounding neighbours to the subject property

and members of the POSAC receive detailed correspondence about the proposal. As well, a notice is

placed in a local newspaper and on the RDN Web page. If other members of the community, outside of

the mailing area, wish additional information, staff would forward the requested information.

With respect to the suggestion for a flat usable park land for holding community events, staff notes that

the maximum amount of land that could be required in this case is 2144 m2. In order to provide a

community park for community related events, RDN Recreation and Parks staff has advised that this

amount of park land would not be sufficient to provide a usable park-related area along with otheraccessory uses such as rest rooms and off-street parking areas. It is also noted that staff reviewed thepossibility of increasing the area of the existing park land located adjacent to Pearl Road; however, it was

felt that this is area was not suitable due to issues with slope and drainage.

With respect to the need for the proposed park land strip to be three times the 6.0 metre width in order to

comply with setbacks from the drainage ditch, as the ditch is considered to be storm water drainage only,

a setback for a trail is not required. Despite this, staff recommends that the existing drainage be relocatedentirely within the road right-of-way to avoid any future encroachment issues (see Schedule No. 3 -

Conditions for Park Land Dedication / Cash in-lieu-ofPark Land).

Development Permit No, 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land andCash in-lieu-ofPark Land

March 27, 2008Page 5 of 15

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The subject property has an assessed value of $395,000.00 according to the 2008 assessment. The

valuation of the property for the proposed balance of 3.02 % cash-in-lieu of park land charges will be

based on a certified appraisal of the land at the time of preliminary subdivision approval (PLA).

Therefore, it is anticipated that the appraised market value would result in an approximately $11,929.00

contribution (based on 3.02 %) to Electoral Area `H' community parks fund.

VOTING

Electoral Area Directors -- one vote, except Electoral Area `B'.

SUMMARY

This is a subdivision application that involves a development permit and a request to accept a

combination of park land and cash in-lieu-of park land dedication for the property located adjacent to

Gainsberg and Pearl Roads in the Deep Bay area of Electoral Area `H'.

The subject property is designated within the Environmentally Sensitive Features Development Permit

Area pursuant to the Electoral Area `H' OCP specifically for the purposes of ensuring protection of the

aquifer. The development permit, which includes measures for protection of the aquifer, is consistent with

the applicable guidelines concerning protection of the aquifer outlined in the Environmentally Sensitive

Features Development Permit Area (see Schedule No. I for Conditions ofDevelopment).

The park land / cash in-lieu-of park land proposal, as submitted by the applicant, was referred to the

Electoral Area 'H` Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee (POSAC). The POSAC indicated that it

supports this combination of dedication of park land and cash in-lieu-of park land as proposed by the

applicant.

A Public Information Meeting was held on March 10, 2008 with respect to the park land / cash in-lieu-of

park land proposal. Park land-related comments included that the entire 5% requirement should be

required to be given as park land and suggested that a strip of land be dedicated adjacent to the E&N

Railway to allow for a future trail corridor; concern for future erosion in the park land due to the existing

ditch; and the need for better notification. Comments received following the PIM included a need for a

flat, usable park land area for community-related events and the proposed park land should be three times

the width in order to have setbacks from the drainage ditch. Concerning the suggestion for a trail next to

the E&N Railway Corridor, staff notes that this corridor is identified as part of the RDN Regional Trail

System and therefore this negates the need for additional trail next to the corridor. Concerning the need

for a flat, usable park for community events, due to the maximum size of land that may be required (2,144

m2) staff feels that this is not a sufficient size to support community-related events and accessory uses

such as off-street parking and rest rooms. Staff agrees with the need to ensure the existing drainage is not

within the proposed park land and as a result, recommends that the applicant be required to relocate the

drainage ditch entirely within the road right-of-way complete with being well setback from the park land

boundary (see Schedule No. 3 for Conditions ofPark Land Dedication / Cash in-Lieu-of Park Land).

Therefore, given that the Electoral Area 'H' Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee supports the

combination of dedication of land / cash in-lieu-of park land as proposed by the applicant and the

applicable development permit guidelines will be able to be met, staff recommends Alternative No. 1 to

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu -ofPark Land

March 27, 2008

Page 6ofJ5

approve the development permit and to accept the park land proposal as outlined in Schedules No. 1, 2

and 3 of this staff report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Development Permit Application No. 60730 submitted by Fern Road Consulting Ltd., on

behalf of P. Pardiac, in conjunction with the subdivision of the parcel legally described as Lot 17,

District Lot 27, Newcastle District, Plan 38181 and designated within the Environmentally

Sensitive Features, Development Permit Area, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in

Schedules No. I and 2 of the corresponding staff report.

2. That the combination of park land and cash in-lieu-of park land proposal, in the amount and

location as shown on Schedule No. 2 of the staff report, be accepted subject to the conditions set

out in Schedule No. 3 of the staff report.

r^^ AA.LI),CAO Concurrence

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark Land

March 27, 2008

Page 7 of 15

Schedule No. I

Development Permit No. 60730

Conditions of Development

The following sets out the conditions of approval in conjunction with Development Permit No. 60730:

1, Subdivision

The subdivision of the lands shall be in substantial compliance with Schedule No. 2 (to be attached to

and forming part of this Permit).

2. Hydrological Report / Correspondence

The recommendations as set out in the Hydrogeological Impact Assessment prepared by EBA

Engineering Consultants Ltd. and dated August 8, 2007 shall be followed. Applicants' professional

engineer to provide written certification that the recommendations as set out in these reports have

been completed.

4. Protection of Aquifer / Sediment and Erosion Control

During construction, the following applies:

a. All machines on site must be in good working order and no fuels, lubricants or construction

wastes are permitted to enter the environment.

b. A spill kit shall be on-site to prevent the introduction of any fuels in the event of a spill. If a spill

occurs, the Provincial Emergency Program must be contacted,

c. As required, sediment and erosion control measures, must be utilized to control sediment during

construction and to stabilize the site after construction is complete. These measures must include:

i. Tarps, sand bags, poly plastic sheeting and/or filter fabric are required to be onsite during

works.ii. Cover temporary fills or soil stock piles with polyethylene or tarps.

iii. Exposed soils must be seeded immediately after disturbance. Soil surfaces to be treated

should be roughened in advance of seeding,

iv. Temporary fences (snow fences) delineating the property boundary adjacent to the RDN park

land shall be installed.

5. Existing Accessory Building

The existing accessory building, labeled as `Shop' on Schedule No. 2 is to be removed in order to

ensure compliance with the current bylaw provisions.

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-of Park LandMarch 27, 2008

Page 8 of 15

Schedule No. 2

Proposed Plan of Subdivision Including Location and Amount of Park Land

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN OF LOT 17

DISTRICT LOT 27, NEWCASTLE DISTRICT.

PLAN 38157.

PLAN 7 C 8

rv REM` 1F^T

17 ry^3

wat F E O^

•

2 • \' '

16PAW am M,,asa ?5

# f3^ PLA 38787

103i' ^ 4P

11T(

V. e^,^ '^Tf^fr

TL€7At AF1E'A OF L07 17' W 6, 892TVMAL AREA FCXr Pfi ae AIAN - am m0

f.4iEc s.^ao^msx< 5N5 ASSOCIATES

SCALE 1: Z2QOzacnr^rrns cars v^rn

avav^o^aoarvuyo

'3 r v rROADrxwru-uw &Faw. ar

AR Gjsiarx^ orc* br aieefea .Yffi...354-

Aff c#- m d mYas ma P!A'd^i:+G.'Sa^752-4f27

^R`Jf1 fff ^§YJf N.PV@yC'Sri174?_4?L1

.aTozss _co^.o^s.r*a

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark LandMarch 27, 2008

Page 9 of 15

Schedule No. 3

Conditions for Park Land Dedication I Cash in-Lieu-of Park Land

The following sets out the conditions of approval in conjunction with the provisions of section 941 of the

Local Government Act for Subdivision File No. 27506:

1. Area and Location of Park Land

An area, not less than 850 m2 as shown in the location labeled Park on Schedule No. 2, shall be

dedicated as park land.

2. Cash in-Lieu-of Park Land

The applicant shall provide cash in-lieu-of park land equivalent to 3.02% of the land.

3. Works and Services

The following works and services are to be completed by the applicant in conjunction with park land

as set out below. The applicant is to contact the Recreation and Parks Department for coordinating the

park land works prior to commencing.

a) remove of the existing farm fence and reinstate the land to a safe condition to the satisfaction

of the RDN Recreation and Parks Department.

b) relocate all drainage works to be situated a minimum of 2.0 metre from the west boundary of

the existing dedicated road right-of-way (adjacent to the proposed park land); therefore being

entirely within the road right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Transportation and

the RDN Recreation and Parks Department. Approval from the Ministry of Transportation is

to be in place prior to commencing these works.

Development Permit No. 6073©Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark LandMarch 27, 2008Page 10 of 15

Attachment No. 1

Excerpt From Minutes of the Electoral Area 'H' Parks & Open Space Advisory

Committee Meeting

"Motion to accept the proposed as outlined in the Fern Road Consulting in letter dated

February 4, 2008." (see correspondence below)

Fw^n R ! Consvtflng Ltd.

ctLrpile : 0?.75.SOur FSie:9: 0.1275"

P,ctonAi Disuic; n Na aimo

6300 Hammond $ay pleadNa:%Mmo, Kr,V91 6N2

A Wrion! Qvf€ G*a'&an

Oar C f

RM tot 17, 16aict Lot 27 Nawe"ttt 17" t. P1aa 315181

'i huv survevcd the 1o ati z,,w of h wen sisv c f the 400 oe the 6 m&Lm.. Lane 8s wet L%e

fsnbe and edgk of eid, Tht fact is epproxisstsdely 3 metres W%t of th tae. The West} edge

of the 4 n. ge dit+ meanders s riatimatrly 0-9 me1aee trio the soatherly lobo of oe clients

-pmpvny and the) t6 t aefn d within tt6 6 rmu•e wide Lsr o.

Wc have dfscuaeed d #'atfc dui anw with vus stke*a . They are in agraamat to date a

6 mme wide mock strip odiorent to #ho west bai►ncary of the C. mwe ^isle Lino . They wil I also

OIQYV the f'nee . Th le dv4v; t'an woutd be 1.9*%,oft a eequfr d 5%. W w I4 %ka to Vo

the rostxainin 3.0154b4 c -cs-lino. The ea}oWat m-, a U foa-}ws'

A_ee of S eta ,>dE . sq. -.8 m. wide Perk $ 50 iq M.

ar 1.93%

Cnuld you pit= take tie pro t in the meet Parks Comrnistee mood g and thee !et us know if

this is aa+:"We.

f'a: your xcf n , voc am en kre ng rcrsad p :erpresal pis and a dot iJ plan show s Ivwjasas or

fence w4 ditch.

T k)OU ffo your e9B+afaneo.

! caws srwl} j.

t#eIoe htsc?hall $irriL'S^SS:.IE^fh.I^a

"tit; c2S1?5.9 l Paz: ($0) 752 2 €]

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-of Park LandMarch 27, 2008Page 11 of 15

Attachment No. 2

Minutes of a Public Information Meeting

Held at the Lighthouse Community Centre

240 Lion 's Way, Qua icum Bay on March 10, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Subdivision Application No. 27506

For the property legally described as Lot 17, District Lot 27, Plan 38181

Note. these minutes are not a verbatim recording ofthe proceedings, but are intended to summarize the comments

ofthose in attendance at the Public Information Meeting.

Present:

Public in attendance: approximately 21 persons

For the Applicant:Helen Sims, agent

For the RDN:Chair:. Director David Bartram

Susan Cormie, Senior Planner

The Chair opened the meeting at 7:00 pm and followed with greetings to the public and an introduction of

the staff, the applicants, and their agent.

The Chair stated the purpose of the Public Information Meeting (PIM) and asked the Senior Planner to

provide an overview of the statutory provisions as it relates to park land provision.

The Senior Planner provided the statutory provisions and gave an overview of the proposal.

The Chair then asked the applicants' agent to give a summary of the park land proposal.

Helen Sims, the applicant's agent, provided a description of the park land proposal highlighting that the

proposal includes a 1.98 % dedication of park next to the existing dedicated lane with the balance being

given as cash. Ms. Sims stated that the owners will remove the existing fence.

The Chair then invited comments and questions from the audience with respect to the park land proposal.

Alice Antonelli, 78 Jamieson Road asked how do you arrive at the decision to choose park land if there is

no appraisal of the property done first.

The Chairperson provided background information concerning the process and how a decision is arrived

at and that the appraisal is completed concurrently with the subdivision process at preliminary approval

stage.

Patty Biro, 180 Crome Point Road, explained that she is a member of the Electoral Area H Parks and

Open Space Committee and the proposed park land will provide a link to Deep Bay Creek, the railway

corridor, and Pearl Road Paris. Ms. Biro explained that there is an existing trail being maintained by the

neighbour and this proposed park land will allow for the widening of the trail.

Alice Antonelli commented that there decisions are being made for the future generations and asked about

disposition of park land.

The Senior Planner explained that the disposition of park land is not common.

Tom Plensky, 5484 Deep Bay Drive, confirmed that there is a process to dispose of park land.

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to A ccept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark LandMarch 27, 2008Page 12 of 15

The Senior Planner agreed that there is a formal process for disposing of park land which involves a

public: consultation process.

George Dussault, 5327 Gainsberg Road, commented that park land is always the left over piece of land

and asked about expanding the existing park land. George also commented that there may be an erosion

problem next to the creek.

Dianne Eddy, 5058 Longview Drive, commented that more information is needed to be published in order

for the public to review the proposal. Ms. Eddy suggested that taking land instead of money is a better

investment and suggested extending a strip along the railway line for a future walkway to provide a

connection to Deep Bay Creek and other trails. Ms. Eddy also commented that a petition will be

submitted requesting this trail corridor.

Wayne Foote 4980 Thompson Clark West asked what is the monies collected from the developers used

for - purchase or maintenance of park land.

The Chair explained that the reserve fund is used for acquisition of land for park land purposes only.

Mr. Foote commented that it is good to have money as well as land,

Ann Copas, 5087 Seaview asked how many creeks are on the property.

The applicant's agent explained that there is some storm drainage collection from the E&N Railway, but

there are no creeks on the parcel.

Ms. Copas commented that the maps are too small to read.

Greta Taylor, 244 Hembrough Road, asked how many lots and homes can be placed on the property.

The Senior Planner explained that the proposed subdivision includes 4 parcels with zoning that permits a

maximum of 2 dwelling units each. The Senior Planner also noted that the 4 proposed parcels could

possibly be subdivided further to a minimum 2000 mz sized parcels.

Dianne Eddy, 5058 Longview Drive, noted that the POSAC has plans for the community and would this

information be available.

The Chairperson explained that we are looking at a plan to consider what parks to develop and how to

develop them.

Ms. Eddy asked for clarification that the funds would be for all of Electoral Area H and not just the Deep

Bay area.

The Chairperson confirmed that this is correct.

Tom Plensky, 5484 Deep Bay Drive, commented that there is not a lot of information at this point and it

is too early for a petition to oppose this park land proposal.

Evelyn Foote, 4980 Thompson Clark West, asked how big the proposed parcel are.

The Senior Planner explained that the proposed 3 lots are 8000 m2 and the remainder lot is larger.

The Chair asked if there were any further submissions with respect to the park land proposal.

There being none, the Chair thanked those in attendance and closed the Public Information Meeting.

The meeting concluded at 7:36 pm.

Susan.CormieRecording Secretary

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark LandMarch 27, 2008Page 13ofl5

Correspondence received at the Public Information Meeting

(attached to the Minutes)

The proposed area is 1.9 % of the total land area. The applicant isproposing to pay cash in-lieu-of of parkland dedication for the balance"of the 5% park land provision.

We the undersigned request that in addition to this area, that a trail extendingfrom the existing park along the railway at the back of the Remainder of lot17 be inncluded. This trail should be at least 8 in wide and extend to the lot

referred to as Remainder of Lot 15, plan 756 -- not cash in-lieu-of.

Name f a r ,

1L 1 'If?7 7' j f^J3

f 4

f f_ \ YYYiii

f y^.

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to Accept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark LandMarch 27, 2008Page 14 of 15

Attachment No. 3

Correspondence Received Following the Public Information Meeting

(Via e-mail)

Geoff Garbutt, RDN PlannerRE: Pardiac Parkland proposal

Geoff,This land proposal is nothing more than an extension of a ditch setback. And, there was a

considerable amount of water flowing in this deep ditch there today. I thought the RDN no

longer supported this type of proposal, There was enough contention at the public meeting

to draw attention to the limitations of this proposal--not just the petition I forwarded. Does

this not provide enough community feedback to the planning department that further review

is necessary--that this is not acceptable to the community?

I was told by the parks department that we couldn't put a trail next to Deep Bay Creek .

They said setbacks had to be 1 Om or some such number and away from the LOP of the

bank. Accepting this proposal as "parkland" for "trails" contravenes even the RDN'sinterpretation/regulations on usable parkland. That is a deep ditch and the top of the bank,

no doubt, would have to have some protection. The aerial view (in handout at public

meeting) points this out very aptly. It appears that the Pearl Road end of the " P arkland" is in

the middle of this ditch.

I went out there today and took pictures. 6m is simply not enough to do anything with this

ditch "parkland". We have enough ravine and ditch parkland in this area. It should be three

times that width with a guarantee by the surveyor that the edge of the parkland is also

properly setback from the top of the ditch for the full distance of the park.

It is unfortunate that the RDN website was not updated with relevant information on this

proposal. It is unfortunate that residents didn't have the information given in the handout

available well before the meeting to provide more input. Parks are for everyone and they

should be useful community assets-- not just ditches and setback areas that the subdivider

knows can't be built on.

Did you know that in this densely populated area along Gainsberg that there is not 1 RDN

park with enough flat land to have a community picnic. That's not community planning.

I would like to know what it takes to have this proposal modified. We need accessible and

usable lands for parks. We don't want money to go into the park fund. How many letters

do you need from residents? 5, 10, 20, more? However many you need, I will get them.

Dianne EddyPresident,Mapleguard Ratepayers' Association

Development Permit No. 60730

Request to A ccept a Combination ofPark Land and

Cash in-lieu-ofPark LandMarch 27, 2008Page 15 of 15

Attachment No. 4

Location of Subject Property

^Easemt P 56848waserft P.SB844

4 -- Easern't P5685D

5 €

PL.

^' 45379

GPJ

V15;RD1 "O 2

) 5.6x337- ' ^

6 71^^ 3

1 - p4 J

SUBJECT PROPERTY3M6 tREM.1 4 1 Sao Plan 38181Lot 17 ,,

V I P7071 s ; Newcastle L.©© L 27E

,^`2 s

S P53402$5WVIP69063 SRW

1Z E t3 `L , ^ %qb.^ ,

5 .o GEl

/R. Q- B a 9A l

1613 ^A l2 K

9\ ` A

RK a G [

v1w n o ¢ PLAIN,L 2^9

Q w r 7560 . I 13^ ^ 1D 1112

p Cq16

^' (mss VtP7a74

V/p^0 ^p PLAN 560^s9 Sff

7 ^3 ^o

FqA R^ w^

ARk RQ^i S4 J717 w

ry^6 pt 8

S1 K n

8g38 > dQ

q s s € p ' A}

s go i

4 q^ 6 rp

D. L.27PARCELV09 5

pq 7x377.7

\'I

PLAN 3172

N 0 100 200Meters

6 9 1p

PARCEL "E" OF 5 7 11

0.0.394182-€. 6

513

¢ R3

1Ac

2, N 5

avf'

PP.OC MAPO.OFOrT 10

EAP

cow

REGIONALDISTRICT RHO,

oft" OF NANAIMO BOARD

TO: Geoff GarbuttManager, Current Planning

MAR 2 8 2008MEMORANDUM

DATE: March 26, 2008

FROM: Susan ConnieSenior Planner

FILE: DP 60812Or 3320 30 27616

SUBJECT: Development Permit Application No. 60812 & Request for Relaxation of theMinimum 10% Perimeter Frontage RequirementM. Wilson on behalf of T. & M. Gilchrist

Electoral Area 'A'- 1458 Raines Road

PURPOSE

To consider a development permit application and a request for relaxation of the minimum 10% perimeter

frontage requirement for one of the proposed parcels in conjunction with a section 946 subdivision

application on a parcel in located in Electoral Area `A'.

BACKGROUND

This is a section 946 subdivision application involving a development permit application and a request to

relax the minimum perimeter frontage requirement for 1 of the 2 proposed parcels for the parcel legally

described as Lot 1, Section 18, Range 7 , Cranberry District, Plan 20029, Except Parts in Plans 28748,

28749, and V1P82999 and located adjacent to Raines Road within Electoral Area ` A' (see Attachment

No.1 for location ofsubject property).

The parent property, which is 3.41 ha in size, is zoned Rural 4 (RU4) and is within Subdivision District

`D' (minimum 2.0 ha with or without community water and community sewer) pursuant to the "Regional

District of Nanaimo Land Use and Subdivision Bylaw No. 500, 1987". In this case, the minimum parcel

size requirements is 2500 m2 with a community water service connection for the proposed section 946

parcel and 2,0 ha for the remainder parcel. Therefore, the minimum parcel size requirements pursuant to

Bylaw No. 500, 1987 will be able to be met

The parent parcel, which is bordered by Indian Reserve No. 3 to the north, a rural zoned parcel to the east,

Raines Road and the Nanaimo River to the south, and rural zoned parcels to the west, currently supports

one dwelling unit and a barn. A portion of the York Creek Wetland crosses the north portion of the parent

parcel.

The parcels are proposed to be served by individual private septic disposal systems and community water

service from North Cedar Improvement District and are located within an RDN Building Services area.

Documents registered on title include a covenant for protection of the York Creek Wetland located to the

rear of the property and a covenant restricting the placement of buildings until a geotechnical report has

been completed which identifies the safe building areas within the proposed parcels.

Pursuant to the Electoral Area `A' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1240, 2001, the parent parcel is

designated within the Streams, Nest Trees and Nanaimo River Floodplain Development Permit Area, in

Development Permit No. 60812

Requestfor Relaxation ofMinimum 10% Frontage RequirementMarch 26, 2008

Page 2

this case for the protection of development from flooding and the Fish Habitat Protection Development

Permit Area, for the protection of fish habitat of the York Creek Wetland and the Nanaimo River.

Given the subdivision proposal is not exempt from the provisions of these development permit guidelines,

a development permit is required.

The applicant has provided a completed Sustainable Community Builder Checklist as per Board policy.

The applicant has provided an environmental review which is consistent with Provincial Riparian Area

Regulation.

Minimum 10% Perimeter Frontage Requirement

The proposed Remainder of Lot 1, as shown on the submitted plan of subdivision, does not meet the

minimum 10% perimeter frontage requirement pursuant to section 944 of the Local Government Act.

The requested frontage is as follows:

Pro osed Lot No. Re uired Fronta e Proposed Fronta e % o Perimeter

Rem, Lot 1 102. 5 8.5 in 0.8 %

Therefore, as this proposed parcel does not meet the minimum 10% parcel frontage requirement pursuant

to section 944 of the Local Government Act, approval of the Regional District Board of Directors is

required.

ALTERNATIVES

To approve Development Permit Application No. 60812, as submitted, subject to the conditions

outlined in Schedules No. I and 2 of the staff report and approve the request to relax the minimum

10% perimeter frontage requirement for the proposed Remainder of Lot I .

2. To deny the development permit as submitted and provide staff with further direction and deny the

request to relax the minimum 10% perimeter frontage requirement.

DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS

Development Related Implications /Ministry of Transportation Implications

With respect to the minimum 10% frontage requirement, due to the historical subdivision pattern, the

parent parcel is an irregular shaped lot, therefore limiting the lot configuration of the proposed parcels and

the availability to meet the required frontage requirement, The Remainder of Lot I is proposed to be

served by a panhandle. The width of the panhandle portion of this proposed lot will meet the minimum

bylaw requirements as no further subdivision can occur. The Ministry of Transportation staff has

indicated that they have no objection to the request for relaxation of the minimum 10% frontage

requirement.

With respect to the protection of development from potential flooding of the Nanaimo River, the applicant

provided confirmation that the existing dwelling unit was constructed above the minimum flood

elevations. This information was confirmed and accepted by the Building Services Department at the time

of construction. As Proposed Lot 1 (section 946 parcel) currently supports a dwelling unit and as no

additional dwelling units are permitted under the current zoning, staff is satisfied that the development

permit guidelines have been met. It is noted that the Proposed Remainder of Lot I has buildable site areas

outside of the Nanaimo River Floodplain area.

Development Permit No. 60812

Requestfor Relaxation ofMinimum 10% Frontage Requirement

March 26, 2008Page 3

Development Permit /Environmentally Sensitive Area Implications

The submitted riparian area assessment has determined a Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area(SPEA) of 30.0 metres for the Nanaimo River and the York Creek Wetland. The report provides nomeasures are required to be taken to protect the SPEAs as no physical alteration is proposed at this time.If any physical alterations, such as driveway development, do occur during the development of thesubdivision, a further report would be required. Staff, as part of the subdivision review process, willforward this information to the Approving Authority. The Ministry of Environment requires that allRiparian Area Regulation (RAR) reports include a schedule for environmental monitoring whereconsidered necessary. In this case, the report recommends that as no physical alteration of the property isplanned, monitoring is not required. With respect to the delineation of the SPEAs, staff recommends thatthe applicant be required to clearly mark the SPEAs with permanent posts to ensure protection of theseriparian areas (see Schedule No. I - Conditions ofApproval).

VOTING

Electoral Area Directors - one vote, except Electoral Area `B'.

SUMMARY

This is a subdivision application involving a Development Permit for the protection of the riparian area ofthe Nanaimo River and the York Creek Wetland and a request for relaxation of the minimum 10%frontage requirement for one of the proposed parcels in conjunction with a section 946 subdivision for theproperty located adjacent to Raines Road in Electoral Area `A'.

The subject property is designated within the Streams, Nest Trees and Nanaimo River Floodplain and

Fish Habitat Protection Development Permit Areas (DPA) pursuant to the Electoral Area `A' OCP, in this

case for the purposes of ensuring protection of development from flooding and protection of riparian

areas of the Nanaimo River and the York Creek Wetland. The applicant has submitted a Riparian Area

Assessment which establishes 30-metre Stream Protection and Enhancement Areas (SPEAs) and

concludes that no measures and monitoring is required as there are no works proposed within the SPEAs.

Despite this, it is recommended that this development permit specify that no works are to occur within the

SPEAs and that the applicant be required to clearly mark the SPEAs with permanent markers. These

requirements will be included in the Conditions of Approval (see Schedule No. 1 for Conditions of

Approval). Concerning the protection of development from potential flooding, Proposed Lot I has

established residential uses and no additional dwelling units are permitted under the zoning provisions.

With respect to the request for relaxation of the minimum 10% perimeter frontage for the proposed

Remainder of Lot 1 which is proposed to be served by way of a panhandle, despite the narrow frontage,

there will be sufficient area outside the designated SPEAs to support intended residential uses. In addition,

the Ministry of Transportation staff has indicated that they have no objection to the request for relaxation

of the .minimum 10% frontage requirement.

Given that the applicant has provided an accepted Riparian Area Assessment; as there is a building sitearea on the Proposed Remainder of Lot I for residential uses; the parcel size is consistent with the OfficialCommunity Plan policies; and the Ministry of Transportation is satisfied that access to each proposed

parcel is achievable, staff recommends Alternative No. I to approve relaxation of the minimum 10%perimeter frontage requirement for the proposed Remainder of Lot I and to approve the developmentpermit subject to the conditions outlined in Schedules No, 1 and 2 of the staff report.

Development Permit No. 60812

Request for Relaxation of Minimum 10% Frontage Requirement

March 26, 2008Page 4

RECOMMENDATION

That Development Permit Application No. 60812, submitted by M. Wilson, on behalf of T. & M.

Gilchrist, in conjunction with the subdivision of the parcel legally described as Lot 1, Section 18,

Range 7, Cranberry District, Plan 20029, Except Parts in Plans 28748, 28749, and VIP82999 and

designated within the Streams, Nest Trees and Nanaimo River Floodplain and Fish Habitat

Development Permit Areas, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in Schedules No. I

and 2 of the corresponding staff report.

That the request for relaxation of the minimum 10% frontage requirement for the Proposed

Remainder of Lot 1, as shown on the plan of subdivision of Lot 1, Section 18, Range 7, Cranberry

District, Plan 20029, Except Parts in Plans 2874 8,

(^:AmVA-ACAO Concurrence

Development Permit No. 60812

Request for Relaxation ofMinimum 10% Frontage RequirementMarch 26, 2008

Page 5

Schedule No. I

Development Permit No. 60812

Conditions of Approval

The following sets out the conditions of approval in conjunction with Development Permit No. 60812:

1. Subdivision

The subdivision of the lands shall be in substantial compliance with Schedule No. 2 (to be attached to

and forming part of this development permit).

2. Riparian Assessment

a. The subdivision of the parent parcel is to be developed in accordance to the Riparian Areas

Assessment No. 767 prepared by Streamside Environmental Consulting Ltd. and dated 2008-02-

12 (to be attached to and forming part of this development permit as Schedule No. 3).

b. No construction, other than the surveying required for subdivision, shall occur within the riparian

area of Nanaimo River and York Creek Wetland in association with the subdivision development

and the following measures shall be taken as necessary:

i. tarps, sand bags, poly plastic sheeting and/or filter fabric are required to be onsite.

iii exposed soils must be seeded immediately after disturbance. Soil surfaces to be treated

should be roughened.iv temporary fills or soil stockpiles are to be covered with polyethylene or tarps.

3. Demarcation of SPEAs

The SPEAs, as established in the Riparian Assessment Report No. 767, shall be clearly marked with

permanent postings to the satisfaction of the Regional District ofNanaimo.

3. Future Development

a. This development permit allows the development of the subdivision of the parent parcel as shown

on Schedule No. `2' only and not any other development or construction on the proposed parcels.

b. No storm drainage works or construction of driveways shall be contained within or directed to the

riparian areas as established in the Riparian Areas Report No. 767 as set out in Schedule No. 3.

Development Permit No. 60812

Request for Relaxation ofMinimum 10% Frontage Requirement

March 26, 2008Page 6

Schedule No. 2

Development Permit No. 60812

Proposed Plan of Subdivision

(As Submitted by Applicant)

i`fxY

!Y rI py yu

` r i9 Ar ^ y

r?Ir

eye i ^^,

rr r^^ ^F ^r y ^ y,

r^ ^ Irr '8

ll !7^u

r ^a r.,

rar

aro

W-

'ry

^^ N 3V 'A

w •+

}

Development Permit No, 60812

Request for Relaxation ofMinimum 10% Frontage RequirementMarch 26, 2008

Page 7

Attachment No. 2

Location of Subject Property

I / / I P_NI FD13 AS.L

^j 3 r ~

•^\ \ INDIAN JRESERVE No3

o zswrs,oa 2e© aoo aooele^ aµ23ae

P33 AiP SUBJECT PROPERTYL

Z Remainder Lot 1, Plan 20029Sec 18 , R 7, Cranberry LD

9ffi05

P,J

sua aia

wYr»3

^ReMh tR

see+]

. WM R

132 34

P=- ] 45 ^ GRORlye u ^,^PO31nWM1+^

37 emu, ^0 t 1

IB 6 ^ 5^7R ^^ ^ 71 ` !

^ {y fL+N !3 ^ AH5 ^

3c t1!'97s99 1n

j••,^ 'Lmfi

4 `Pp 16`e

M1\3i a 3 ar gc:exi

f O+ST.^

wasslao _ o.^s 1

P^3 r .q^ _/ Mp x

11 l• '1^N0 \[ p

[.R.2 0 l-q7

R,ses o .s.^ 1 ^

g 120.5,

n 5 ^^ 1

SSBB^ 3

FLnY67Bt/-a.a

4¢^J

FfM LOT: im ^^r ^^•

SEC. 3 \ _ ^•.

4y b •,

Mv MHFIoICC I: ydVVl 1,

EAP

coca

REGIONAL MAR 2 8 2008

DISTRICT RHD^^r1 OF NANAIMO BOARD

TO: Geoff Garbutt DATE:Manager of Current Planning

FROM: Kristy Marks FILE:Planner

SUBJECT: Development Permit Application No. 60815 -- Henn

Lot 1, District Lot 36, Newcastle District, Plan 27764

Electoral Area 'H ' - 4307 Eva Road

PURPOSE

MEMORANDUM

March 28, 2008

3060 30 60815

To consider an application for a Development Permit to allow the construction of a dwelling unit andrecognize the siting of an existing two-storey garage on a property located at 4307 Eva Road.

BACKGROUND

This is an application to permit the construction of a dwelling unit and recognize the siting of an existing

garage on a property located in Electoral Area 'H' (see subject property map - Attachment 1). The subject

property is a sloping lot approximately 0.09 hectares in size, bounded by developed residential lots to the

northeast and southeast, Eva Road to the southwest and commercial property to the northwest. A small

ditch runs along the north western property boundary that is culverted through the most of the property.

This ditch does not meet the definition of a `watercourse' and therefore watercourse setbacks outlined in

Bylaw No. 500 do not apply. It has been determined through consultation with the Ministry of

Environment staff that the ditch would also be exempt from the requirements of the Riparian Areas

Regulation.

The subject property is zoned Residential 2 (RS2), pursuant to "Regional District of Nanaimo Land Useand Subdivision Bylaw No. 500, 1987." Pursuant to "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area `H'Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1335", the subject property is within the Natural Hazards,Environmentally Sensitive Features, for Aquifer Protection, Fish Habitat Protection, and Village CentresDevelopment Permit Areas (DPA). This application is exempt from the Environmentally SensitiveFeatures and Village Centres DPA's as the proposal is for a dwelling unit and accessory buildings. Asdiscussed above, the application is also exempt from the Fish Habitat Protection DPA. The applicant hascompleted the Sustainable Community Builder checklist as per Board policy.

The subject property is not within a Regional District of Nanaimo Building Inspection Area. BylawEnforcement became aware of the existing buildings after receiving a complaint that buildings had beenconstructed without the necessary development permit. On March 14, 2008, the applicants submitted anapplication to obtain a development permit. The property currently contains a two-storey garage and astorage shed which is approximately 10m2. The storage shed is currently located within the front lot linesetback however, the applicants have indicated that the storage shed is not on a foundation and will bemoved to meet the required setbacks. The applicants have also indicated that they plan to add a flight of

stairs to the garage in order to access the second storey. As a result, the Planning Department isrecommending the applicant be required to provide a building location certificate and height survey uponcompletion of construction.

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 2

ALTERNATIVES

To approve the Development Permit No. 60815 subject to the conditions outlined on SchedulesNo. 1-3.

2. To deny Development Permit No. 60815 as submitted.

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS

As outlined above, the applicants are proposing to construct a dwelling unit and are requesting

recognition of an existing garage at 4307 Eva Road. The location of the proposed dwelling unit and

existing garage are outlined on Schedule No. 2. The location of the storage shed has not been provided

on the survey however the applicant has indicated the shed will be moved and located immediately west

of the garage, within the required setbacks.

In keeping with the Natural Hazards DPA guidelines, the applicants have submitted a geotechnical reportprepared by Ground Control Geotechnical Engineering Ltd., dated January 22, 2008, which addressesboth the proposed dwelling and the existing garage (Schedule No. 3). This report states that the proposeddevelopment is considered safe and suitable for the use intended. As per board policy, staff recommendsthat the applicant be required to register a section 219 covenant that registers the Geotechnical Reportprepared by Ground Control Geotechnical Engineering Ltd., and includes a save harmless clause thatreleases the Regional District of Nanaimo from all losses and damages as a result of erosion and/orlandslide.

VOTING

Electoral Area Directors - on vote, except Electoral Area `B'.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS

This is an application for a Development Permit to permit the construction of a dwelling unit andrecognize the siting of an existing garage on a property located at 4307 Eva Road in Electoral Area 'H'.Given that the applicants are willing to relocate the storage shed within the required setbacks and haveprovided a Geotechnical Hazards Assessment, this application is consistent with the "Electoral Area `H'Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1335, 2003" guidelines for the Natural Hazards DevelopmentPermit Area. Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined inSchedules No.1-3.

RECOMMENDATION

That Development Permit Application No. 60815, to construct a dwelling unit and recognize the siting ofan existing garage within the Natural Hazards Development Permit rea pur ctoral Area `H'Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1335, 2003" for the prope Mes d Lot District Lot36, Newcastle District, Plan 27764 be approved subject to the condi o in S hedul s No. 1-3.

General

CAO Concurrence

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 3

Schedule No. ITerms of Development Permit No. 60815

Conditions ofApproval

1. The dwelling unit and attached garage shall be sited in accordance with the site survey preparedby Peter T. Mason, BCLS dated February 18, 2008 attached as Schedule No. 2.

2. Existing garage structure will be attached to proposed dwelling unit through a physical

connection which consists of habitable space which is fully enclosed and heated and constructedin accordance with the BC Building Code.

3. The existing storage shed shall be relocated to meet the required setbacks.

4. The dwelling unit shall be constructed in accordance with the Geotechnical Hazards Assessmentprepared by Ground Control Geotechnical Engineering Ltd. dated January 22, 2008, attached asSchedule No.3.

5. Staff shall withhold the issuance of this permit until the applicant, at the applicant's expense,

registers a section 219 covenant that registers the Geotechnical Hazards Assessment prepared byGround Control Geotechnical Engineering Ltd. dated January 22, 2008 and includes a save

harmless clause that releases the Regional District of Nanaimo from all losses and damages as aresult of erosion and/or landslide.

6. The applicant is required to provide a building location certificate and confirmation of heightprepared by a British Columbia Land Surveyor upon completion of construction.

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 4

Schedule No. 2Site Plan

PLAN SURVEY OF LOT O . L . 36.NEWCASTLE DISTRICT. PLAN 27764ALL f7'15TAW- S AM- IN 7+F^-177 ` ..

II 2.9 S Sv 3T,5 ft

EVATrrr s arm ;fH rer * AOU »r

A 4$S 4'€O Dda ra.^t

E 6/S DENOTES £XIET M GAPA '1STLJt1 O-ga PLAN

LOT C'.6 A#6E - 20 PERCENT

LOT 0G'.9-4 41

gy,PLAN

LOT B be'.- LOT CVIP54 13 00. 5 + too. C, " . ,

jc.Tr .:'LAN acv. 23542

00. 7

201-9q, 69 7r,100-6

^r +

J00. I61 -e;

c^. .^• $s ^ .:^ sax o`s

,'pR

'^ mss, lot. J0

- tnt g10,7.0

.sops 27764

rva4 oar

LOT 2

Imw Fosr 102. .I

PerrA r.Calms #.AMJ S YEYOR

SRrr..M COLt is 2, S E'YZ

$*I SITE 499 {Op -+

$ 0. C.

V00 $00

7EC: DJ M7-87"

FJ3,E: 5-3474 Fib \m' \34YS. r

P4 'PAWO SY %xT8 T. Ft4SM B .C.L.L:

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 5

Schedule No. 3

Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 1 of 9)

276; Lana nod, N niv s Say. CSCPont {2$O) 45&-1759

F;W, L-OH-001

January 22,

Eric Henn3105 Tiflicu€n RoadVictoria, B.C.V9A 2 Ba

Suvum,T; t TF-cwcAL HA tD$, tP T

PAC; PROPOSED HOUSE AND EX1sTEi GE-

C ATtor . 4307 fYk ROAD, & , MC.

Dear Mr. Henn:

t. Introduction

a. As requested, Ground Gon"I Gaotech nical Engineering Ltd. (Ground Control) has

carried out a G olect l Hazards Assessment of t above site, This report provides

a summary of our €fndings and recommendations.

2, Background

a. T'hi& site is a single-family r :ssdential tot, Currently, a t ro-storey garage building is

u r construction on the south portion of the prop y- The clients indicate that in the

fut€ a house wif1 be constructed wiftr the cep portion of the lot. It is understood

that off buiIdinga constructed at this she MR be low-,rise single-faml residential stye

buildings of wood frame co truction supported on standard concrete founds.

b. The subject lot is located within a 'Hazardous Lard Development Permit Area', as

designated by the Regional District of Nanaimo, therefore the clients have requested the

completion of this Geotechnical Hazards Assessment, which is required as part of the

RUNS permit application process.

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 6

Schedule No. 3Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 2 of 9)

t ' .nical Wizards AssessmentFile: LOH-001J + 22, 2008Page 2 af9

3. A scent Objectives

a. Our assessment, as xrrnadzed within this report, is intended to meet t e fo owing

objectives:

i. Determine whether the land is g technically We and suitable for the intended

purpose (single-family residence and garage), yr re `^' damned a probabi ty

of a techniea# failure or another substantial geotechrxical hazard resulfing in

I perty damage of lest t€ 10 percent in 50 years.

ii. Identify any t hni l deficiency that might intact the design and consi°urtion of

the deve amens, and prescribe the g ech0cal works and any changes in the

standards of the doOgn and con r ion of the development that are required to

ensure the land. buildings, and Works and Mces are developed and maintained

safely for the use handed; and

iii. Acknowledge that Approving Officers. may rely on t Report when mall a decision

on appl at ts: for the so vision or development of the land,

4. Assessment Methodology

e. A silo r nnai nce was carried out on January 8, 2006 by Richard McKinley, P.Eng

b. The site and surrounding lands were observed, and site conditions and apparent

geotee oal hazards were r f,

^' 7 r 1

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 7

Schedule No. 3

Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 3 of 9)

Geotechn f Hazards AssessmentFile; LDH J!1JanuSry 22, 2008Page 3 of

5. She l cons

^. The subjei:l lot is located north of Eva Road within an existing r iderstisi r' gh hood.

P to the immediately to the north, northwest, and west are developed with

residential hrusA^%. The property to the vet is developed with rrti- rman t

r nc es (# R tram. cabins etc,,) The property to the immediate south is not

developed, but Properties f firer to the nth have homes on them.

b. The photographs blow vide °i overview of site conditions. The upper photo m a

panorami looking east to south from the NW corer of the Property. The lower Photo is

a panda lookir north to east from adjacert land beyond the t end of Eva Road.

fl.UMMEM

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 8

Schedule No. 3Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 4 of 9)

Geotechril Hazards Asses entFite: 10li- YBJanuary 22, 2008fa*gs4c€9

c. A "I seasonal creek runs through the property from south to r h, along the west

edge of the property. The rei* guns in r chanr on adjacent land sow of the

site, but is collected at the prt"rty fine and cases the property in an underground

pipe, with the exception of a short :e ion € F open channel in the NW =nor of the

property (shown in the upper phis on the previous pap). The clients repo rt ft-rat this

creek only runs in. the wet season, and dde3 up in the surtme , They report that %oding

has not been an issue Within their mar 3030-year association with the locel area.

d. The she topography is gently eloping downwards to the north eta gradient of RbOIA 10

degrees, A small e t is present Wong the north end of the property (see Upper

photo, previous page),

e. aFtow exca tioris made on the site Indicate that surficial soils consist generaNy of

compact to dense stay sand with gravel, Based an our experience with the k=l

gep y, there is no expectation that week or unstable sus are pre$" at t*pth.

S. CoWustons & ec glens

6.1.. General

a From a gec a lcat per ctive and under the c dftns outlined situ this report the

proposed development is considered safe and suitable for the intended use.

b. Detailed recommendations regarding potential mat nic&t hazard issues are provided

bps,

it-ROUS t6I3t.

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 9

Schedule No. 3Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 5 of 9)

+ hoicel Hazards AssessmentR : LDH-001January 2, 20€08P 5of9

6_Z Flooding Hazards

a. The only pot tial sigrrficant source of overland flooding associated with this site is the

small seasonal creek erring the vmst sue: of the property. The cmark is fully c to ted

within a pipe where it passes site build, so there ss littte risk that the creek v

overflow or change course within the property. However, should creek f€ow5 ever

exceed the Wake capacity of the pipe (e.g. during an extreme extended pour), or

should the entrance to the pipe ever become obstructed, then some all of the creek

flow could fa € to enter the drain pipe and would instead find an a ernate aver-hand route

across the property. The risk of such an event rao«rrr€n9 appears to be low, but cannot

be completely cf*counted, th re, recommendations are provided below to key

birth s safe from runt loves,

b, Establishment of a miss safe e€evation for flood protection would normally based

on an assessm of the statistical I in 200 year flood event, however, to our

knowledge, Mere is no flood mapping or study -rforniation available for the small creek

at this location- In lieu of this, our recommendations are trued on field observations of

the ex sting site co diti s.

c. Since the site and surrounding land is a plain sloping gently down t d& the north, any

creek overflow floodwaters expe cted to drain readily of -silo to the north, (shAar to

the way water rs off a sloping roof). Consequently, deep bti€d of water on the

surface of the site will not be a con ern, such, fioo g wokAd be limited to shallow

sheet flows naming across the surface of the ground

d. Appropriate site grading should be used to direct swface flows away trait buildings,

thereby keeping buildings safe from surface-water flooding risks, In particular, the area

a€ong the existing drain pipe aliment should be sw d to ate a wide overflow path

to co in any overland overflows, originating the pipe inlet, and contain and &annei

such nvs back into the creek charm at the n wrest comer (rear left comer) of the

prop".

..h ItiR E tI 5L NOLERM M.

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 10

Schedule No. 3

Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 6 of 9)

Geotechrioal Hazards sessmentFie: LOWONJanuary 2z, 2tPage 6 of 9

a. Around buildings, we recommend that. the ground surfa be sloped to provide a

minimom 10% surface gradient may from f ndat s fora minimum distance of 3

metres In al l directions, Note that a, is not intended that the above requirement should

Omit tsar dose the house and garage c be built to one another, and it is acceptable

that the above requirement be implemented considering the house, the gar-age, and the

rrow area of ground between there be considered as a unit for surface grading

purposes- The area between the buildings should be gently swated or sloped to

direct water away from the b die gs and out to the side yards or to a suitable drain

Site grading utd be comp d so as to direct any potential surface flows around and

well away from builriings-

g. We note that the propWs driveway slopes towards the building ratter than away as

recommended above, Eva Road Is at a higher elevation than the garage entrance.

For the c y, It will be acceptable to cross slope the driveway at a minimum 5%

gradient to shed swface water to either side (Le, to the east and rest), and then slope

the ground surface on either side of the driveway to move surface Water o and around

the building. The goal is to prevent surface waters ftwing corn the driveway and into

the gage,

h_ We recommend that the top of an concrete foundation walls is at least 1 50 mm (6")

above the i acent ground sus se.. This good general construction practice, and is

not a specie0 rqrement related only to this site.

3. Slopes

a. No geotechnically significant slopes were observed on or near the she. As such, no

special requirements ere neOesary in this regard.

Ca'slaq Camatt 3 l 3 M.

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page I 1

Schedule No. 3Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 7 of 9)

Geotechrtca Hazards AssessmentFUe: LDh+OO1January 22, 2008Page 7 of 9

6.4. Bulkling Support

a. The site is zed to be su atde for the support of r iden#ial Structure$ on standard

spreadistrip fors at a ing the requirements of the BC u€idng Code. The expected

presence of sand and gravel soils ac~ross the site should provide a raft e y high bearing

capacity; in excess of that normally required for Super of residential foundation toads.

No indications of unsuitable soils, other than surface topsail, were observed within

expected development arras.

b. B ritg tonddions can more ready observed at the time of f dabon excavation,

when the soft It be fully exposed. Searkig soils rou3t be dense and unyie ng, if

ur pec candit€o or questionable soils are encountered (e.g. is that are soft,

loose, organic, or compressible) a otechni l engineer should be retained to assess

conditions and advise on wee a4 measures.

6.6, Building Drainage

a. No unusual groundwater conditions haw been identified that might require unusual

permanent drainage previsions. Provi site surface drainage requirements provided

earlier in this report are followed, conventional requirements of the B.C. Building Code

pertaining to bu ling drainage are considered suitable at this site,

b. B€ ding drainage requirements as outlined by the B.C. Building Code typic4illy include

damp-proofing of foundation walls . insta on of a standard footing -level perimeter

drainage pipe m, min rock burial of the perf ed piping , roof drainage connected

to a separate drainage system constructed from solid piping , and a provision, for €gravi

drainage of al l cols od waters to a suitable discharge point dorvm4ope and away from

the Wilding. We understand that the likely discharge point for use on this site WHI be the

Lek channel in the northwest confer of the property, and this Is cons ed acceptable.

gay

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 12

Schedule No. 3Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 8 of 9)

Geotechni i H rds AssessmentFile. LD*-W1January a 2008Page 8of9

7.. At knowwlod"m

a. Ground Oortrol Oeotec Scat .Engineering Ltd., aeknvMedgft that this report may be

requested by Approving 'is and kto Inspeotm as a p ec d Ian to the

issuance of a da Iopment and/or ldiop permit and that this report, or any conditions

corned this rte, may be induced In a revActive covenant Mod against the le to

the stoect property , It is acknowledged that the A virr Officem and Building

fiats may rely this Wort when maW a decision on application for the

sobdi or development of the ice.

b, We acknoMedge that the report ties been prepared solely , and at the ee of,

the owner of the sub^ed. Imid.

S Limitations

a. The oonc€ ions and recommendations submitted Jr. this reps are based upon the data

o ained from surface observations of the site. Although not expected, should

discovered c ditto s become apparent later (a.g_ during excavation for constr€ tion)

out office should be contacted Immediately to allow real s ent of the

recommendati" primed,

b. The current scope of investigation was sew;t to prWde an assert of obvious

g eotethnical hazards. If ste ok6rs in these matters desire a greater degree of

c aiinty, atidlio l detailed vesttg t can be ca rried out

C. Our recommendations apply to the specflc proposed structure and building location

described in Sec on 2. Other serer or hors may have unique r quints and

so our recon mendations shoudd :not be ide da ble to o r iocationsor other

developments, oven within the some pr rty.

41T3.

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 13

Schedule No. 3

Geotechnical Hazards Assessment

(Page 9 of 9)

Geotechnical Hazards Assessmentrffe; LDH-401J.anu r 22, 2OWPage 9 of 19

90 Closure

a_ Ground Control Geotethnical Engineering Ltd, appreciates the o€tuntv to be of

service on this project. If you have any comments, or addlt sal r t rem fits at this

time, p{ease contact us at your cawe ncew

RespectfuLIy Subm tt dGround Cor4rof Geoteehn cat Engin ing Ltd.

y n 5fi

Richard McKinley, P. Eng.Geotechnical Engineer

^._"011001EMOUM

Development Permit No. 60815March 28, 2008

Page 14

Attachment No. 1

Subject Property

GEORGLA

SUBJECT PROPERTYLot 1, Plan

DL 36, Nwmastle LD4307 ERoad

n e3

F ^n

0 15V//A\z

1'I

N V 25 W F 0

EAP

REGIONALcow I`

DISTRICT MAR 2 8 2008

Ares OF NANAIMO RHDBOARD

TO: Paul Thompson

Manager of Long Range Planning

FROM: Greg KellerSenior Planner

MEMORANDUM

ATE: March 25, 2008

FILE : 6480 01 EAG

SUBJECT : Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan - Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

PURPOSE

To receive the Report of the Public Hearing containing the Summary of the Minutes and Submissions ofthe Public Hearing held March 18, 2008 on "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'G' OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008", and further, to consider Bylaw No. 1540 for 3rd reading.

BACKGROUND

The Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan (OCP) review process has been underway since April2006. Recent actions on this planning project include the following:

I" and 2nd Reacting

The Regional Board granted l" and 2°d reading to "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'G'Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008" at its regular meeting held on January 22, 2008,

Open House

As directed by the Board an additional opportunity for public input was provided. An open house washeld from 2:00 --- 7:00 pm on March 3, 2008 at the St. Columba Presbyterian Church Hall located at 921Wembley Road. Approximately 60 people attended the open house. Overall discussions were of a positivenature. Comments received at the Open House were available at the Public Hearing.

Bylaw Referrals

The Bylaw was referred to the Town of Qualicum Beach, City of Parksville, Ministry of Transportation,

Ministry of Environment, Integrated Land Management Bureau, Agriculture Land Commission, Fisheries

and Oceans Canada, Vancouver Island Health Authority, School District No. 69, Ministry of Community

Services, Qualicum First Nation, Nanoose First Nation, Ministry of Forests & Range, Ministry of Energy,

Mines, and Petroleum Resources, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ministry of Agriculture, EPCOR, and theLittle Qualicuni Waterworks District. A summary of the agency referral comments was available at the

Public Hearing and is included as part of the written submissions and comments included in Appendix A.

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 2

Public Hearing

A public hearing was held pursuant to the Local Government Act on March 18, 2008 with approximately40 persons in attendance (see Attachment No. 1 for the Report ofthe Public Hearing andpublic commentsreceived on the Bylaw).

ALTERNATIVES

1. To receive the Report of the Public Hearing, grant 3`d reading to Bylaw No. 1540, 2008 and to referthe Bylaw to the Ministry of Community Services for consideration of approval.

2. TO receive the Report of the Public Hearing on Bylaw No. 1540, 2008 and to grant 3'd reading ofBylaw No. 1540, 2008 with amendments outlined in Schedule No. 1 and to refer the Bylaw to theMinistry of Community Services for consideration of approval.

3. To receive the Report of the Public Hearing on Bylaw No. 1540, 2008 and not grant 31 reading andprovide staff with further direction.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION IMPLICATIONS

The Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008 is the result of a two-year-longplanning process involving public consultation with residents, property owners, stakeholders, municipal,provincial, and federal agencies. Throughout this process, community preferences and values wereidentified, clarified, and verified to ensure the Plan is not only reflective of community values; it alsoaddresses the objectives and goals of the Regional Growth Strategy and the applicable governmentagencies.

A Report of the Public Hearing is included as Attachment No. 1. Staff are proposing a number of minoramendments to the OCP in response to comments received at the open house, the public hearing and fromagency and community feedback. The proposed changes are outlined in Schedule No. 1. Theseamendments are considered to be technical or minor in nature, do not affect the use or density, and areconsistent with the overall direction of the OCP.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Should the Regional Board grant 3`1 reading to the "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'G'Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008", the Bylaw will be referred to the Ministry ofCommunity Services for consideration of approval. In consideration of its approval, the Ministry will takeinto account the comments of the agencies to which the Bylaw has been referred. Comments werereceived from the Agricultural Land Commission, City of Parksville, Town of Qualicum Beach, the LittleQualicum Waterworks District, Ministry of Community Services, Ministry of Transportation, andFisheries and Oceans Canada. These referral response letters were available at the Public Hearing and areincluded in Appendix 'A'.

Following 3`( reading and the Minister's approval, the Board may consider the Bylaw for adoption.

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 3

FINANCIAL / LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Pursuant to the Local Government Act, the Official Community Plan has been considered in conjunctionwith the Regional District's capital expenditure program as well as its Liquid Waste Management Plan.

VOTING

Electoral Area Directors - one vote, except Electoral Area'B'.

SUMMARY

The Regional Board gave 1 and 2' reading to "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'G' OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw No . 1540, 2008" during its regular Board meeting held on January 22, 2008. Inaccordance with the Local Government Act, the Agricultural Land Commission has been provided aformal opportunity to consider the Bylaw prior to the Public Hearing . In addition , formal referrals weresent to applicable provincial and federal agencies with interests in the Plan Area . In response to commentsreceived from the agency referrals and other community and staffinput , some minor changes (outlined inSchedule No. 1) to the Bylaw are recommended.

A Public Hearing was held on March 18 , 2008 with approximately 40 residents in attendance. TheSummary of Minutes and written submissions to this public hearing are attached for the Board'sconsideration.

"Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008" hasfulfilled all requirements of the Local Government Act and may now be considered for 3 `d reading.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Report of the Public Hearing containing the Summary of Minutes and Submissions of thePublic Hearing held Tuesday, March 18, 2008, together with all written submissions to the PublicHearing on "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No.1540, 2008" be received.

2. That "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540,2008" be granted 3`d reading with amendments as recommended in Schedule No. I of the staff report.

3. That the "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540,2008" be forwarded to the Ministry of Community Services for considejJ@pnV7fiWroval.

COMMENTS:

CAO Concu eManager Concurrc

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 4

Schedule No. 1Electoral Area G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

Summary of the proposed changes to be considered by the Board at 3d reading

Section Location/Objective/Polic Existing Wording Proposed Wordin g23 Title of section Environmentally Sensitive Environmentally Sensitive

Features Ecosystems

2.1 Bottom of Paragraph 1 or habitats that have been are worthy ofa higher level ofidentified as being vulnerable and protection as a result ofworthy of a higher level of vulnerability, or particular value inprotection. maintaining essential ecosystem

function as well as a high

abundance and/or wide range oflocal biodiversity, including red and

blue listed and migratory species.

2.1 Objective 2 Ensure that site specific Ensure that site specific evaluationsevaluations of properties with of properties with environmentallyenvironmentally sensitive features sensitive features are reviewedthrough the development through the development applicationapplication process and encourage process and encourage evaluations toevaluations to occur prior to land occur prior to land alteration.alteration.

2.1 Objective 5 Strongly encourage innovative Strongly encourage innovativeapproaches for environmental approaches for environmentalprotection protection and mitigation.

2.1 Policy 2 Designate Development Permit Designate Development PermitAreas in Section 10 (Development Areas in Section 10 (DevelopmentPermit Areas) of this Plan to Permit Areas) of this Plan to protectprotect the following sensitive the following sensitive ecosystemecosystem types: Riparian types: Riparian Vegetation, Wetland,Vegetation, Wetland, Sparsely Sparsely Vegetated, and OlderVegetated, and Older Forest as Forest as defined in the ESA Atlasdefined in the ESA Atlas (Linkages between these ESAs are

also important and are addressed inSection 2.4 - Greenways).

2.2 Bottom of paragraph 4 This Plan shall provide a level of Delete sentence and add theprotection that meets the following as Objective 5:requirements of the RAR.

To support a level of protection thatmeets the requirements of the RARwhile also protecting the features,functions, and conditions thatsupport the life processes ofamphibious and terrestrial riparian-dependant species.

2.3 Objective 2 Discourage development which Ensure development will not

Electoral Area 'G' Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 5

Section Location/Ob i ective/Polic Existing Wording Proposed Wordin

would alienate the foreshore from alienate the foreshore from publicpublic access or impact on the access or impact on the naturalnatural environment, environment.

2.3 Policy 8 All proposals on lands adjacent to All proposals on lands adjacent tothe Parksville Qualicum Beach the PQB WMA that involvethat involve encroachment or encroachment or trespass in to thetrespass in to the Crown foreshore Crown foreshore including the use ofincluding the use of machinery machinery below the naturalbelow the natural boundary must boundary, must be referred tobe referred to the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment for comments and/or (DFO) and the Ministry ofapproval. Environment for comments and/or

approval.

2.4 l s` Paragraph These green space networks are These green space networks are2"d Sentence critical to maintain functioning critical to maintain functioning

ecological processes and may also ecological processes , including theprovide an opportunity for passive movement of organisms betweenrecreational uses, ecosystems, and may also provide an

opportunity for passive recreationaluses,

2.4 Policy 2 The following is proposed to beadded as 2(d).

Parcels that, if fully or partiallyprotected, provide linkages betweenidentified ESAs.

2.5 Objective 2 Enforce mitigation measures Enforce mitigation measures whichwhich are compatible with the are compatible with the needs ofneeds of local residents and are local residents, are sensitive to thesensitive to the environment, environment, and are consistent

with current standards established

by a qualified professional.

16 Policy 8 This Plan supports a feasibility This Plan supports a feasibility studystudy looking at the possibility of looking at the possibility of thethe formation of a joint drinking formation of a joint drinking waterwater management and purveyor management and purveyor functionfunction between the Regional between the Regional District ofDistrict of Nanaimo, The City of Nanaimo, The City of Parksville, theParksville, the Town of Qualicum Town of Qualicum Beach, the LittleBeach, the Little Qualicum Qualicum Waterworks District, theWaterworks District, and private Arrowsmith Water Service, andwater service providers to manage private water service providers toand purvey drinking water within manage and purvey drinking waterthe Plan Area, the Town of within the Plan Area, the Town ofQualicum Beach, and Ci of Qualicum Beach, and City of

Electoral Area 'G' Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 6

Section Location/Obiective/Polic Existing Wording Proposed WordingParksville in order to standardize Parksville in order to standardize thethe level of service and manage level of service and manage drinkingdrinking water at a water at a watershed/subregionalwatershed/subregional scale. scale.

2.6 Policy 9 Encourage the use of xeriscaping, Encourage the use of xeriscaping,low flow plumbing fixtures, low flow plumbing fixtures, micro-micro-irrigation and other irrigation and other innovative waterinnovative water conservation conservation technologies in alltechnologies in all proposed existing and proposed development.development applications.

2.6 10 Policy All development applications All development applications mustmust minimize impervious minimize impervious surfaces andsurfaces in order to maximize should consider both natural andgroundwater recharge while man-made systems to maximizeensuring that ground water groundwater recharge while ensuring

resources are protected from that ground water resources arepotential deleterious substances. protected from potential deleterious

substances.

2.8 Policy 1 The Regional District of Nanaimo Delete as the building code requiresshall consider amendments to its the installation of low flow toilets inbuilding bylaws to require the new construction,installation of low flow toilets andother fixtures in new construction.

2.8 Policy 7 Higher density development shall Higher density development shall bebe concentrated in nodal centres concentrated in the Wembley

within the Urban Containment Neighbourhood Centre, the FrenchBoundary in accordance with Creek Mixed Use Area, and withinSection 3.1 of this Plan. the Urban Containment Boundary

in accordance with Section 3.1 ofthis Plan.

3.2 Secondary Suites Policy Insert the following as a new policy:

Policy No. 5 above shall not beconsidered for implementation untilthe Board has conducted an ElectoralArea wide review of secondarysuites.

3.2 Insert the following in Policy The Regional District of Nanaimo5. does not support the subdivision of

secondary suites pursuant to theStrata Property Act

4.1 Objective I Recognize the Wembley Recognize the WembleyNeighbourhood Centre as afuture Nei hbourhood Centre as a nodal

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 7

Section Location/Ob"ectivefPolic Existin Wordin Pro osed Wordinnodal development area and development area and provide forprovide for the changing housing the changing housing and localand local commercial needs of the commercial needs of the population,population.

4.1 Policy 4 All land within the Wembley Delete - repetition.Neighbourhood Centre shown onMap No. 3 (Land UseDesignations) is designated

'Wembley Neighbourhood Centre'as described in the policies below.

4.1 Policy 18 In reviewing applications for Delete this policy as it is repeated inrezoning to permit commercial policy 10.uses as described above, theRegional District of Nanaimoshall consider the provision ofcommunity amenities as outlinedin Section 11 of this Plan.

4.2 Objective I Recognize the French Creek Recognize the French Creek MixedMixed Use area as a future nodal Use area as afuture commercial)development area and provide residential development area andopportunities for a mixed provide opportunities for a mixedcommercial - residential use commercial - residential usedevelopment. development.

4.2 Policy 1(a) This Plan would not support a Delete this policy as the trafficrezoning unless the Applicant and signal is currently underthe Ministry agree to install a construction,traffic light or other viablealternative at Lee Road. The roadimprovement may be consideredas a community amenity as itwould provide a benefit to thecommunity.

4.2 Policy I (d) Permanent protection to both Permanent protection of landFrench and Morningstar Creeks adjacent to both French andshall be required the width and Morningstar Creeks shall becharacteristics of which must be in required, the width andaccordance with the characteristics of which must be inrecommendations of a Qualified accordance with theEnvironmental Professional. recommendations of a Qualified

Environmental Professional to thesatisfaction ofthe Regional DistrictofNanaimo.

4.2 New Policy The following is proposed as policy

l(0

Electoral Area `G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 8

Section Location/Ob'ectivefPolic Existing Wording Proposed Wording

The proposal must satisfy therequirements of Section 2-Protecting the Natural Environmentof this plan to the satisfaction of theRegional District of Nanaimo.

4,2 Policy 7 The Regional District of Nanaimo The community supports the transfermay consider transferring of residential density from the Westresidential density from the West side of French Creek to the East sideside of French Creek to the East of French Creek in order to obtainside of French Creek in order to additional permanent protection ofobtain additional permanent the French Creek Estuary andprotection of French Creek and associated estuarine lands located onthe French Creek estuary on the the west side of French Creek. Theproperty at the corner of Highway additional permanent protection may19A and Columbia Drive. be achieved in a variety of ways, but

should generally include a reductionof the footprint of the development.The remaining development on thewest side of French Creek shouldgenerally be located towards thewest side of the subject property.

5.1 New Policy The following is proposed as policy

27:

For any of the uses listed in policy26 above, the preferred option is toconsider them for a Temporary UsePermit prior to considering them fora rezoning in accordance withSections 8.3 and 8.7.

5.2 New policy The following is proposed as policy4:

Permitted uses shall be compatibleresource uses, rural uses, and usesaccessory to rural resource uses.

5.2 New policy The following is proposed as policy6:

For any of the uses listed in policy 5above, the preferred option is toconsider them for a Temporary UsePermit prior to considering them fora rezoning in accordance withSections 8.3 and 8.7.

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 9

Section Location/Objective/Polic y Existin g Wording Proposed Wording6.1 Insert the following as a new All trails proposed on lands located

policy, within the Agricultural LandReserve shall require approval fromthe Agricultural Land Commissionand should be developed and used inaccordance with the Ministry ofa*griculture's publication titled "AGuide to Using and DevelopingTrails in Farm and Ranch Areas".

6.4 Policy 2(a) the land improves access to the land improves access to waterwaterfront lands, including the including the ocean and any otherocean and any other watercourse watercourse

8.1 Insert the following as a new The design and layout of subdivisionpolicy on lands adjacent to the Agricultural

Land Reserve should consider thecurrent edition of the Ministry ofa*griculture's publication titled"Guide to Edge Planning -

Promoting Compatibility AlongUrban-Agricultural Edges °.

8.1 Insert the following as a new The Regional District of Nanaimopolicy may consider the formation of an

Agricultural Advisory Committee.

83 6 Policy The Regional District of Nanaimo The Regional District of Nanaimomay consider applications to may consider applications to rezonerezone existing gravel pits to existing gravel pits without anallow primary processing and amendment to this Plan to allowrelated activities associated with primary processing and relatedgravel extraction within the activities associated with gravel'Rural' or Rural Resource' land extraction within the 'Rural' oruse designation as shown of Map 'Rural Resource' land useNo. 3 - Land Use Designations of designation as shown of Map No. 3this Plan provided that: - Land Use Designations of this

Plan provided that:

8.7 4 Policy - last sentence Notwithstanding any other policy Notwithstanding any other policy inin this Plan, should a temporary this Plan, should a temporary useuse permitted in accordance with permitted in accordance with policypolicy No. 1 above prove No. I above prove satisfactory uponsatisfactory upon completion of completion of the terms of thethe terms of the permit, the permit, the Regional District ofRegional District ofNanaimo, at Nanaimo, at the applicant's request,the applicant's request, may may consider rezoning to permit theconsider rezoning to permit the continued use of the subjectcontinued use of the subject property for that use without anproperty for that use. Please note amendment to this Plan .

Electoral Area 'G` Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 10

Section Location/C}b'ective/Polic Existin Wording Proposed Wordingthat an amendment to this Planand the Regional Growth Strategymay be required.

9.1 Policy 11 This Plan supports the proposed This Plan supports the proposedChurch Road to Stanhope Road Church Road to Stanhope Roadconnector as a potential truck connector as a potential truck route.route. It should be noted that approval

from the Agricultural LandCommission shall be requiredprior to construction.

10.1 Insert the following as policy 8:

Permanent fencing and/or otherapproved means of clearly

delineating the SPEA boundary mustbe installed to the satisfaction of theRegional District of Nanaimo priorto land alteration and in the case ofsubdivision prior to the RegionalDistrict of Nanaimo notifying theprovincial Subdivision ApprovingOfficer that the conditions of theDevelopment Permit have been met.Fencing must be designed to allowfor the free and uninterruptedmovement of organisms betweenriparian and upland ecosystems andmust be maintained in good order.

10.1 Insert the following as policy 9:

A sign identifying the StreamsideProtection and Enhancement Areaapproved by the Regional District ofNanaimo must be permanentlyinstalled in a clearly visible locationon the fence a minimum of every 10metres and at least one sign must beinstalled on each proposed lotadjacent to the SPEA,

10.6 Policy 23(f) to reduce the amount of pervious to reduce the amount of impervioussurfaces on the site; surfaces on the site;

10.6 Policy 33 The Regional District of Nanaimo The Regional District of Nanaimoshall require the applicant to shall require the applicant to submitsubmit a landscaping and security a landscaping and security depositdeposit equal to the total equal to the total estimated costs of

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 11

Section icy - Existing Wording Propos Wordingestimated costs of all materials all materials and labour asand labour as determined by a determined by a Landscapelandscape Architect or other Architect or other similarly qualifiedsimilarly qualified person to the person to the satisfaction of thesatisfaction of the Regional Regional District of Nanaimo to beDistrict of Nanaimo . released upon final inspection by a

Landscape Architect or other

similarly qualified person to the

satisfaction ofthe Regional DistrictofNanaitno.

11 The tables are proposed to belabeled and rearranged forconvenience.

11 Add the following action in Consider the formation of anthe Creating a Vibrant and Agricultural Advisory CommitteeSustainable Economy Table (long-term).

Maps 2 These maps are proposed to beand 10 updated to include the most current

eagle nesting tree information.

Map 8 This map is proposed to be updatedto include the newly installed trafficsignal located at Lee Road and theold Island Highway.

Electoral Area 'G' Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 12

Attachment No. 1REPORT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2008 AT 7:00 PM AT ST.COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH HALL, 921 WEMBLEY ROAD, PARKSVILLE, BC

TO CONSIDER REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO FRENCH CREEKOFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW NO. 1540, 2008

Note that these minutes are not a verbatim recording of the proceedings, but are intended to summarizethe comments ofthose in attendance at the Public Hearing.

Present for the Regional District of Nanaimo:

Joe StanhopeMaureen YoungLou BiggemannJoe BurnettPaul ThorkelssonGeoff GarbuttGreg KellerStephen Boogaards

Chair, Director, Electoral Area `G'Director, Electoral Area `C'Director, Electoral Area `F'Director, Electoral Area `A'General Manager of Development ServicesManager of Current PlanningSenior PlannerPlanner

There were approximately 40 people in attendance at the Public Hearing.

Written submissions from were received prior to and/or during the Public Hearing from:French Creek House Ltd., 1-1025 Lee RoadJacquie Cronin, 1405 Mallard RoadRobin Robinson, 484 Columbia DriveMichael Jessen, 1266 Jukes PlaceMichele Deakin, 1097 Fabrick Drive

The Chair, Director Stanhope opened the meeting at 7:02 pm, introduced those attending the meetingfrom the RDN.

The Chair stated the purpose of the Public Hearing and requested that staff explain the OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw that was the subject of the Public Hearing.

Greg Keller, Senior Planner provided a description of the Bylaw.

The Chair outlined the public hearing procedures. The Chair then stated that all comments andsubmissions must be received prior to the close of the public hearing as the Regional Board can notconsider any comments or submissions received after the close of the public hearing on its decision onBylaw No. 150, 2008. The Chair then invited the audience to make comments and submissions withrespect to the proposed bylaw.

Jaequie Cronin, 1405 Mallard Road , read her written submission.

Robin Robinson , 484 Columbia Drive , read her written submission.

Michael Jessen , 1266 Jukes Place, read his written submission.

Richard Dean, 530 Meadow Drive, expressed his concern that the draft OCP does not contain the samestrong language as preceding OCPs for the environment. Mr. Dean stated that development may takeplace within the 60 m development permit buffer around an eagle nesting tree. The boundary does notconsider the habitat for trees surrounding the eagles nest. Mr. Dean also stated that the OCP did notmention the `Green Bylaw Toolkit', and should have whenever `Development with Care' was mentioned.

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No, 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 13

Bruce Cownden , 801 Mariner Way, a resident of San Pereil stated that a development permit for

environmental protection is being imposed on his property. Mr. Cownden indicated that the conditions of

the development permit would impose undue hardship to carry out normal activities on the property and

suggested that the RDN should consider not placing a development permit on properties that are notslated for development.

Michele Deakin , 1097 Fabrick Drive, read her written submissions.

Michael Jessen, 1266 Jukes Place, read his written submissions.

Roseanne McQueen, 808 Mariner Place , thanked the RDN staff for the hard work. She stated that thedevelopment permit for San Pareil is a necessity and wants it to stay.

Annette Tanner, 563 West Crescent Road, stated the ecological importance of the 3 estuaries within theOCP area. Ms. Tanner expressed concern for the loss of coastal douglas fir ecosystem in the area. Ms.Tanner indicated that in order to maintain the ecosystem, at least 70% of the remaining ecosystem mustbe protected. Ms. Tanner suggested that the remaining ecosystem should be protected as regional parkland.

Peter Hann, 1029 Maple Lane Drive, requested that no decisions on the draft OCP be made prior to the

general meeting of Shorewood and San Pareil Owners and Residents Association on May 5, 2008.

Judy Kemp, McFeely Drive, expressed the difficulty of attending evening meetings. Ms. Kempindicated that she had called the RDN to have her property connected to sewer service, but received noanswers. She stated her concern for the environmental impacts of septic systems on coastal and riparianareas. She also stated that private water provided to waterfront homes showed favoritism.

Janet Moore, 733 Mariner Way, expressed her support for the new regulations in the OCP. Ms. Moorestated her concern for estuaries and requested no more development take place.

Judy Kemp, McFeely Drive, stated her concern that parkland was sold by the RDN to a developer. Ms.Kemp indicated that taxes have increased in the area, without appropriate services, Ms. Kemp stated thatsome residents have hooked into the sewer system. She also identified a trailer on Kinkade Road that doesnot conform.

The Chair requested any written submissions.

Jo Dunn , 887 Shorewood Drive, stated the need to consider the environmental consequences of ouractions. Mr. Dunn stated that the proposed OCP and development permits provide process for meaningfuldebate and study of environmental issues.

The Chair asked if there were any other comments or submissions.

The Chair asked for a second time if there were any other comments or submissions.

The Chair asked for a third time if there were any other comments or submissions.

Hearing none, the Chair thanked those in attendance and announced that the Public Hearing was closed.The Chair indicated that the Board of the Regional District would consider Bylaw No. 1540, 2008 at theirRegular Board meeting to be held Tuesday, April 22, 2008 in the Board Chambers located at 6300Hammond Bay Road in Nanaimo.

The meeting concluded at 8:03 pm.

Greg Keller Director Joe StanhopeRecording Secretary Electoral Area `G'

Electoral Area 'G' Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 14

Appendix AWritten Submissions and Comments Received at the Public Hearing

Chairperson and Director J . Stanhope,Regional District of Nanairma,6300 Hammond Bay Road,Nanaimo , B.C. V9T 8N2

March 18, 2008

Re: Public Hearing -- "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area `G'Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540 , 2008.

Dear Director Stanhope,

The process of achieving the Electoral Area `G' OCP afforded many opportunitiesfor the public to be involved.

I participated in some of these opportunities and I would like to register my fullsupport for the Regional District of Nanairno Electoral Area 'G' OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw No . 1540, 2008.

In my opinion, this is a very good OCP that will serve Area G well in the future.

Respectfully submitted,

^Jcquie Cronin1405 Mallard Road,Parksville , B.C, V9P 2A3

250-752-3609

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 15

Presentation to: Area `G' OCP Review Public Hearing March 18, 2008Presented by Robin Robinson , 484 Columbia Drive Parksville, BC V9P IY2on behalf of the Friends of French Creek Conservation Society

in the new Area `G' OCP we have several estuaries , the Little Qualicum River, theFrench and Morningstar Creeks and the Englishman River, What I am addressing thisevening is an environmental protection gap for the Area `G' estuaries,

The new OCP is incorporating Riparian Area Regulations referred to as the RAR. In theRAR there is provision for streamside protection and enhancement areas. Currently, thereis no equivalent riparian area protection and enhancement for estuaries. This type ofprotection must be incorporated into the OCP along with a land buffer adjacent to theestuaries.

I draw to your attention that the Fish protection Act (fromn which the RAR sterns) statesthat a local government must provide a level of protection that meets or even exceeds theRAR.

I further draw to your attention that a conservation wetland partnership which includesDucks Unlimited , Environment Canada, MOE, Union o f BC municipalities and the PSFhave produced the Green Bylaws Tool Kit which is aimed at conserving sensitiveecosystems and green infrastructure . It is an important resource for understanding howlocal governments and developers can safeguard the environment.

Here in Area G we have three i mportant fish habitat river estuaries already compromisedby development. Their sensitivity is in need of very strong protection policy . Accordingto the Tool Kit, strong OCP policies provide direction to approving officers whenreviewing development applications . The Land Title Act suggests that an ApprovingOfficer can even refuse to approve a development plan if the officer considers i t againstthe public interest.

In our opinion the proposed 30metre Development Permit Area for the Area ` G' estuarinelands in section 10.2 titled Environmentally Sensitive Features , does not offer adequateprotection since, as the Tool Kit states , " flexibility in applying guidelines may result ininadequate environmental protection".

In order to provide estuarine protection and enhancement areas and an adequate landbuffer within the estuarine habitat area we are therefore requesting that the 30metreDevelopment Permit Area for the Little Qualicum River , Englishman River and French p f^F r ti.Creeltbe replaced in the OCP with a 30 metre non negotiable protective leave strip.

Thankyou

Electoral Area 'G' ©,ffficial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 16

r q!,

FCRA Directors' Submission to Public Hearing March 18, 2008

Elect" Area 'G' Official Coin w ity Plan ReviewProposed Changes to the 3.4 Drat't to be considered by 3o Reading

Table of Changes received from Greg Wier, . DN Senior Planner, attached to emaildated Feb. 7, 2008.

Comments by French Creek Res. Assn. Board of Directors- Feb. 27, 2008Total of 3 pages.

2.1 Title of Section Proposed change ofwording to -ecosystems" is reasonable.

2.1 Bottom of Par& I _ Suggested change - --or h b itats that are w rthy of a higherlevel of protection as a rmIt of vulnembility, or particular value in mai .ining essentialecosystem functiorn orcoatai a high abundance armor wide rage of local biodiversity,including red and blue listed and migrwory species.

2,1 Objective 2. Should the word "fmtnrer' be changed to "ecosystems" as per first item

above? We believe the RDN has fivers to "prohibit and impose requirements, in relation to The

protection ofthe natural environment"_ Therefore, could the OCP not use language stronger than

"encourage""?

2_1 Objective 5, Proposed wording is reasonable.

2.1 Policy'2. Proved aMition of the bra eted sentence seems reasonable.

2,2 Bottom of Para. 4, Deletion and addition seem reasonable.

2.:3 Objective 2- Pro W word g.is reasonable,

2.3 Policy 8. Suggest the following change "All proposals pertaining to landsadjacent..........". is the entire shore e of Area G thin the BWMA7 if not, possiblyanother metric should to used bum work on any maw shore &bould submitted or r6erredto DFO in sorn.e manner, Periups usea can be made ofthe RDTN's one window" memorandum ofunderstanding with DFO and WE. We could be wrong. but we dv not believe the draft OCPmakes mention of the Meiwramfum of Understanding or the use that could be mole of it toefficiently handle coastal playing issues or to deal with complaints.

2.4 Para I, 2"^ sentence. Proposed wording is reasonable.

2A Policy 2. Proposed addition of 2(d) reasonable.

Electoral Area 'G' Ojfcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 17

2.5 Obj. I following ange of wording is recommended " ..... _ current Ards prescribedby a qualified professi i ". We do not I ve Omt even qualified professkamls have theauthority to establish or set stan4lards,

2.6 Policy S. Proposed wording is reasonable.

2.6 Policy 9. Including ":existing" applications raises interesting q €ions about applicationssubmitted with the intent ofenjoyi the potentially less onerous requirements ofthe currentOCP. Proposed wording is basically reasonable.

2.6 Policy 10. Proposed wording is reasonable.

2.8 Policy 1. L,mv flow toilets aren't the only plumbing dines that ca a support die efficient useof water. Shouldn't we maintain some suggestion of promoting the adoption of other fixturesand term s for example irrigation, that €aeditate the more efficient use of water?

2.8 Policy 7 (s/b 8)- Proposed wording is reasonable-

3,2 Secondary Suites- Policiess 5, 6, and 7. Primed wording is reasonable; however wouldprefer finaxcr larr u _ a o re'r're. i rr ion e ' _ ar^J rablic b n . We remainconcerned that other ways of addressing the supply of affordable housing do not seem toattract the appropriate .level of attention in this OCR It is our under nding that theparticipants in the OCP rlcsftops wanted the broad sewn of affordable housingalternatives to be addressed.

4,1 Objective I. Proposed wording is reasonable.

4.1 Policy 4- Deletion is reasonable.

4.1 Policy IS.Deletion is reasonable.

4.2 Objective 1. Proposed wording is reasonable-

4.2 Policy 1(a). Proposed wording is reascmable. If the trml lights. were installed under someother arrang ent, would the RDN strive to obtain another amenity as s. condition toapproving any rezoning application lands neighboring the intersection? The careenBylaws Toolkit reminds us that "ae cuing is a gift from the public and (in most irrsrances)increases the value of the land." All applications fbr rezoning, subdivision and developmentpermits provide opportunities to obtain benefits for the general public in return for the "gift".

4,2 Policy I (d). Spelling of Mc gstar Cry. We presume the intent of the added wording isto achieve a marine riparian protection iy° equivalent to the Riparian Areas emulation forwatrcoursm. We believe local goverment has the power to "prohibit and impose requirementsin relation to the protection of the natural environment". With the provincial government takingback responsibility for watercourse protection from local government (in the form of the RAR),local government still has the authority to protect marine riparian i.e. leave strips, probably aslong as it isn't the whole coast line. We also believe local government can set a higher riparianprotection standard than the RAR... In bet, in all likelihood dw stream side setback for FrenchCreek in the current OCR' was more r orous than to RAR that seems to have been accepted asthe standard. We would ask dW the more prof ive of the riparian standards in the currentFrench Creek OCP or the RAR be applied to the French Crook, Englishman River and Little 2

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 18

Qualicum River. And f) er, ffiat the chosen riparian protection sta rd be applied to theestuarine lands of each watercourse, This position is su o ed a local, well known naturalist.

4.2 New Policy l (f). This p.robabt dresses our concert over Policy J (d).

4.2 Policy 7, Proposed wording is sonable.

5.1 New Policy 2.7, Although u. m.i.liar with all t circi tances surrounding this issue, thiswould seen to be a reasonable policy.

5.2 New Policy 4. It is unclear whether the text pmpa5ed replaces or is in ition to themsting. If it rvlaces, it would stem to be insufficient to describe what is intended and atthe extreme could be too open-ended as oampared with what is stated now.

5.2 New Policy 6. 1 ewe of this suited policy does not seem to be in sync with whar iscontained .in the existing Policy 6. "ire are no uses listed in the referenced Policy 5, otherthan possibly alluding to agricu ure.

5.4 Policy 2(a). Proposed wording is reasonable-

83 Policy 6. Acceptable only ift process of rerc zinggravel pits includes full publicdisclosure and feedback thro information meetings and public hearings,

8.7 Policy 4. Same comment as, for 8.3 Policy b above,

10.6 Policy 33. Suggest the following changes to the proposed phrase ".-Regional District ofNanaimo, such deposit to be reed LTon final inspection by a Landscape Architect orother similarly qualified person and to the satisfaction of f Regional District ofNanaimo.,"

i i Implementation. Very glad to hear that the tables will be reworked. We remain concernedabout the title of Section 4 and the table (and pruarnble) for Smarr 4 in Section 1 ] withrespect to the use of the word "nodai". (We suggest a find and Mace of "node" anal"nodal" in the c text of our comcer for the FC Harbour Centre.) We remain opposed tothe rezoning of R55 d es to single family, - unless the reams for doing so arethoroughly explained in the body of the plan- Fur-flier, we feel that some "Action Items" inthe tables of Section I i are not fly explained in the body of the plan, We do confess thatwe have not crosschecked every c ion Ran to we whem mid if they are contained withinhe body.

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 19

.....^. ... _. -... - .:9.-k.^J.. ' ! r•^:Lu. --J?r^_"^'. 1. ^,,!~^^L^S.Y..r-^^..«.^_......___._.._..._...... _.._._ .. _. __

^( •^ _

• 1

f/ s

Al,

lx^v it

1^^ ^4. ^F.^

mow. r / ^ ^ ^s

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 20

a i

•

.r-

Electoral Area 'G ` Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 2 7, 2008

Page 21

__....._. _.. e"^ .-_F^.^_Y_

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 22

Area G OQP Review

Public Hearing, March 18, 2008

Michael Jessen

Chaff.ter 3

Section 3.lPolicy 4

Community amenities are not "increased parkland or protec tion of gr nways". Theseare community aspirations. Could the wording be changed.?

Section 3.2Policies 5,6, 7

The criteria for establishing satisfactory water capacity in the approval process forsecondary suites must be defined before the OCP is approved, Further, the R.DN as awater purveyor could be in a rdl.ict of interest in est Mis ing and proving watercapacity for secondary smites applications.

Section 3.3

Restricting multi residual to Neighborhood Centres could be inconsistent withsupporting a viable public transit that woks best with higher density around well plannedbus stops or ter ainals.

Policies2. Spelling of MULTI in middle of paragraph3. Multi residential not supported outside Neighborhood Centres shall not be supported,

Again, this may be inconsistent with good public transit planning.4. a to f from Draft 2 seem to have been delet d. These requirements or relaxations

might have provided for clustering to the benefit of transit-

Please ensure that the phrase "FQR and CHARACTER" is defined in the OCP.

a er4

Section 4.1..Policy ] I

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 23

We received no response to our question as to whether this requirement applies to privatewater purveyor EPCOR.

Section 4.2

We humbly suggest that the definition of the word MAY, used in this section andelsewhere, should be revisited. There might be some €onfusifan as to whether the"permissive' interpretation of the word MAY is (1) pm' ided by the OCP to the RDNboard as allowing say an amendment process or (2) just the act ofapproving day to dayapplications.

Chapter

Section 8, 1Policy 5

The ALC should be encouraged to preserve all designated agricultural land - not justLARGER land holdings. Should this be in the ADVOCACY section?

Chapters 11 and 12

These two chapters should be interchanged because Implementation Strategy (currentlyChapter 11) should be a sung€nary of ACTION ITEMS that arise in all the chapters beforeit.

Electoral Area 'G' Qfcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 24

Area G OCP Review

Public Hearing, March 18, 2008

Michael Jessen1.266 Jukes Place

Con s about !C 31 _ ?u`Po t air i lands around Ai port.

I would like to remind you of the note I sent to you lack in the fall with regard to issuespertaining to the airport.

Some recent news with respect to the airport increases our eoncern.I . It was announced that a second airline will be starting daily service in March &Orn

QB airport to Vancouver and Victoria.

2. It was reported in a recent newspaper article that the federal department oftransporthas admitted that its nWs ofQB airport and surrounding mmunities were out ofdate. It apparently never knew that Cherwell existed- It will:, be changing flightpaths because ofthis "n information.

3. The Town of Quaili m Beach is struggling to deal with the need for sound abatement(in this case, tree buffers) to provide (token) protection to residents of Chartwell andSandpiper. Previous versions of our OCP in 1 1.487 and 1998 appear to have been almostsilent with respect to any serious land use planning around the airport.

Therefore, again ask that ,some mention be made in the OCP with regard to detailedplanning requirements with respea to lands (say t ) around the airport. Medicine Hatapparently has a cemetery on one side of its a rt and Calgary has a golf course underone of its flight paths. All development pits, applications for rezoning, subdivisionapplications and buildim- per -its should be s mit€ed to the federal department oftransport for their information and nMew,

The OCP also provides information to prospWive real estate buyers and agents to helpmake wise decisions.

Electoral Area `G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 25

French Creek Residents Associationc/o 1266 pukes PlaceParksville, B.C. V9P lW5

March 18, 2008

Re. Commercial Property Between Samar Lane and Karl's WayCurrent OC? Development Per. Area 4

The directors of French Creek 'Resi e ts' . ss is an met on March 6, 2008. Thedirectors have a suggestion to be considered by the community and government leaders.

It is recommended that these lands, currently believed to be zoned retail commercial,should be rezoned for a land use more in keeping with the nature of the surrounding,community - and. is rezoi n to be _r_vided io€ in t OCP rrentl U n r review.The land should be converted to residential, multi-family (higher density), affordablehousing and possibly some light ref 1. Based on nearby existing and planned projects, asmany as 90 dwellings could be provided- with assessed property value exceeding $231million at 2008 rates.

It is felt that such land use Could allow the completion of Sharon's Place to Sumar Laneand make it possible for an efficient and logical s nd connection to the highway for theColumbia Beach community. It may also create beR conditions fortbe provision oftransit service to that community.

Association directors would be pleased to mee and discuss this idea in more detail.

Michael Jaen, P_E .Secretary, French Creek Residents ' Association

Electoral Area 'G` Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 26

FRENCH CREEKHOUSE LTD. i#[-fo25 i-ft Road , P'arhsv€ttc, B.t:. V9P 2Kl T®tephone : (604) 248-3713 Fax: (604) 248-6263

March 18 , 2008

Regional District ofNanairno

6300 Hammond Bay Road

Nanaimo BC V9T 6N2

Attention: The Board of Directors

Mr. Joe Stanhope, Chairman and Area `G' Director

Mr, Greg Keller, Area `C' OCP Planner

Re. Public Hearing: Draft 93 Electoral Area `G' OCP, Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinions concerning this OCP bylaw, The Public Hearing isthe final opportunity for the public to present their opinions, thoughts and critique of this bylaw to theRON Board, the Area G Director and the planners. As such, it is the final event in the public process ofinformation, advocacy and adjudication of our new ©CP.

The RDN planners must be complimented for their extensive efforts to implement the controls they deemnecessary to foster sustainability of development and construction within Area G. This bylaw sets a newstandard for the remainder of the RDN Electoral Areas and perhaps, the municipalities,

We have continuing concerns that we believe have not been adequately addressed by the public planningprocess that concludes with tonight's Public Hearing. Some of these are, as follow:

One of our greatest issues with the draft OCP is the use of the words "dedication" and"dedicate" regarding private property that the OCP aims to protect for environmental and publicuse purposes in Section 2, Protecting the Natural Environment, and Section 6, Enhancing andMaintaining Parkland Green Space and Natural Areas, and Section 10, Development PermitAreas.

During our meeting with the RUN February 1, 2008, we were informed that the words"dedication and dedicate" did not mean transfer to the RDN of private property as defined inthe Land Act (Land Title Act), but rather meant allocation and designation of these lands forvariously: protection, preservation and public use. We requested the RDN planners to review.define and clarify the use of these words such that there would be no confusion in use and/orinterpretation of the OCP in the future. Subsequently, at the Open House we learned the RDNhad discussed this issue and decided to leave the wording of the Bylaw as it is because of theirconcerns about security of such designated lands at the time of rezoning, zoning amendmentand/or development permit approvals. We now request formal definition in Section 13.0.

In that the bylaw describes variously permanent protection and acquisition of lands in termssuch as: land dedication through sub-division, restrictive covenants, private donation. eco-gicing, etc., it is not unreasonable for the development community to believe there could befuture misinterpretation. It is of utmost importance to the development and constructionindustry that tared area and land value is not lost at the time of rezoning, zoning amendment anddevelopment permits because this is the "front end" of the development process where

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No . 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 27

expenses are high, financing is critical and risk is highest, We note that any proposed project isnot viable until all approvals, including building permits, and financing have been attained. Wetrust these lands can be protected by restrictive covenants at the time of subdivision and projectdevelopment as well as by interim conditions cif a Development Permit.

* The OCR' needs greater vision of the future. The Improving Mobility section does not address afuture second arterial roadway that will be needed to connect Qualicum Beach and Parksvilleand to assist access to the Inland Highway. We must plan for increased mobility in addition toIlwy 19A. our major arterial roadway, that will continue to be a cause of concern as our areagrows and additional controlled intersections are required.

The Community Water Servicing section needs to address in greater detail provision of publicwater supply from an inter-connected network- of all local area water purveyors. In order toprovide unused water from the Englishman and Little Qualicurn Rivers, such a network to sharewater supply is necessary. While a large part of the solution to a sustainable water supplyappears to depend upon the politics of the AWS t-i-part.ite agreement and the parochial interestsof its three partners, it is imperative the RDN and this OCP reinforce resolution of this criticalissu..e,

+ The RDN should more actively seek the participation of a statistically relevant cross-section ofpopulation .for input into future OCPs and other relevant bylaws, Newspaper advertisem*ntsare insufficient to inform and encourage participation of the labour force that, in Area G in2006, was greater than 50% of the population 15 years and over.

We note that when we encouraged approximately 60 Area G working, persons to identifythemselves and voice their concerns about Draft #3 via a form email with personal comments tothe RDN Board members prior to First and Second Readings of this OCP Bylaw, the RDN"sreply appeared to discourage their interest. As well. they have not been included in the emailNotices subsequently sent forth by the RDN regarding changes to the OCP Draft, the PublicInformation Open House and this Public Hearing. We request that in future we all try harder toencourage businesses, employed persons and a broad cross-section of our community toparticipate in the planning process,

In addition to the above major concerns, we re-submit our revised and updated ' RDN Draft 93 Area GOCP Evaluation Form" that provides our detailed critique of the OCP. Further, we respectfully requestagain that the RDN remove from OCP Bylaw No. 1540, 2008, the designation of our man-made pond (15in. from Natural Boundary) from the Environmentally Sensitive Features DPA, Map No. 9, as it is a workin progress and the designation of Desired Park/Conservation Lands Acquisition Areas, Map No.4, both ofwhich are located on property being developed according to conditions of DP No. 77.

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,

John Moore, .President

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 28

French Creek House Ltd.

RDN - DRAFT 3 AREA G ocP EVALUATION FORM PAGE IYes No Amend Reason

I Introduction

- _ . . .€.1 The Plan Area x Add: Nate

1.2 Purpose of the Electora l Area "G" Oft£ota€ X ' LGA: 5875-57th S949(1)Gommunity Pion

(. Community Involvement Add And business Throughout": Para 2 "Not IrUe"14 'Community Values

€t ) (Add vial The commun€€y vafues a balanced COP Pie) provides£€I _ od}e;.7ives & policies "to promote human settlement that Is socially.

economically & environmentally heathy" while gtvanang the

vyi 3 tie principles nS sus?ahsabilly in each category.

nil

add v[€1

5 Electoral Area "G" Regional Context

Statsarant Advt. Note 2

Goals

1 x

2 K

3 w

4 x x AdPi "includkny mitigation"6 x

7 x8 x

Regional Context Statements

Goal IT Strong Urban Containment

Goal 2: Nodal Structure

Goal 3 : Rural Integrity

Goal 4: Env£ornrnont ProtectionGoal s ; Improved Mobility

Goal S:Vibrant and Susta #na£rie Economy - x Add: stetemenf of economic strstainabEtyGoat 1: Efficient Services

Goal 8 ; Cooperattan Among Jurlsdlctlons:

1.6 Plan Organization

2.1s Piotecf?ng the Natural Environment x , x amend to Add "general statement to. mitlgation"2.1 Environmentally Sensitive Features x ..

c1 x

2 x x add "are reviewed"

3 x x delete `and individual"a x

5 _ x x add "develapmera mitigation and ..°FO11Ci s

1 x

Z e

$ x x establish crrteda; add "miligeson".d .. .. .. x Jr remove 'all polontol impacts5 x x ::remove watercourses, Weilands:adjacent6 x

. ..7 x x remove "permanently` protected

8 x

9 x-so - x x Process to place11 x

12 x x work with RON Io nrngale13 x - x where KI-P Agreement, itten,..Advocacy Policies

1 x - Identify $A, noforest Send dedcot nn;covenants as suit 8 required2 x

3 xa x already existsS %

2.2 .-Freshwater Alsnagernerd delete & Arta fast segtencc to ObjectivesObjectives x Add: • RAW to Objectives

x x delete: "AJP.2 x

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 29

French Creek House Ltd.

ftfl*t - DRAFT 3 AREA G (3GF EVALUATION FORM PAGE 2

3 x

^ ^

x delete 'arx[ on-loin®"; " acnsystems"; add °supp(y"4 x '. x detete'aCI°

T % x Allow enhance{narilr MELD

2 x delete `wsier0xture'; add courae°

3 x add "valence gr... improvement4

5 ..,.. x - Process in place ... .6 x

- .. ..7 , x Amalnd N protect prOVely ltg tts & ref.MOT requirements

8a x . . , x .;no fmrit to 5O%8t1 x

On x x define °1ocat" & "re^Eonal" soanrfecances

ad x x deieie °pennanent

Be x delete8 z10

11 x x delete 'teaturas:add'wume°; remove dedieaiinn to park land x5%12 In Area 0?

Advocacy Policies

1 x

2 x x `d61¢[B Itxtum'; add COUrs2"

3 x2.3 Coastaf Zo^te hFanagemanF Feat x x remove pare 3: property rtgtrts

Objantlvos

.1%

2 x x delede'Disceurage" &'would"; Add `ensctre" 'bail not'a x

4 x x .Add "private and"....

5 x _ r -PolEcies

1 x x designate, abnvetbaic>w natural boundary

2 x x see notes

3 x x designate abovefbetaw instead boundary4 P

..explain .

3 x

x7 x x use natural boundary vs. HWM

6 x x Amend DOF as MOE

e x x ai ow for land behind soft treatment10

11 x

.12 x ? wtiat does this ma.,??13 x x delete: sae notesAdvocacy Policies . _ .. . .14

15 x x Delete: "Eefitere': pdd'course"16 x

2.A Greenways

Objectives

.1 x x delete 'ere a' add 'En utagn"2 x x add "Encourage"

.: ; - -Policies

...

.....

. ..1 :c x see notes .

28 x

2b x 7 Whiskey - deleted:

3 x Add: "so long as property ngyts are not violated"

4 x x add to 3 above

$ x delete, "xonirtg amendment6 x x delete: "covenants, park land designation and other"7

A d-,. P, tFrinc

x _ delete: "zoning amendmentfsubdivlsiott`

Electoral Area `G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 30

French Creek House Ltd.

RAN - i7RAF7 3 AREA G OCP 3

B x

g , x

2.6 Naturn€ Hazard AreasManagemQnt

^hjactivBS `t x

2 x X. ;delete: _: add: currenteinedarda esta4iished by a qualified professional

3 x a delete : 'deve.lopment. subdtv.ak an or alte€afion of land'

.Pa[icius ..x

2 x3 x

& x x deiafe: or alierattinn or

$ x x explain -protect adjacent propeftles°?

.g x x define'?ood control a vatirn requirements"7

Advocacy Policies

1 x

2.6 ,Ground Water Reneoureas A

ObJectives

-1x

.2 x - x add: 'existing devq{nprnent & raw..."3 x

PWkiss

I x check map 2

2 . x x x ccndit€onai upon gechydrof cgyfgeotechnicai report

3 x x delete: potable water reference: add: Approved supply

4 x x delete: "or quantily or I'ground or.

a , x x delete : "and Ptan area residents"

g x delete : 'and plan area residents'

7 x

x delete: "and plan area residents"

g x •as noted add: AWS

9 x x. 'add: 'existing and. as notsd

-10 - x x add: 'where possibly and praahicaF'

Advocacy Poft[ies

ii x Process iri place

12 x

13 x Process in place

14 x 'Process In place

.15 x Process in place

553

.. ..

x azpiair how?

iSb x ^eeplate how?

2.7 Rain Water Management delete : `addiiionar ": modify pars 2

Objectless

3 x

2 x x add: "as much as practical and"..

x.4 x

polic4asto x add'. ° attempt to"...

ih x add; ... where practically possible

isId2 x

I x MOH conThct

4 .. .% . . .._ ............... ... .....:.-5 x ^de1nelpe kvsnormal

S x x define, iJefinimc, qualify

7 x 'infeasipte: State design storm duration & period

8 x a quantity. define, deiiniaie

9 x

Advocacy Policies

10 x _ x amerce to make practical

2-8 Sustainable Dsveioptnent Practices &

Climate Change

6bJettivsa

X.2 x

Electoral Area 'G' C1fcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 31

French Creek House Ltd.

DRAFT 3 AREA G OCP EVALUAT10Yd FORM

.3 : x4 x

^PnE7ci$s .

A x x BC B ding Code and bontm proofs€ons

2 x

x x eetate; 7ecrMbgkca1iy

4. x x state eq. & conceptsS x

x x _ e slain how this wo*&^;'

7 x repatative re. #5

8 x..: x. Nate: inc;ude: Wembly.5 French Greek Harbour

x x define, delineate, qualify

^ ID .. x x Add; or other qualified person"

Advocacy Pnt1c es

11 x

i.0 Containing Urban Sprawl

I.1 Urban Containmen t Bwrndary x x Add; F.C. Harbour Centre,

Obacttves1 x2

.. ..

x fldt so rigid

3 x x rewrite - see notes

a x same as 0.1 ifi not, explain

d x

7c.. . x . -Show changes re. Current OCP's, where applicable

2 x

3 x ??Slate why?

x x ?? What does this mean

5 x x except', water suppy by puaveyora as rhgUirod

$ x x add: Support decisions of At,C

7 x x ref. Specific secfi*n that defines

& nswrite to include F.C. Node

s x10 x where geotectlncally teasibte

11 x x study?? Srx;w in this OCP

12 x

1.2 ;felghbourhood Realdenttal .... x - .. - rewrite m2- sea notes,.,

Objactives

2 x x Add: "except at transition to higher density area"

3 x - MMBY

Politico1 - x = not amendable to transi#tan heuairtg_ §mit 5ufac

x x , 13 U!AG-- sub-urban sprawl

.3 x why? What purpose? State problems

.4 x x Add: This policy does not apply to existing mutt-residenUa$ zoning

. or1 properties with Development Permits

4ax

41r

de'sete: 20% of the Silo area

.4G x

46 x delete: 20% reference

4e x4i x

5 x

Sa x

64 x

Sc x

gd x s less it applicable; cpnditiona# upon total parkingSe x

51 x _ x up to 50% of pdncpai dwelling

6 x

.- . . .7 x . x WA -water/du i900ippd: Add: within Hydro capacity.

9 Multi Resider ttal x x 6 dutac urban sprawl; define "reCOgrized"

Objectives# X _ x create concept plan for growth

2 x x :delete :"maintain': add'Encoureee"

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No..1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 32

French Creek House Ltd.

RON - DRAFT 3 AREA G OOP EVALUATION FORM PAGE 5

8 x x delete "Enavre" Add "Enourage"

Po#lclea

7 x ... x if to 15Whe, Add: French Creek Estates. DPI71

X3 15 Wha. =8ulaceSFDU

4 x ', x why? Ydhal purpose?

8 ? ? 7 Explain

4,0 Greeting Complete Nodal Comnnanfes x x Add: PC Harbour centre

4.1 Were" NffjVtt Wwrh*o0 Contra

Objectives.

1 x

x x Amend to e+3eourage density -'1vr height4 x

8 x

PoWas

2 x

3 X x

4 x redundant

x moundant

7 x

-8 x x 20 dote = 8 du/&c- not enough: delete: 20% ope /green space,increase base dens"

Sa x x delete: "may be ccnsldered", Add W! be suported"9h x x delete: `may beconaldered'; Add: -will be supported'Sc x delete: "Pray be cons€dered'; Arid: will tfe supported"10 x it clarify

11 x x. ;delete ref, to Q.e

12 x artsure height & density included

t3 x

14 x

1b x16

.17 Text , x Y ,Separate professianat & neighbourhood commercial17a x

17b x x -Add: if possible and practical

17C x

17d x

17e x x delete: 200 sq. m.; Add: 50% floor even

.17f x

7g x x Add- or as required to enhance Farm and Character'18 x X 4imendtoctartfy

:19 x

Advocacy Policies

21X

1.2 French Creels Harbour Centre x x P.C. Harbour Centre. include tourint commercial. .Cb^eativea

x : deteth: `future"

z x

3 ... x requfed by zoning

.4 x purpose is ho*r density; define "compatible"

'S . it it ..detste,'Requlre": Add- 'Encouraqe"

Pe8014s

1 Text x is delete: "Flay"; add `will'

Is x delete

1 b X x is QaFne "oP Streer' & cost shariNIC z x noted in D.P SeIX on 10: add "or mitigated"

Id x x noted In D.P. Section 10

11? x x noted in D.P. Section 10; Add: Spocific scope of work.2 x x Does not respect exl„e!inq zoning

3 - x x density bonus re. Wernbly vs Ireneer, height tram Flood E3ev.4 x x deiefe" mus-V x 2; Add: "Encourage". "Je;

S x is delete 'moat'; add "Encourage": "lo`; Rezoning req'd by RDNS x std requirement

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 33

French Creek House Ltd.

RON - DRAf'T 3 AREA 0 OCP EVALUATION FORM

7 x same as 3

x already addressed : Section 5 . 2. 0-2.9 to he amended

9 x =de[ate

0 Protocting Rural intagrit

i-1 Rural and Rural Residential Land Use

Designations

Objectives

?2 x

3 x

4 x x rowr € e: "further rural aprawr??

Policies

1 x

2 x x to allow full utilization of community water

3 xaa%

Advocacy Pone€es x

Y x x delete: "ten€pwraty use permit-

Rural Residential 1

PPIILtbg

.8 x Rezanina RV1 -to - 9

9 x Rezoning Rti1 - to - 9

40 x Rezoning RUi - to - 9

Rural Residential 2

12 x Rezoning RU 1 - 9

13 x Rez ©nirgRU1-9

14 x Kezortirtg R13 1 -9

- - - .. .. .. .Rural Residential 3

:25 Rezoning RU 1 - 9

21 Rezoning RU 1 .9

Rural

22 Rezoning RU 1-9

23 Rezoning RV 1-9

:Rezoning RU 1-9

25 -Rezoning RU 1-9

.29

L2 Rural Resource Lands

1 x "

.2 x

a X

Policies1

, at.ag

Sin

at ....9a9b

PAGE 6

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 34

French Creek House Ltd.

RDN - DRAFT 3 AREA G OGP itiVALUAT10N FORM PAGE 7

Advocacy Policies

i.6 ,irnhunc3ng and Matntainiog Parkland,

Green Space, and Natural Areas x Add: "(986 hat"

t.1 Parka, Traits & Outdoor Recreational x

Opportunltes

Otrj as x '2

g x a Amand re llapl ,y lnsuranca

4 x _ x See RON Parks 4 Trails Plan 205 2015

Policies

1 x det:ne "designate": Dctete FOE & FCH land (Map 4)

2 x . X.. x why no tur;har subdivasion Of existing or futre park is supportive

3a X `. ..

x )M4VB -

Sc )to

3d x )Objectives

3e x

)h!€gve

......

x )fo

,3g _ x - )Objectives

4 Place within LOA Parkland dedication

:5 x .' .. who's opinion & datarrniMatirn

;8 x x :d91erent uses at different limes

:7 - x _ .- x estate reword ie: density bonus; eie; toss of tire

:-8 x - x .0 'ectiueo: xrhaf does this mean

; 8 x x Ot^ectves:

10 x more DEC's - unspecdied amount

11 x move to section 6.4

12 x x move to text Section 6.0

13 x x delete:'retentron`Add: "Acquisition"

14 x a delete: "planning & dw atopment'

15 x ? ? What are the implications?

Advocacy Policies

16 x

6,2 Preserving Green Space x

Objectives

1 x .2 x

3 x

Potties1 x same as 6 .1.13 Delete 20% and.

2 x x delete L 'dedication" Add: "Acqulsillort" 8'pretectioc"

3 •de€ete"Retention': Add 'acquisition'4

g .. . .. x x explain "particdipadan": delete "and planning"

.Advocacy Policies

8 %

7 x

6,3 Protected Areaa

6lsjacfrves i .. .. ..

x x ,Add- equally`equally' aensi€ive.....4 x

5 x

policies

1 x

2 x

:3 x Add: 'equaSy sens91ve' conservation.....

B.4 Acquisition of Park Land, Greets Space.

And Natural Areas Text .... x : x delete : 'regUetemertt of reaoniN: Sand dedication through sarbdhsann'

Objectivest x x defina Imiled" dedfcation policy

2 x

Electoral Area 'G' Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 35

French Creek House Ltd.

RDN - DRAFT 3 AREA G OCP IrVALUATiON FORM PAGE 8

-.....

x de;ete;' tecloraEAtaa'C3'resEdents°;add; "Objectives"

_ _ x deiete. 'Ensure`: Add' "Encourage"

4 x

Policies

10 xtb

9c. x .,. x -What LGA requirarneet allows this split?

2 Text x x Stale LGA Aurthortzation or rezoning?

2a x Ra.''Natercourses"ret. RAR?

2b x . ..o vague • see Map 4 "Acqui5mon" Remove FCP.. FCH kends

2d x -.. x ;Why *generally in addition to"? Wiry not ° included wthin"

:20 It It Impnsslbie in private development at rezoning stags

,2f It define by case study

29 x 'toovague - define&deineale

-2h x in addition to'enwircmmentai land'?

21 xto

vague; state total criteria

3 x x SPOtS not pressured by D.P./covenants4 x she apecfio • NIMBYIs, Dh exists. No!

S x ref. "Acqulsilion" - F(•I lands No,

B x x 6-4{2},sObj6c;ivanotcriteria, redundant

7 x not at rezoning or z©ning amendmanl stage

8 x .

.. .Advocacy Po€Icles

g x x darffy sand Sion precedent

1n x delete " of Plan Area residents and... .7-0 fastitutionat Uses. And Improving Sericing

Efficiency

7.1 Schools

Clbf@CtiY^5 ,

x x clarify and goanfty'parks and open space acquisition"; Adv, Policy

2 x ;Rdvocaty Policy

Policies

x e schools adjacent to nocal centres.- ..3

3A X3tl x

3c x :3d X .

4 x x dedication? Amendment Application?

x _

65 x x only when demand in clear: does LGA AuUrnrize7

Sc X

Advocacy Policies

fi x

7.2 Institutional Uses and Cornmunlty, Social

and Cultural Services

Obj®ctivas

: Y .: .. .. _... .. .. ..

2 x .. . .PoRgles

1 x

.3 x define before putting in CG°; direct to Nodal Locations

8a xSb x

..g

X-.7 „

6 x

7.3 Community Water Servicing z Para 4: Why? PCCo pa'€d< promised by 20115 Para 5 - No Approval

Dbject€ ae

.2 x

3 x

4 x

5 X

.without water

x Why? Land area? Case study needed

Not Required -Already in place

Not Required , Already in p€ace

Electoral Area 'G' Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 35

French Creek House Ltd.

RON - DRAFT 3 AREA G OCP EVALUATION FORM.... ............... ......... . PAGE 9

6 x

Policies

1 x ,

2 x x "on•xito maaSures"? Explain

x x x describe impact - what purpose? RCI'F & Provincial App oval?

'4 x x Refine 8 def noato Assessment crterla?

^8 - x x "rating sysfem^ - daendbe, defineeto.

x Water connection approval prior to zoning ameirdment'?

7 x x ;See Notes:8 x x -,;describe $ quanEy?

9 x x describe 8 gEantify?

10 x x same criteria for'publtc'vs "private"

11 _' x x AWS in place: what else? Sell water to EPOON for resole

12 x Againl 7? Stop finis nonsense

13 it x Explain: Down zoning rural areas

14 _.,_..._ x _tmpossible! Wire reports & who adjodiates " What 1f" situation15x

'16 x ....x 1Aothis first; then the ocP

x x.. . _:.6etete _"Ea;sr€ an¢,t©psoll' , Arid "Irrigation rentror

Advocacy Policies

.:18-

x Pocy;.sam^Nxalt_pyrysyors

i2 x .... 1 Policy;Same fc sli p€eveyors

20 x 1 Policy: same for all purveyors

14 Colnmsoity Sewer & Drainage Servicing

.Objectives

1 x tine terms

2 x3 x

'4 x

. x - x not impact neutral; Add: EPCOR.s x _

.7 . x

Poli6ie3 a

4 x

5 x x Map 3 - Shows nothing for FO Comprehension ZoneB Y

8 x '... x .. Same standard "ptrbtlc^ vs "private"g x

10 ..... x

12 ... x x Amend to rationalize re.. tatr poNcy

13 x x Gartfy & describe & dell rte

14a x

,141O x x 'existing vs. proposed rat. 6

15 x x detete ;"btrt shall not ,., parcel size

16 x x add; "cavfitionat upon geotechnical 8 capacity"

17 x x M0TvsR©N

...18 x x deE'ute del[ neate

.19 x make feasible, not impossible

za9.0 Creating A Vibrant and Sustainable x Slate home baling and constnrctlan - tatgesi econornlc penerator

Economy x define, quantity areas; tourism. clean commerce?

9.1 Agriculture

otrectivest x _. ... ...2 x

3 x

4 x

S xa x

-1 .. X.,. ....2

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 37

French Creek House Ltd.RON -DRAFT 3 AREA G 0G EVALIUAT€ON fORM PAGE 10

'b x x Amend: Map 10 Farm. nand Pwteaion OF within L'G8

.6. .15m. buffer

8 x

Advoccy _ Aolictes

9 . - -....x x : Dues RON really want to do this in Area G & ether Eleetora! Areas?3.2 Forestry

Object €ves

i x2

3 x x Add. "Encourage.... pubkc & private....`4

PbEcies

t x

3 x4

g x

6 Y

Advocacy Policies

.. .8.3 Aggregates and Other Extractable

R@aauroes

Ob)ecttves -..-

# x

2 x3

....

4 x

.... .Policies x

2 x

3 x4 x

g x

6a x

Bb x x :delineate

Sc x

6d x

6a x

6f x x ;How does this work? Delineate

69 x

6h x

6i x define basis : delineate process & procedure7 x

Advocacy Policiss

Ba x

66 ? ? one agency or the other

$A tndustriat Land Use Designation

.Objectives .

3 x

. .2 x x , delete " follows Commh u ll preference"3 Y

d x x 'delinaale where

Pottcles _

.4 x

2 _ - , x define demand for industrial [and: why not, if rational3 x4. S x

`6 x

7 Y

6 x

8 x redundant

6.6 'Commercial Land Use DesigrsUon

Objectives x

Electoral Area 'G' Qfcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 38

French Creek House Ltd.RON - DRAFT 3 AREA G OCR EVALUATION FORM PAGE 11

2 - x

3 x

Policies

1 X

2 x x re;srdetrtiat i5tdha is to low,3 x why ?? Farmers sE Wtig produce?

4 K x defhe how many sites less than 2.0 he

x Not Required: See Zoning

X redundant #3, atfove7 x define "6uffarin9 & sueaning o! sties" - DR SWIon 108 x

- .... -...:. .10 X

12 x define'- Keno,P.oker. putttab- everywhere13 x defaia & delineate: why?14 x

3 x ate-spectflc referance6.6 Nome Based Business

objectives -

1 x .

Policies1

... .8.7 Temporary Use Ponnls

O oetives1 x

2 x .3 11

Policies

1 Text How marry s4cs- 4.0 ha7

to x

lb x - .,c x

ifx

.1gx

11hx

it X

xk x

71x

1 tti x

2: x x exp€ain; define 8 delineate3 x

4 . x x x Why not have it comply initiallyx

9.0 1mprovtnj Mobtilty ..... x . Revise to meaningful alalements: Faci: 1 road 8 1 Node et OCR9.1 Road Network Strategy X To 1nolude future 46IPV Arterial Route

Objectives .. .x

2 u x Add: "primary"

3 x x define "standwds'4 x _ x deflne what visual intnm1ty

PolIOtes

...1 x . x.. . resolve corafirt ai'standards' vs pemrr iatrie paolrg" in OCR2 s defy e $ dellnea€e

3 x x show PQOB 2nd Arterial4 x meanirpR??

X7 x

..9

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 39

French Creek House Ltd.

RDN - DRAFT 3 AREA G OCP EVALUATION FORM PAGE 12

rt# x ,State rationale

Advocacy Polities

12 x

13 x14 x

16 x

9.2 Pu611a Transit and Other Mo%il€ty Services

i x2

_ . .....3

PoiWes

1 ' x

3 x

.45 x

s x . ,7

s x

x x RDNto do

to x x define & deiineafe

71 x No dedications

9.4 Walkways, Bikeways , and 7relts

Objectives

1 x2 x

3 x

4 x x Ftt]N to facilitate wtth MELD

PoRales

3 x

3 x x Allow roadway to qualify

5 x x mod 1 publir,sactnc projed al

E x

7 x -

8 x

9 x x Not a DP condition - public sector

9.5 Island Htghway Agreement

Objectives

1 x

;?metes1 x

2xx

3b x3C x4 .. x x delete-. "covenant'', x

6 x

Advocacy Policies _ '..

7 x

10.0 Development Permit Areas

101 Fish Nabttat Protection x Delete: 'French Creek'. Exemption #1

Guidelines1 x

.;2 x

3 x x x Define type of RON comments 1.0 DFO

4 x,x x What type of lobrmation

6 . x

7ax

7e x x Define "conservation covenants"

g x x Combine $8 & #s3

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 40

French Creek House Ltd.

RDN - DRAFT 3 AREA G OCP EVALUATION FORM PAGE 13

70 x .

"t t x x delete: "RON"; Add: )FO

12a x

12b x Genoa: "pro-dave€apment flow rates."

€zcx

t Zd x'x x define de ree of 'natural araier courses & wetlands'10.2 'Environmentally Sensitive Features

General Guidrsll"S-,1 x

2 x x E^efin iu&ineate satis(a lnn" pf RDN- - -x

be x

Sb xbe x

Sd x

6. x Define "work with RDN"7 x

4 x

-10 x x dalote: 'permanant or °

.1i12 a

13 x

14 x

15 x

16 x

17 x

18a x x dekrte:'ancf sound'

l 8b x too brrrdd and vagese

iac x too broad and vogue

13d x too broad and vague18e x too broad and vague

1 of x loo broad aril vague

log x too baad and vague

18h x too broad and vague; delete:-"perch" trees.

151 x infeas3tste: ConflICI RON as MOT

18J x :sam@ as 18 F

IS x

Guidelines apeclftc to Coastal Areas

and All Riparian Ecosystems

20 x21 x

22 x

23 x

24 x x too general

.Guidelines spoclfic to Aquifer Protealion

.25

251 x

2SII x

25111 x27 x

.... .28 -.-.

-29

10.3 Hazard Lands

Guideinee

X Add Exemptron:" Alt development ataovo MOE flood elevoboar

delete: exemption s be & Sb . not feasible

x x Add: "and rnivgeti

.... ...

x define and delineate

x delineate frequency and period Of storm

x x already in place for MOE

x x defne : oonst£uction, post-con$trnCtion phases

xx x state "Above flood elevation by MOE

x Allow se+isitivs , af€eralions to roach objective

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 41

French Creek House Ltd.

RDN - DRAFT 3 AREA G OCP EVAWA73O13 FORM PAGE 1412b x

12c x

13b ..._ x x Add °w Gmixo"13c x

13d ri x donne & detinea1o

13e x x :too vague; define 8 deEineatm.10.4 Farmland Prot4Ctlon

Gutdofinos

i - x

3 z4 x

,.._

It.

8 ,. x7

10.5 Inland Island Highway Corr€dor

.......Gu€detines

1a x

14%

Ile x

2 x,a x

4 x S x Why no 3rd patsy?

5 x ',S x

....7

10$ Wit; Residential, lntenoiv6-Residential, Industrial, and delete, Para 2

Comewolal Form and Character delete: Application

.Goidelinss

'Servicing:

10 x Standard c rrrent procedure

14 x standard current procedure - RON, PV, EF00IZ standards compalabie1c x„ a10edsiJ current procedure - RON, PV, EPCOR standards compatabfeGeneral Design

x see Arct ilec!'s Ac€.1 z _. x Add: 21M Fl. RffICeUse..4 _

....... x.. i..x RM vs MOT conflict

Sa x .6h %

.Ed

7 x x SCal to proposal

8 s x delete: "Shat!": conb rto VRth 07g x

10 x

Residential Deve€opmentGU#saiines

13 . ..

x20Ffa. SitE, [rk; smaller Sites -IESS diversity

€a 1 x x Add: w€,ere practiml15 x x delete: "should'; Add: "are encouraged .a^16 x .. ._17 x

18 . x

Parking and Loading

18 _ x not practtca€; parking - 112 at Betttack

20 ... x

21 ". x22 x

Landcap€ng and Screening

23a x

2att

- . , _. ....23c x x . . . del.ete: "sorrnundirtg" Add: 'adjacent'._...23d

X .

Electoral Area 'Gr Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 42

French Creek House Ltd.

RAN - ORAFT 3 AREA G OCP EVALUATION FORM PAGE 15230

_ ..

x x define **afe"23f ... ..x x delete "pervoue", Add: loiperelcus"23g -. -23h

231 x x deleia, "appropriale": Add: 'possible"24 x

25 x X too rigid

26 x

27 x x Arnmend: to lose rip el specifications

25 x x site liesignfplanning pdniple29 x x site desigrrlplanraingp€inciple30 . x x situ designlptanning principle31a x too Specific: as specified by L. Arch.114 too spsci€c: as specified by L. Arch.310 x loo specific: as specified by L: Arch.32 x

33 K x to be released upon final inspection by L. Arch34 x x x Conflict: BC Hydra,-relus, sic35 x x Allow chain 1inK.. securiiy fencing96 x x ,Sldewa[es - storm drains. Resolve conflict with MO-37 .... . x x Oc ete: "such as ..'rriowmenis"Site ttturninati n ;on5Stgnage38

.39 _ .: x x Add: or currant standards at the line'40 x

..... ,.

x aelete' tact Sentence41 x x rOIadtS to be pcsaitive

X42 X X 'rewrite to be positive

Pedestrian and Cyclist Cormideretions

43 z

44 x rewrfte to emphasize skmivinable materials45 x

11.0 Official Community Man

implementation Strategy

text

Objmotives

11.1 Devetgamort Amenities .

text

Objective

-Policies

1 z x Acquisition = public awnership Allow Private cwnerohip g, mseintenance

2 x

3a x :MOT subdivision

3b x

3d X . x Amend to atti>w private tnvneiShip30 0 .....3f

:32 x .. _a .. ... a Amend to allow private ownership

3h x x define 8 Q2peneto31 x - x Amend to allow pr ivate ownLrship3 x30 x

31 x

ern

311 x

30 x

.. ..3pti x , . ....3pitt X

Spiv ? .3pv x...3pvi z

3pv11 x

49x

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 43

French Creek House Ltd.

RON - DRAFT 8 AREA G OCR

12 Cooperation Amoung .luristdictlons

Taxi

Ob actives

Policies

za.4

Iao Oaffnistions

EVALUATfON FORM

x x define & deilHeale

x x define & delineate

X. i

PAGE 46

Add: "Community ` - a) dtizer^s IMng and worfong vOtd£n th2 plan area and as

as represented by a statlsilcany rate rant sample

„, .. . - _ Add; 'Dedication, to dedicate ' - designaticn or efloration ; does not menr Irenoter ofprivate ownership to the crown or public sector

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 44

Agricultural Land Commission

= Fax: 604 660-7033

141" February 2008 Please reply to the attention of Roger CheethamAIL File: # S - 37953

Greg Keller, MOPSeniorPlanner..-- ffiRegiona l District of f ianaimo6300 Hammond Bay RoadNanaimo, BC V9T 6N2 dEB 20 z

r^it^r^;sTS;^rDear Sir: NANAIM0

Re: Electoral Area G Official Ppmrunity Plan Review

With reference to your referral under cover of your letter dated 234 January 2008, inthe light of the time constraints the following comments are provided by the staff ofthe Commission. It is anticipated that the Island Panel of the Commission will be ableto review the plan at its next meeting which is scheduled for March 17-19' 2008.Any additional comments will be forwarded to you as soon as possible thereafter.

G.eneral We are pleased to note that the plan fully supports the mandate and policies ofthe Provincial Agricultural Land Commission and that it advocates strong urbancontainment with the protection of the resource lands including the ALR,

Goal 5: Improved Mobility and 9.1 Road Network Strategy. With regard to the proposednew connector route linking Church Road to Stanhope Road we recognise that this routeis desirable from a traffic circulation perspective. It is necessary that the route beinspected by the Commission to help its assessment of the strength of the arguments insupport of this route from a traffic circulation point of view as compared with the strengthof the agricultural arguments. Prima facie, in the tight of the good agricultural potential ofthe farm land in DL 20 it is likely that the Commission will have difficulty in supporting agoal that encourages the construction of a new connector route over this land. I n theevent that it considers that it can support the designation of a connector route in principleit is likely to require that alternative alignments be examined and an impact assessmentbe carried out in the event that an application is made to the Commission. As aminimum, the draft COP should state in Point 11 on Page 73 that the proposed ChurchRoad to Stanhope Road connector is subject to the approval of the ProvincialAgricultural Land Commission.

6.1 Parks Trails and Outdoor Recreational Opportunities We note that several of theareas envisaged for trails touch on land within the ALL. Bearing in mind the potential forsignificant impact on agriculture we suggest that the policies be strengthened as follows:

• By the Inclusion of a reference to the need for Commission approval fortrails within the ALR_By a reference to the need for measures to be taken to ensure thatadjacent agricultural activity is protected. We refer you to the Ministryof Agriculture and Lands publication Trails in Farm and Ranch Areas

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No, 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 45

Page 2

(see hgg *//vvww.al. gov. 1^_c.QEilres mci mt/sf/trails/index.htt ii ) and suggest that you might liketo add a reference to this guide in the policies,

Bt Agriculture We are pleased to note and support the policies in this section of theplan. In view of the existing Importance of agriculture in the plan area (we note thatover 50% of the plan area is located within the ALA) and its future importance to theeconomy of the region and to achieving the plan's sustainability objectives weconsider that there would be value in the Board establishing an Agricultural AdvisoryComm tee. We accordingly suggest that a policy be added providing for thiseventuality. We also suggest that the Regional District give consideration toundertaking an agricultural area plan for this and other areas within the RD. Wewould be pleased to provide further information if the Board would like to pursue thissuggestion further.

i9.4 Walkways, Bikeways and Trails We suggest that the policies in this section bestrengthened in a similar way to those suggested for 6.1.

10.0 Develogment Permit Areas. We are pleased to note that the majority of ©PA'saffecting land within the ALR exempt most agricultural activities from the need toapply for a permit provided that the activities are conducted in accordance withrecognized standards.

10.4 Farmland Protection The use of this CPA is supported. Bearing in mind that it isintended to control development in close proximity to but outside the ALR wesuggest that the CPA area shown on Map No. 10 be changed to reflect only the areasurrounding the ALR rather than areas within and outside the ALR. We note also thatin some areas the boundary of the CPA coincides with the ALA boundary and thusdoes not include areas outside the ALR to which it is intended that the DPA apply. Inother situations, in particular in the Little Qua.licurn River area at the westernextremity of the plan, significant areas have been included beyond the 15 metresmentioned In the plan. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has recently produceda draft guide to edge planning that is at present undergoing further review prior tofinalization. A copy is attached hereto. We draw your attention in particular toAppendix F which provides a sample CPA for the protection of farmland. You willnote that it is suggested that the CPA comprise a 300 metre wide area back from theAIL boundary. We suggest you give consideration to the points raised in the guideand also on the Ministry of Agriculture's web sitehtt i;//www.al.goy.bc.cairesmgmt/sf/edgefindex htm which provides more informationon edge planning.

We suggest that consideration be given to revising the provisions relating to this CPAin the light of this Information. At a minimum we suggest that the last sentence ofpage 94 be rewritten to make it clear that the CPA relates to the area surroundingthe ALR and the map adjusted to include a minimum area of 30 metres around theALA boundary.

11,0 Official Commu nity Plan Im plementation tr to We congratulate theRegional District with regard to the inclusion of this section in the plan. We have

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 46

Page 3

found that many OCP's do not Include effective strategies to ensure theimplementation of plan policies without which even the most comprehensive policiescan remain unfulfilled. Actions relating to agriculture would appear to fall under theheading "Creating a Vibrant and Sustainable Economy". We note that, of the severalimportant Issues that are highlighted in the objectives and policies under 8.1, onlyone action is identified in the implementation section. As indicated in our commentsrelating to Section 8.1 we consider that there would be significant benefit fromestablishing an Agricultural Advisory Committee, one of the responsibilities of whichcould be to explore ways and means of implementing the objectives and policiesidentified in Section 8.7. In particular it is critical that water, the life blood ofa*griculture, is available at an affordable price to meet future agricultural needs. If theRegional District does not wish to establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee atthis time we suggest that, at the least, an implementation committee be formed topursue these and possibly other objectives and policies identified in the plan.

Ma Nos, 4 and 8 In view of the potential of the proposed trails and roads to impactagricultural land it is suggested that a further note be added to the map to indicatethat the approval of the trails and roads by the ALC is required for land within theALR.

Map No. 10 As indicated under 10.4 we suggest that the map showing theFarmland Protection DPA be amended in accordance with the comments in the planrelating to this DPA.

Yours truly,

PROVINCIA GRIC LTURAL O

MMISSION

7..

8r.

Erik Ka.rlsen, Chair

Enclosure/MAL Guide

cc. Wayne Haddow, Regional Agrologist , Duncan

RCi(37953m 1

Electoral Area 'G' Offcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 47

BRI` 'iSHCOLUMBIA

rhz Sot Pktcc tin Earrh

February 20, 2008

Greg Keller,Senior PlannerRegional District ofNanaii€no6300 Hammond Bay RoadNanairt o, BC V91"6N2

Dear Mr, Keller:

We have received your referral regarding the proposed Regional District of Nanairno (RDN)Electoral Area 'O' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008 (Bylaw).

In light of the recently signed Climate Action Charter, MCS has an interest in furtheringplanning which has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Broader strategies being advanced to help fulfill the Charter's goals include fostering:

Compact, complete communities;Lighter infrastructure and buildings that are more energy-efficient and cost-effective;andSocially and economically-durable communities

The strategies also recognize that communities function as integral systems, and are also part o f alarger ecosystem.

The RDN has signed the Climate Action Charter, sending a signal to the province that it shares adesire to further these strategies . Under these circ*mstances , we would encourage the RDN toconsider any additional steps it might take in line with these strategies as it considers this Bylaw.

When considering final adoption of a bylaw, the Minister of Community Services will berequired to consider provincial interests. I understand that several provincial agencies haveprovided, or are in the process of providing comments to you regarding their specific interests.The minister will require assurances that these interests have been addressed prior to giving herassent to the Bylaw in question. The minister must also consider whether adequate consultationwith First Nations has taken place. The log of your referrals and follow-up phone calls, along

Ministry of Community tntargo-er;rmeMat feMM. r jinn A€ftss locators:88riices P rittg P€7 Box 9841 Sm PAOV GOVT V' F'z r, BW 40mon Su4e;,

vs BC VBW 872 Victor]g

MM, (2,A,) 3e7 - wxw- bc.t kerPat:,1250)397-4212

Electoral Area 'G ' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 48

with supporting and documentation that your agency has provided to this effect will helpstreamline her consideration in this regard.

I hope that these comments are of assistance to you. Ifyou wish to discuss them., or need -Furtherclarification, please feel free to call inc at 250.356.5137 or on my cell at 250,81 &5I31.

Regards,

Laura E. Tate, MA(Ping)Managcr, Growth Strategies

B ranch : fi Ee copy S ranch : diary copyDate Tvped : E'ebruary 14 , 2008 Prepared by:

Document Location : i:\gov retations oEan_divuegionat dis rids aanairr^cs' rererr l area g ocp.cioe

ARCS/ORCS#:

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 49

Fisheries and oceans Peches et Qc6ansCanada Canada

3225 Stephenson Point Road 'Nanaimo, British ColumbiaV9T 1K3 RECEIVED

January 30, 200 FEB 0 2008

of NAA AI O

Greg Keller

Regional District of Nanai. o6300 Hammond Bay RoadNauaimo, British ColumbiaV9T6N2

Dear Greg:

Ywffife Voere reference

hirjre 'ere rcFfcrc we

08-HPA C-PA3-00031

Su- bieet : Review ofRegional District of. Nar£_airno "Area G" OCP.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the OCP for "Area G". As you no doubtarewell aware, residential development is a growing concern as far as potential impactson fish habitat on the east coast ofVancouver Island is concerned. Small streamsand watercourses of the size that is small enough to be easily overlooked play animportant role in the habitat needs of some salmonids, particularly coho salmon andsea-run cutthroat trout. l appreciate the recognition of these habitats in your OCPand the Riparian Areas Regulation s as they apply to your Development Permittingprocedure.

i would like to seek clarification on item #2 on page 80 of the document:

I..iic L( ^r#Z Il ^,. o..,.. _1311 ' ;°C ^. ^_^ ."7: ^^'^1a' j?.' i'f;i:3 l€e;l'.^tia'; ^^111 z^.it.€n 4)?'ke 111 E.r:'^en 1'! •n ':.'r:

f ?"';k !;

.i fll

.':S tCi'ii E^s_l;. •^^,^i- lli^ s c '43`^'i. 4 .°.', .i?,''C'1' ^c: c _ u S^ -. cz? is^. ... l.'^3.:....-^^...

I may have misunderstood the intent of this section, but the wording seems to methat the 30-meter Riparian Assessment Area under the Riparian Areas Regulationsonly applies on Little Qualicum River, Englishman River and French Creek andtributaries to these systems and that on other watercourses only activities within 15meters require assessment. The Riparian Areas Regulations stipulate a 30-metreRiparian Assessment Area for all watercourses that connect with fish-bearingwater, either permanently or seasonally. The following is the definition for a

144

Canal,,./2

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 50

_2-

watercourse taken directly from the Riparian Areas Regulations AssessmentMethods Guideboo :

UWC

315 F^.';?f[13:i lt,itl i i

The fR`pr iwi A;.reaa+ 1:c-, E~,lt?1:(1 tic Ii m,, :, sfnan a 11 Y i,! I # :1^3i71:111-°

{hai pro idc, t1 hi hahtrat N91 C-=In I;)iui t :oel' on a ppzrrenniaal or s-VIIsLon 0 i-r'l.d`l:e, ! scoured by

oatc or s:onta`ais L3^) 3 iedepsl+It j 1ii77 et S i13S I[t ip OF '),IS a ;i Tl.ez ?!:ou C 11:111D6 bed

1I C 1"t1C lil# a it' rer ;iii ie i11 ? C?IJ -LICC by C! = 'rhaTl it or b iii 'il k° ` t ttion or soil 713ata.

i'rl-IrsC mn a'' ni it ciI he inhabited by Ii h, bat ni4` ovid ^ F? r. h^°17t Ei and >.4` Fie i rieIs: rtreani;; Shat do) support Iish.

Sick fl !Y nei , lilt?' I1.ae't?{ {TGCI> i.. e°:{?ti^A°(''s ZL:'iFf C eo itlE unus L_1't s are 3€?i 1"Ldti by the

^e }iit;{lt?i? tiff ttyari ;f'}tteh !: e1odc :'!cti^=C ;i' R 1 .idTT ^', e .': l

lob ate defined under the Rq,)ariatl Areas R-1,cund itioiu. Jame fish :u defined

is C t 3 7^ y' : "li ?Ilc tad : trouI. ha , whit f:i'•.?, ^ ass, ^tC;F:'ane ? It; '` ;! t r

:y^::;l'i'(am. black crappie. al }1lhern pike, 'ciIot - 9e?'ch k4a U ve. lrotrJea, fY1C;Csnnu anti

cray:^T4^i. 4c ° l' 4ii1^ '' cif S77 Fi=f?iI i! Ia S^'i l be £4^ 1'erminedb i ' I ... 3aatie }' } ies Iii t arc

71 ;. Sl ire tai either f r. '?ill _ IniE'V

to ex('css 11'111e Qr - oI' ]rotceiloll iidCF1 ilicJA l;I3dcr the Riparian

sh,o ld i eeie-w Specivti) ceot•erv Pans or contact ti: ?C stall"in `00 is o r D1`03 a-c {'fir' r^iir.t, the

specific nwedst3I itsesp'iis". i.

Under the Riparian Areas regulations, watercourses, particularly wetlands , can have a30-metre Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area that extends beyond the 15-metre assessment area required in Item 2 of that section of the OCP.in my experience as a fisheries consultant prior to working with Fisheries and OceansCanada ' s Habitat Section , it was my observation that impacts to habitat rarelyoccurred as a result of deliberate disregard of the Fisheries Act and other legislationenacted to protect fish habitat, but rather as the result of an inability on the behalf ofpeople to recognize fish habitat for what it is. The majority of people are also unawareas to the more broad definition of a watercourse that is protected under the RiparianAreas Regulations. To this end, perhaps any application for Development Permits couldinclude a reference to the Riparian Areas Regulation requiremen ts and the defin ition ofa watercourse covered by Riparian Areas Regulations that I have included above. Totake it one step further, to cover people who remove riparian vegetation as part of theirlandscaping efforts that are not covered in a permit application, perhaps a brief outlineof the above could be Incl uded for all land-owners as a matter of course. Such areminder could accompany the delivery of the annual tax assessment, for example.It is the goal of the Habitat Section of Fisheries & Oceans Canada to avoid impactsthrough public education rather than to en force the Fisheries Act and Imposemitigative measures after habitat impacts have occurred. If you already have such aprogram In place, please disregard my suggestion.I welcome any comments you may have to my response and lock forward to workingwith you towards the common goal of fish habitat protection shared by Fisheries &Oceans Canada and your Official Community Plan.

..13

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 51

-3

Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me directly by telephone at(250) 756-7269, or by e-mail at voiiers ac.dfo-nipo.gc.ca..

Yours sincerely,

/exl,

Steve VollerHabitat Biologist

c.c.: Magnan, Alain

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No, 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 52

Little Qualicum Waterworks District

,live C'2^t64

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 53

Little Qualicum Waterworks District

r1-4A

f r

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008

March 27, 2008

Page 54

Area G OCP I?raft

Keeler, Greg

From : Edgar, David 0 TRAN:EX [David, Edgarfgov.bc,ca]

Sent: February 20, 2008 2:04 PM

To: Keller, Greg

Cc: Wylie, Bob TRAN:EX

Subject: Area G OCP Draft

Greg,

Page I of 1

Bob Wylie passed the draft OCF for electoral area G to me for review- After review, MoT has no comments or objections.Thank you for the opportunity for input.

Dave

Dave EdgarTransportation Planning EngineerMinistry of Transportation3rd Floor- 2100 Labieux RoadNanairno, 8 G. V9T 8E9

'&: (200 ) 751-3276Fox (250) 751-3288

David [emailprotected]__.ta

20/02/2008

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540. 2008March 27, 2008

Page 55

ty o 'JPARK ILLEPC Box 13 90, 100 E . Jensen Avenue , Park5vU , BC V9P 2H3

1elephone , (250) 248-6 t 44 Fax: (250) 248-6650www parkwole.ca

February 28, 2008

VIA FAX : 1-250-390-7511 _ PAGE 1 OF 2

Regional District of Nanaimo i___..... ND)6300 Hammond Bay RoadNanairno , BC V9T6N2

ATTENTION: REG KELLER, MCIP SENIOR PLANNER

Dear Sirs:

SUBJECT: ELECTORAL AREA 'G' OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN REVIEW

Thank you for your referral l etter dated January 23 , 2008.

Please note that the following comments are from the perspective of the PlanningDepartment and do not represent the views of the City of Parksville or its electedofficials.

Overall , the proposed Official Community Plan (OCP) appears to consist mainly of finetuning as a resu lt of the consolidation of the three existing Electoral Area 'G' OCP's. Itappears that the significant changes are with respect to the following land use policies-

• Increase in density permitted in the Wembley Neighbourhood Centre inexchange for the provisioning of green space amenities;

• Expansion of Wembley Neighbourhood Centre by the addition of one propertywhich has been granted a conditional exclusion from the Agricultural LandReserve (ALR);

• Expansion of the Urban Containment Boundary as a result of the proposedincrease to the Wembley Neighborhood Centre;

Addition of new Rural Residential designation;

• The inclusion of an additional property under the industrial land use designationin the vicinity of Church Road;

Reconfiguration of French Creek to include more mixed-use type development.... /2

Electoral Area 'G ' Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 56

Mr. G. KellerFebruary 28, 2008Page 2

We do not take issue with the proposed density changes within the WembleyNeighbourhood Centre land use designation as the proposed policies appear topromote clustered development and the inclusion of additional public amenity space.

With respect to the expansion of the Wembley Neighbourhood Centre, given that mostof the existing designated area is undeveloped and without community services, theredoes not appear to be an overly compelling reason for expansion of this land use at thistime. Generally we would not be supportive of this expansion unless it provides anopportunity to improve the overall traffic situation in the surrounding neighbourhood. Ourposition with respect to the change is the Urban Containment Boundary is the same.

The inclusion of new rural residential land use designations appears to recognizealready existing land use patterns and in most cases carries forward existing land usepolicies. We have no issue with these changes,

With respect to the inclusion of one additional industrial property in proximity to ChurchRoad we do not take issue as we understand that it is intended to resolve a geographicanomaly that was created by the Inland Island Highway. We would however ask thatany land use decision be guided by strong aquifer protection principles.

Proposed changes to what was the French Creek Comprehensive Development Areaappear to consist mostly of the addition of mixed commercial-residential use to whatwas formerly designated as commercial only. We do not take issue with this proposedchange. In our opinion it is a positive change that has the potential to work towards amore integrated and sustainable community node.

In general we do not take issue with the proposed OCP provided that the land usepolices with respect to traffic and servicing is strongly adhered to.

Please feel free to contact me for any clarification or questions you may have,

Sincerely,

B. RUSSELLManager of Current Planning

BRlsb

EIUsersIPtanrifng/O4M5SJIRON/Area G/2008/Ke!!er-3.

Electoral Area 'G' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1540, 2008March 27, 2008

Page 57

TOWN OF QUALICUM BEACH2(0 - 550 Ptimrcar Sr rr Teta pore: 1250) 7_.^_-fig' i

TM ElI

Ro. 5o, 130 VED I Fax; (2:10) 7>«• 12 43QuaEicuin Hra rS , a.L'. e- rail: qla ownt^quri uumtx act .e i

V9K 157 'lvehri;e : www.qualicuw.b icit-ee i

F EB :8February x5.2008 }RE 31Q .AL DlSTRI

... .o i AIGregg Keller, Senior PlannerRegional District of Nanaimo Planning Department1300 Hammond Hay RdNanainto, 13C V9T 6N2

Dear Mr. Kciler,

Re: Electoral Area `G' Oft e as Community Plan Review

Thtink you for the opportunity to review the Area `G' OCP. It is s goad documrni and we commend youfor your work. Following are comments from our Planning Department:

to Section 2.8 (Green Development), it should be noted that the objectives of this section (especially 4) do

not take priority over those in Section 3.0. "Containing Urban Sprawl" Green developments outside of the

designated growth areas would not he an asset if they are developed at the sacrifice of urban ewilainment.

`l'he s urJing in this particular section is vague, and may encourage developers to greenwash their protects

to help push them through.

In your discussion of Secondary Suites:o We feel that 2 parking spaces for each urrit is more than necessary. 'T'his requirement will

discourage the development of new suites or force owners doing renovation to tear Outfront yard landscaping. We suggest 1 space is adequate for a secondary suite.

o Seconilaerv .suites should he Permitted in rural areas as well, unless there is already a

se::vrrd dwelling (mobile or modular home) on the property. Secondary suites are

suppo=rted by the ALR regulations.

r It sh uld be. r.Ci:d that second:1T`,' suites should not be a separate strata unit.

. P. 3?: Poliew ?, - Caution: about going more than lour storie, us this :ut: F out :':f sea lr .^rac,crfor th general arcs

e Stree t cr. t're warding in your developrrunt rr r rill areas . Use 'crust' instead ul ' should. et-..

• "No n t lass of enviroirm rr a.31v sensitive areas. " What dues this mean ? We are hoping than thisdotes not mean that it is possible to develop ex isting ESAs.

• Typo : p 29 bullet 12 "insider"

t There is an error in your bate map. "`';;. curve at RupertlRennctt Rd is of?, mid also at

i,:aahurnumllsiand Highwag. Tell Two Solder or someone else frurn your mapping deparlmes.I that

bw can eonwwi us and wi :vould Ke happy to help.

N:tPlanni^ , ',i tt rstArea fT DC?' - cOm meats [! s-

National 'Communities in B€orum ' ci'Flora €' A ward Winner

Electoral Area 'G' Ofcial Community Plan Bylaw No. .7540,2008March 27, 2008

Page 58

We are concerned over the densification of the Werubley Mail area. 50 twits/hectare + bonuses?'T'hese urban densities are more appropriate under a municipal governance structure. Perhaps thisarea should be assimilated into Parksville.

Expansion of UCI3 west of Werabley Mali should not result in additional commercial in this area.Only residential densiticaEtion. Parlcsville and QB would not benefit from additional commercialjust outside our boundaries. OCP should recognize that Wembley Mall is a small commercial centreserving local needs.

Parkland acquisition and parkland evaluation section has been removed from this draft. This maybe a mistake. This puts the decision regarding parkland dedication or cash in4ieu at the time ofsubdivision in the hands of the developer. The subdivision approving officer can only demand parkland, as opposed to cash. in lieu, if the land is identified as a possible future park in the OCP.

Regards,

Paul Butler Luke SaleDirector of Planning Planner

N:'Tlanning\.Lctters\Area G OCT Review - conunents.doc

PR REGIONALDISTRICTof NANAIMO

TO: Paul ThompsonManager, Long I

EAP V

COIN

MAR 2 8 2008

HO ry MEMORANDUMBOARD

DATE: March 27, 2008range Planning

FROM: Greg Keller FILE: 6480 40 EA A Land InvSenior Planner

SUBJECT: Electoral Area 'A' Official Community Plan Land Inventory Results

PURPOSE

To present the results of the Land Inventory for the Cedar Village Centre and the Suburban Residentialland use designations.

BACKGROUND

In preparation for the next Official Community Plan review which is anticipated to begin later this year, aland inventory has been completed to determine whether there is an adequate supply of land available forcommercial and institutional uses in the Cedar Village Centre and whether there is a need for more land toaccommodate both the increase in population in the immediate vicinity and the future needs of the PlanArea.

ALTERNATIVES

To receive the Cedar Land Inventory results attached as Schedule No. I for information.To receive the Cedar Land Inventory results attached as Schedule No. 1 and provide staff withfurther direction.

DISCUSSION

The inventory results show that the vast majority of lands within the Study Area are currently zoned forresidential use. This is followed by public use and commercial. Lands zoned for commercial use representonly a small fraction of the Study Area.

In addition, the majority of the land within the Study Area is currently being used for residential purposes.Commercial and industrial uses represent a very small proportion of the Study Area. Although only asmall portion of the lands within the Study Area are currently vacant, nearly half of this vacant land is inthe as yet undeveloped Cedar Estates property located in the Cedar Village Centre.

The inventory found that there is approximately 8,199.6 m2 of existing commercial floor area within theStudy Area. There is also potential for an additional 6,691 mz of commercial floor area under the existingzoning.

An online questionnaire was utilized as a way of obtaining community feedback. A total of 81 responseswere received. For a summary of the questionnaire results please refer to Schedule No. I or to thedocument titled "Cedar Village Centre and Suburban Residential Lands Questionnaire Results" The

100

Land Inventory Results

Page 2

questionnaire results along with the other findings of this study, will be made available to the communityand will be given consideration during the Electoral Area'A` Official Community Plan review.

To obtain community feedback and input to the inventory process, an open house was held at the CedarCommunity Secondary School on February 25, 2008. The Open house was advertised by sending noticesto all Plan Area residents and by placing a notice in the Take 5 and Nanaimo News Bulletin newspapers.Approximately 70 people attended the Open House. Overall response to the information at the OpenHouse was positive. Some of the issues raised at the Open House were outside of the scope of the CedarLand Inventory and therefore are not addressed in this report. These concerns were primarily related tothe proposed closure of Woodbank School and the proposed development at Cable Bay.

Other feedback from the Open House indicated that future planning processes should be focused oncommunity sustainability. In addition, there appears to be a desire for crosswalks and speed control onCedar Road.

VOTING

Electoral Area Directors - one vote, except Electoral Area'B'

CONCLUSION

The inventory of the Cedar Village Centre and Suburban Residential land use designations is nowcomplete. The findings of the inventory indicate that there is approximately 8,199 m2 of existingcommercial floor area within the Study Area and potential for an additional 6,691 m2 of commercial floorarea based on the existing zoning. Since the amount of vacant commercial land within the Study Area islow (approximately 4%), most of the estimated additional commercial floor area would be in the form ofadditions to existing buildings and by making more efficient use of existing commercial zoned properties(i.e., constructing more buildings and/or adding more uses). There appears to be adequate commercialfloor area potential to meet the immediate needs of Study Area residents without expanding thecommercial zoning designation.

In addition, other nearby future commercial developments will likely have some impacts on the CedarVillage Centre and its role in the community.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Board receive the Electoral Area At Cedar Village Centre and Sdesignations and inventory attached as Schedule No. 1.

Repo ter

Manager Concurren e

COMMENTS

land use

CAO Concurrence

101

Page 1

Schedule No. 1

Land Inventory Results

ELECTORAL AREA 'A' OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN

LAND INVENTORY

CEDAR VILLAGE CENTRE AND SUBURBAN

RESIDENTIAL LANDS

RESULTS

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO

MARCH 2008

102

Schedule No. iLand Inventory Results

Page 2

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Purpose of This Study ...................................................................................... ............4

.1.2 Land Inventory Process ................................................................................... ............4

2.0 Results of the Land Use Inventory ............................................................................. ............5

2.1 Population Demographics ................................................................................ ............ 5

2.1.1 Population Growth ................................................................................... ............ 5

2.1.2 Population Age Characteristics ............................................................... ............ 6

2.2 Regional Growth Strategy Designations and Implications .............................. ............7

2.3 Cedar Village Centre ............................... ........................................................ ............7

2.3.1 Official Community Plan Land Use Designation .................................... ............7

2.3.2 Current Zoning ............................. ........................................................... ............ 8

2.3.3 Existing Land Use ................................................................................... ............8

2.3.4 Existing and Potential Commercial Floor Area ....................................... ............ 9

2.4.3 Existing Land Use ................................................................................... ..........10

2.4.4 Existing and potential Commercial Floor Area ....................................... ..........11

2.5 Dwelling Unit Count Within Walking Distance to the Cedar Village Centre . .......... 11

2,6 Residential Lot Supply - .................................................................................. ..........12

2.7 Other considerations and factors affecting development ................................ ..........13

2.7.1 Other Signi ficant Developments ............................................................. ..........13

2.7.2 Community Water and Community Sewer Servicing ............................. ..........14

2.7.3 Road Network and Alternate Forms of Transportation ........................... ..........14

2.7.3 Public Transit ..................................... ...................................................... ..........14

2.7.4 Environmental Protection ........................................................................ ..........16

3.0 Questionnaire Results and Public Input ...................................................................... .......... 16

4.0 Summary of the Results .......................... .................................................................... .......... 18

5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. ..........19

Appendix A - Questionnaire - ................................................ ............................................ .......... 20

Appendix B - Zoning Descriptions ..................................................................................... .......... 25

Appendix C - Official Community Plan Land Use Map .................................................... ..........33

Appendix D - Zoning Map .................................................................................................. ..........34

103

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 3

1.0 Introduction

The Electoral Area'A' Official Community Plan specifies two village centres: the Cassidy Village Centreand the Cedar Village Centre. The latter is intended to be the primary service centre for the Plan Area.Recent amendments to the Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw to permit the construction ofresidential uses and 75 personal care units within the Cedar Village Centre has raised the question ofwhether there is an adequate supply of land available for commercial use and whether there is a need formore commercial land to accommodate both the increase in population in the immediate vicinity and thefuture needs of the Plan Area.

This land use inventory is focused on the lands within the Cedar Village Centre and the SuburbanResidential land use designation as shown on Map No. I below. These are lands that are currently insidethe Urban Containment Boundary as designated in the Regional Growth Strategy. In addition, the landinventory will also document the current use and zoning of land within the Study Area.

The findings of this study will then be used to inform the Area 'A' Official Community Plan Reviewprocess scheduled to start later this year.

Map No. I - Cedar Village Centre and Suburban Residential land Use Designations

(The Study Area)

t Ceder" iagt Centre

Suburban Residential area

4W emNV qtr

l i

-I

I1 -

104

Schedule No.. ILand Inventory Results

Page 4

1.1 Purpose of This Study

The primary purpose of the study is to document the amount of land that is currently available forcommercial use in the Cedar Village Centre.

1.2 Land Inventory Process

The Cedar Village Centre and Suburban Lands land inventory involves a four stage approach thatincludes a land use inventory, an open house, a questionnaire, and a final analysis by staff. Each stage inthe project is outlined below:

Step 1: Conduct a Land Use Inventory

The first step in the land inventory consists of a review of the current zoning and official community planland use designations to determine the permitted uses and densities in the Study Area.

Next, a spreadsheet with information on the properties in both the Cedar Village Centre and the SuburbanResidential land use designation was created, The Regional District of Nanaimo's GIS departmentprovided the following data in an excel spreadsheet for each parcel within the Study Area:

• Property Identifier Number (PID); • Lot Area (square metres);Address and Street Name; • Developed or Vacant;

• Land Use Zoning; n Subdivision District;Subdivision Potential(number of potential additional lots taking into account roads, park, and environmentally sensitivefeatures)

As well, existing floor area was calculated for each commercial and industrial parcel located within thestudy area based on orthophoto interpretation and the floor area calculations in previously issued buildingpermits. Additional development potential has also been estimated for all Commercial and Industrialproperties within the Study Area using the maximum parcel coverage and height requirements specifiedin Regional District of Nanaimo Land Use and Subdivision Bylaw No. 500, 1987 and orthophotointerpretation.

This information has been compiled to determine the availability of lands for future commercial andindustrial development in the Cedar Village Centre and future residential development within theSuburban Residential Lands Designation.

With respect to residential lands within the Suburban Residential land use designation, the number ofparcels, number of dwelling units, and additional subdivision potential has been estimated in order todetermine the long term residential lot supply within the Study Area.

The results of the land use inventory assessment are summarized in Section 2.0 below:

Step 2: Prepare and Implement a Questionnaire

A questionnaire was developed by Regional District of Nanaimo staff to obtain feedback from thecommunity on a variety of factors related to commercial development in the Cedar Village Centre. Theseinclude:

1. The catchment area for the Cedar Village Centre (who shops there?).2. The commercial needs of the community.

105

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 5

3. Support for additional commercial development within or adjacent to the Cedar VillageCentre.

4. To find out where the community shops and accesses other services.5. The effectiveness of the Cedar Village Centre.6. The strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for the Village Centre.7. To identify what the communities concerns are over development in the Cedar Village

Centre.

8. To identify what community amenities may be desirable in association with additionalcommercial development.

The questions contained in the questionnaire are attached to this report as Appendix A. The questionnairewill be administered using on on-line survey service called "Survey Monkey" (www.surveymonkey.com)and will incorporate a few different question formats including multiple choice, rating scale, and openended. The Regional District of Nanaimo website will be used to provide a link to the survey and printedcopies will also be available for those who do not have access to the internet.

In order to advertise the questionnaire, notices will be published in the Take 5 and the Nanaimo NewsBulletin. Unaddressed mail will also be used to send an informational brochure to all properties within theStudy Area.

The results of the survey will be included in the final report to be presented to the Board at a later date.

Step 3: Hold an Open House/Information Session

An open house/information session will be held to present and discuss the preliminary findings of theland inventory, the questionnaire, and to obtain additional community input.

Step 4: Prepare the final analysis

Based on the findings of the land use inventory and commercial needs assessment, questionnaire, andopen house, staff will complete the assessment with the intent that it be used as a source of informationfor the next Electoral Area 'A' Official Community Plan review.

2.0 Results of the Land Use Inventory

The following section presents the preliminary findings of the land use inventory.

2.1 Population Demographics

Population statistics on Electoral Area 'A', the Regional District of Nanaimo, The City of Nanaimo, andthe Town of Ladysmith have been compiled from Statistics Canada's 1981-2006 census data.

Population demographics are not available for the Study Area so the figures for all of Electoral Area 'A'have been used.

2.1.1 Population Growth

Table 2.0 below illustrates the change in population from 1981 to 2006 based on data obtained fromStatistics Canada.

106

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 6

Table 1 of 2 - Population from 1981 to 1991

Area 1981 1986 1991% Population % Population % Population

Elec. Area `A' 4,661 1.2 4,718 13.2 5,341RDN 77,624 6.6 82,714 23.8 102,411Nanaimo 47,069 4.2 49,029 22.6 60,129Ladysmith 4,558 -3.6 4,393 11.0 4,875

Table 2 of 2 - Population from 1996 to 2006

Area 1996 2001 2006% Population % Population % Population

Elec. Area `A' 17.1 6,252 2.7 6,423 5.1 6,751RDN 18.9 121,783 4.3 127,016 9.1 138,631Nanaimo 16.6 70,130 4.1 73,000 7.8 78,692Lad smith 32.47 6,456 5.5 6,811 10.7 7,538

Source: Statistics Canada, 1981-2006 Censuses

As the above table illustrates, Electoral Area 'A' has generally experienced a slower rate of growth thanthe Regional District of Nanaimo, the City of Nanairno, and the Town of Ladysmith. There are manyfactors that could have contributed to this slower rate of growth including lack of community sewer, theavailability of land for development, market conditions, and other unknown variables.

The average rate of population growth in Electoral Area 'A' between 1981 and 2006 is 7.9%.

2.1.2 Population Age Characteristics

The population age characteristics of a community have planning implications, particularly to ensureappropriate community services such as schools and parks are provided and to ensure that an adequaterange of housing options are available.

Table 2.1 illustrates the age distribution for Electoral Area'A', the Regional District of Nanaimo, the Cityof Nanaimo, the Town of Ladysmith, and British Columbia for the 2006 census year, which is the mostcurrent information available. The population age characteristics of Electoral Area 'A' are relativelyconsistent with the surrounding communities and the provincial median age. The dominant age groupwithin Electoral Area 'A' and all of the other communities compared is 45-64 years of age. Seniors overthe age of 65 represent only 13.9 percent of the population; however, within the next ten years the numberof seniors is expected to increase as the dominant age group (45-64) moves towards the 65+ age groupcategory.

107

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 7

Approximately 62,9 percent of the population of Electoral Area 'A' is of working age between the ages of20 and 64, which is the highest of all the adjacent communities compared in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1 - Population Distribution

A e Distribution

Percent of thePopulation

Within WorkingMedian Dominant Age

Area 0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65+ Age Age Group (19-64)Electoral Area'A' 16.6 10.7 24.7 34.0 13.9 43.9 45-64 rs 62.9

Regional Districtof Nanaimo 14.3 11.9 21.2 31.7 20.9 46.6 45-64 yrs 58.5City of Nanaimo 15.3 13.8 23.7 29.2 18.0 43.2 45-64 yrs 60.0

Town ofLadysmith 16.6 10.5 21.7 30.7 20.6 45.9 45-64 rs 56.3BC 16.5 13.1 27.4 28.4 14.6 40.8 45-64 yrs 62.2

Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Community Profiles

2.2 Regional Growth Strategy Designations and Implications

All of the Study Area is located within the Urban Containment Boundary as defined by the RegionalGrowth Strategy. The Urban Containment Boundary coincides with the boundary of the SuburbanResidential land use designation as defined in the Official Community Plan (OCP). The Cedar VillageCentre is recognized as a village centre by the Regional Growth Strategy.

Although not all lands located within the Urban Containment Boundary are intended to be developed, ingeneral, higher densities are supported on lands within the Urban Containment Boundary. In addition,commercial, recreation, and institutional uses are encouraged within the Urban Containment Boundarywith a focus on the village centre. Although it is recognized that there are existing commercial useslocated outside of the village centre, the Official Community Plan supports all new commercial usesbeing located within the village centre.

The provision of community water and community sewer to land located within the Urban ContainmentBoundary is supported for the purpose of facilitating additional development.

2.3 Cedar Village Centre

2.3.1 Official Community Plan Land Use Designation

"Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'A' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1240, 2001"designates the 'Cedar Village Centre' and the 'Suburban Residential' land use designations within theStudy Area. Overall, the Study Area is approximately 177 hectares in area and of that approximately 14.2ha is designated within the Cedar Village Centre. For more detailed information, please refer to MapNo. 2, which is attached as Appendix C.

The Electoral Area 'A' Official Community Plan recognizes the Cedar Village Centre as the maincommercial and service area within Electoral Area 'A'. The maximum density supported within thisdesignation is 100 multi-family dwelling units and up to 75 supportive housing units.

108

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 8

2.3.2 Current Zoning

"Regional District of Nanaimo Land Use and Subdivision Bylaw No. 500, 1987" applies to all ofElectoral Area W. There are currently 5 zoning designations within the Cedar Village Centre whichincludes a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential zoning classifications with a heavy emphasis onresidential and commercial. Please refer to Map 3 - Current Zoning attached as Appendix D. Table 2.3below summarizes the current zoning designations and their total area within the Cedar Village Centre.

Table 2.3 - Current Zoning within the Cedar Village Centre

Zoning Permitted Uses Area (m2) % of Cedar Village Centre

Commercial 2 Funeral Parlour 37,065.2 31.5Gas BarNurseryOfficePersonal Service UseRecreation FacilityRestaurantRetail Store

Commercial 5 Hotel 9,008.0 7.6Resort Condominium UnitMarinaNeighbourhood PubPublic Assembly UseRecreation FacilityResidential UseRestaurantResort Vehicle ParkTourist Information BoothTourist Store

Industrial 1 Light Industry 1,747.1 1.5Heavy Equipment DisplayResidential Use

Recreational I Campground 24,124.3 20.4Outdoor RecreationResidential Use

CD 29 (Residential) Residential use 46,580.1 39.3Home Based BusinessPersonal Care UnitAccessory Convenience Store

Total 118,524.7 100.0

2.3.3 Existing Land Use

Currently the dominant use in the Cedar Village Centre is commercial followed by recreational andresidential as shown in Table 2.4 below. For the purpose of this report, existing land use means the actualuse of a parcel regardless and independent from the current zoning designation.

Table 2.4 - Existing land use within the Cedar Village Centre

Use Area m2 Percentage of Cedar Village CentreCommercial Use 42,092.2 35,5

Industrial Use 1,741.0 1.5Recreational Use 24,124.3 20,4Residential Use 3,987.1 3.4Vacant 46,580.1 39.3Total 118 ,524.7 100.0

109

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 9

Not all land within the Cedar Village Centre is developed or is being used for the use specified by thecurrent zoning, Slightly less than half (39%) of the land within the Cedar Village Centre is currentlyvacant. However, all of the vacant land is a direct result of an undeveloped residential parcel currentlyzoned CD29 (Cedar Estates). Since there are no other vacant or undeveloped commercial or industrialzoned properties within the Cedar Village Centre, all future commercial and industrial developments mustoccur on previously developed sites. This may include infill and intensification of existing developmentsor redevelopment of existing sites.

2.3.4 . Existing and Potential Commercial Floor Area

Previously issued building permits and orthophotos have been reviewed to estimate the existingcommercial floor space within the Cedar Village Centre. The results of this review are shown in Table 2.5below.

The potential additional commercial floor space has been estimated based on a number of factorsincluding the current zoning (height, parcel coverage, setbacks, etc.), topographical and physical siteconstraints, and known environmentally sensitive features. When considering the zoning requirements foreach property, the potential for a second storey was considered where the maximum height specified bythe zoning is conducive to two storey construction. In addition, where a property was zoned commercialand was not developed with commercial uses, it was assumed that redevelopment of the property withcommercial uses to the maximum feasible extent could occur.

Table 2.5 - Existing Commercial Floor Space and Commercial Floor Space Potential within the CedarVillage Centre

Existing Commercial Floor Area 5,543.56 mPotential Additional Commercial Floor Area 10,019.1 rn 5,009 ..m2 Conservative Estimate)

As illustrated in Table 2.5 above, there is approximately 5,543 m2 of existing commercial floor spacewithin the Cedar Village Centre. Based on the existing zoning, it is estimated that there is potential for anadditional 10,019 m2 of commercial floor space. However, this estimate of additional commercial floorspace assumes that all commercial properties are developed to their maximum potential, which mayinclude significant alterations to existing buildings, the addition of a second storey, or depending on thelayout of the development, may require a redevelopment of the site to maximize the potential floor area.Therefore, it is unlikely that the Cedar Village Centre would be developed to its estimated maximumpotential due to the existing situation. A conservative estimate of 5,009 mz of additional floor area islikely a more realistic estimate.

2.4 Suburban Residential Land Use Designation

2.4.1 Official Community Plan Land Use Designation

The "Regional District of Nanaimo Electoral Area 'A' Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1240, 2001"designates the 'Cedar Village Centre' 'Suburban Residential' land use designations within the Study Area.As mentioned above, the Study Area is approximately 177 ha in area and of that approximately 163 ha isdesignated within the Suburban Residential land use designation.

The Suburban Residential land use designation supports a maximum density of five dwelling units perhectare.

For more detailed information, please refer to Map No. 2, which is attached as Appendix C.

110

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 10

2.4.2 Current Zoning

There are currently five zoning designations within the Suburban Residential land use designation. Pleaserefer to Map 3 -- Current Zoning attached as Appendix D.

As Table 2.6 below illustrates , the dominant zoning designation is Residential 2 followed by Public 1 andRural 4. What is important to note is that although Commercial 2 zoned lands represent a very smallfraction (less than I%) of the land within the Suburban Residential lands designation , that they represent asignificant proportion ( 18%) of the commercial zoned land within the Study Area.

In addition, nearly all (96%) of the land zoned for residential use within the Study Area is located in theSuburban Residential designation.

Table 2.6 - Existing zoning within the Suburban Residential land use designation

Zoning Area mZ Percent of Suburban Residential

Commercial 2 9,125.4 0.7

Industrial 1 9,242.5 0.7

Public 1 162,832.8 12.4

Residential 2 1,101,670.6 83.6

Rural 4 349,60.5 2.7Total 1 ,317,831.8 100.0

Please refer to Appendix B for a complete description of each of the above zoning designations.

With respect to residential zoned properties within the Study Area, the minimum parcel size specified bythe zoning Bylaw is 2000 tn2 provided that community water is provided to each parcel. Withoutcommunity water, the minimum parcel size supported by the current zoning is 1.0 ha.

The residential density supported by the current zoning is generally consistent with that supported in theOfficial Community Plan as the maximum density is five dwelling units per hectare (2,000 m2 minimumparcel size) with community water and community sewer. However, the current zoning also supports thesame minimum parcel size on properties with community water but no community sewer.

Although all of the Suburban Residential lands are located within the Urban Containment Boundary,future commercial uses should be focused within the Cedar Village Centre. The dominant land use withinthe Suburban Residential land use designation is residential followed by Public/Institutional.

2.4.3 Existing Land Use

Not all land within the Suburban Residential designation is developed or is being used for the usespecified by the current zoning. Approximately 5% of the land within the Suburban Residentialdesignation is currently undeveloped.

Commercial and industrial use make up only a small percentage of the Suburban Residential land usedesignation. The existing commercial and industrial uses are, for the most part, uses which have occurredon properties that historically have been zoned for that use. However, as stated above, the commercialuses in the Suburban Residential designation make up almost one fifth of the commercial uses in theStudy Area. Therefore, the commercial and industrial uses located in this land use designation play an

111

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 11

important role in the community even though they represent a small percentage of the SuburbanResidential land use designation.

Table 2.7 - Existing land use in the Suburban Residential land use designation

Use Area mzPercentage

of Suburban Residential

Commercial Use 5,834.8 0.4Industrial Use 9,242.5 0.7

Public/Institutional 16,2832.8 12.4Residential Use 1,041,209.3 79.0Vacant 67,63 5.0 5.1Rural 31,077.4 2.4

Total 1,317,831.8 1 00.0

2.4.4 Existing and potential Commercial Floor Area

Previously issued building permits and orthophotos have been reviewed to estimate the existingcommercial floor space within the Suburban Residential land use designation. The results of this revieware shown in Table 2.8 below.

The additional commercial floor space potential has been estimated based on a number of factorsincluding the current zoning (height, parcel coverage, setbacks, etc.), topographical and physical siteconstraints, and any known environmentally sensitive features. When considering the zoningrequirements for each property, the potential for a second storey was considered where the maximumheight specified by the zoning is conducive to two storey construction. In addition, where a property iszoned commercial and is not developed with commercial uses, it was assumed that the property could beredeveloped with commercial uses to the maximum permitted amount.

Table 2.8 - Existing and potential commercial floor area within the Suburban Residential land usedesignation

Existing Commercial Floor Area 2,656 m2

Potential Additional Commercial Floor Area 3,373 m2 (1,685 m2 Conservative Estimate)

As illustrated in Table 2.8 above, there is approximately 2,656 m2 of existing commercial floor areawithin the Suburban Residential land use designation. Based on the existing zoning, it is estimated thatthere is potential for an additional 3,373 in . However, this estimate assumes that all commercialproperties are developed to their maximum potential, which may include significant alterations to existingbuildings, the addition of a second storey, or depending on the layout of the development, may require aredevelopment of the site to maximize the potential floor area. Therefore it is unlikely that the SuburbanResidential land use designation would be developed to its estimated maximum potential due to itsexisting situation. A conservative estimate of 1,685 m2 of additional commercial floor area is likely amore realistic estimate.

2.5 Dwelling Unit Count Within Walking Distance to the Cedar Village Centre

One of the goals of the Cedar Village Centre is to provide commercial goods and services within areasonable distance of those who reside in Electoral Area'A' to reduce the dependence on the automobileand to encourage alternate forms of transportation. Ideally, goods and services should be within walking

112

Schedule No_ 1Land Inventory Results

Page 12

distance of all residences within the Urban Containment Boundary. For the purpose of this study, an idealwalking distance is considered 400 in or less from any residence to the Cedar Village Centre.

Table 2.9 illustrates the number of dwelling units and estimated population within a given distance of theCedar Village Centre. The distance was measured as a radius from the centre of the Village Centre. TheStatistics Canada 2006 Census specifies that in Electoral Area 'A' the average household size is 2.4persons. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that the household size is consistent with theremainder of Electoral Area W. The estimated population within a given distance of the Cedar VillageCentre was calculated by multiplying the number of dwelling units (addresses identified on the map)within each specified distance by the average number of persons per household.

Table 2.9 -- Estimated Population within a given distance from the Cedar Village Centre

Distance from the Cedar Village

Centre

Number of Dwelling

Units Estimated Population400 m 258 6191000 in 702 1,6853000 in 1,707 4,0975000 in 2,320 5,568

It is estimated that 619 people are within walking distance of the Cedar Village Centre. This number mayincrease should the residential development 'Cedar Estates' be developed. However, at this time, it islikely that only a small number of those who live within walking distance actually walk to the CedarVillage Centre to obtain commercial goods and services.

One of the significant barriers to non-vehicular access to the Cedar Village Centre is the lack of pavedshoulders on the roads. These pose a challenge for pedestrians, especially those with small children andthose with less mobility.

2.6 Residential Lot Supply

Table 2.10 provides the residential lot supply figures for the Suburban Residential land use designationand the Cedar Village Centre.

Table 2.10 - Residential lot supply for the Suburban Residential land use designation and the CedarVillage Centre

Lot Counts

OCP LandTotal Total Total

Potential Potential forLong term

Usenumber of number of number of

new additional dwellinglot supply

Designationexisting developed vacant

residential units (vacant lots(existing

residential residential residentiallots plus new lots)

lots pluslots lots lots new lots)

Suburban 550 517 33 75 108 624Residential

Cedar 2 1 1 55 60 (plus 75 personal 57Village care units)CentreTotals 552 518 34 130 168 681

113

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 13

There are currently 550 residential lots within the Suburban Residential land use designation. Of the 550existing lots, only 33 lots are vacant and the remaining 517 lots are developed. Based on the currentzoning there is potential for an additional 75 lots in the Suburban Residential land use designation. If adwelling was constructed on each vacant lot and on each potential new lot, there could be up to anadditional 108 dwelling units within the Suburban Residential land use designation. This represents anincrease of approximately 21% over the current number of dwelling units.

The long term lot supply is estimated at 624 lots and has been calculated by adding the total number ofexisting lots (550) to the potential new lots (75). Based on the 2006 census, the average household sizefor Electoral Area 'A' is 2.4 persons. Assuming that 2.4 persons per household is representative of theStudy Area, the population of the Suburban Residential land use designation in 2006 was approximately(549 x 2.4) 1,318 persons. Should the Suburban Residential land use designation be developed to its fullpotential of 624 lots the estimated population would be about (624 x 2.4) 1,498 persons given currentestimated household size.

Currently, there are two residential lots in the Cedar Village Centre. Both lots are within the Cedar EstatesComprehensive Development Zone 29 (CD29), which is yet to be developed. The CD29 zone supports amaximum of 55 new residential lots that would support an additional 60 dwelling units and a 75 unitpersonal care facility and accessory retail use. Based on current average household size this would resultin an estimated (55 x 2.4 + 75) 207 additional residents in the Cedar Village Centre.

2.7 Other considerations and factors affecting development

Official Community Plan policies and current zoning regulations provide a framework for controllingdevelopment and provide a basis for estimating the additional development potential. However, there areother factors that affect development potential that must be addressed. The following sections provide ageneral overview of these considerations.

2.7.1 Other Significant Developments

The proposed development of the South Nanaimo Lands (Sandstone) located within the City of Nanaimobetween the Duke Point Interchange and Cedar Road is a significant consideration. The subject propertyhas an area of approximately 293 hectares and consists of a new town centre which includes a variety ofresidential housing types and densities, a mixed use industrial business park, commercial area,institutional and office space, and other industrial activities. At this time, the proposed developmentincludes the following:

• 800 to 900 low to medium density residential units;• 900 to 1,000 medium to high density residential units;

• 600,000 to 700,000 square feet for mixed use industrial/business park;• 400,000 to 500,000 square feet for Industrial use; and,

• a new Town Centre with approximately 500,000 to 950,000 square feet of commercial,institutional, office, indoor recreation, and other commercial uses.

If developed, the Sandstone development would provide a significant amount of commercial goods andservices including big box retailers within a few minutes drive of the Cedar Village Centre. This newdevelopment is likely to have some impacts on the Cedar Village Centre and its role in the community.

114

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 14

2.7.2 Community Water and Community Sewer Servicing

Currently, there is no community sewer within the Cedar Village Centre. However, the Cedar SeniorSecondary School which is located within the Suburban Residential land use designation is currentlyserviced with community sewer. The balance of the Suburban Residential land use designation is notserviced with community sewer. Therefore, with the exception of the Cedar Senior Secondary School, alllands within the Study Area are serviced with private septic disposal systems.

2.7.3 Road Network and Alternate Forms of Transportation

The road network and road drainage falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation. TheMinistry is also responsible for uses in the highway right-of-way including sidewalks. The RegionalDistrict of Nanaimo does not have the legislative authority to regulate the installation and future use ofsidewalks or other improvements in public road right-of-ways.

As a result, one of the challenges faced by the Regional District of Nanaimo and other Regional Districtsthroughout the province is securing desirable road improvements which also improve pedestrian safetyand encourage non-vehicular forms of transportation. Therefore, it is necessary for the Regional Districtof Nanaimo to work cooperatively with the Ministry of Transportation and the development communitythrough the development process to obtain desirable roadway and/or pedestrian/cyclist improvements.

It should be noted that pedestrian improvements are more likely to include improvements to the roadshoulder than the creation of paved sidewalks due to the challenges associated with construction,maintenance, and liability within the public road right of way.

2.7.3 Public Transit

Public transit plays an important role in developing sustainable communities as it provides an alternateand potentially more efficient form of transportation than the automobile. Perhaps more importantly,public transit also provides an affordable form of transportation for those who do not drive or who can notafford an automobile.

The Plan Area is serviced by Route 7 (Cinnabar Valley/Cedar) of the Nanaimo Regional Transit Loop.Figure 1 (following) shows Route 7 through the Study Area.

115

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 15

Figure No. 1 - Bus Route No. 7

Cedar Village Rural Residential

Commercial Rural Resource

Rural Suburban Residential

Cinnabar/Cedar Bus Route

200100 0 200 400 600N Meters

9Scu:i-1b. oil

F; r1

Morland Rd

r ^ ^a

116

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 16

Currently there is limited service within the Study Area and transfers are required in order to reachsignificant locations within the City of Nanaimo such as Woodgrove Mall, Malaspina University College,the Aquatic Centre, and Beban Park.

Generally, higher density residential development is required to support improved transit servicesincluding more frequent bus service.

2.7.4 Environmental Protection

Environmental protection is an important consideration in community development. The current OfficialCommunity Plan contains environmental protection policies and Development Permit Areas that areintended to ensure that the potential impacts from proposed developments are identified and mitigated.

It should be noted that there is a large wetland located to the north west of the Cedar Village Centre whichis a significant environmental feature that will limit the future extent the of Cedar Village Centre.

3.0 Questionnaire Results and Public Input

A total of 81 responses were collected in response to the online questionnaire. Please refer to thedocument titled "Questionnaire Results" for a complete listing of the questionnaire results including thewritten responses. The following provides a summary of the questionnaire results.

Question 1 and 2- Frequency ofuse and distance from the Cedar Village Centre

Approximately 46% of respondents indicated that they access the commercial services in the CedarVillage Centre more than once per week while about 28% indicated that they access the services in theCedar Village Centre every day. Of the 37 respondents who indicated that they access the Cedar VillageCentre more than once per week, only 12 indicated that their primary residence is within 1,000 metres ofthe Cedar Village Centre and only 4 indicated that their primary residence is within 400 metres of theCedar Village Centre.

Question 3 and 4 --- Amount spent at the Cedar Village Centre and primary source of commercial goodsand services

The majority of respondents indicated that they spend more than $101 per month on average in the CedarVillage Centre. There does not appear to be any correlation between the distance of a residence from theVillage Centre; and

• the average monthly amount spent on obtaining goods and services within the Cedar VillageCentre; and,

• the number of visits to the Cedar Village Centre in an average week.

Nearly 88% of respondents indicated that they obtain the majority of their commercial goods and servicesin Nanaimo. Less than 20% indicated that Cedar was where they obtained the majority of theircommercial goods and services.

Question 5: Other desirable commercial uses

The responses to Question 5 have been grouped into 8 categories. The most sought after use was apharmacy followed by various other medical services. The following provides an overview of theresponses to Question 5 in order from most desirable to least desirable.

117

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 17

Category UsesHealth Care Services --Pharmacy, doctors office, medical clinic, dentistRetail Use Clothing stores, house wares, li uor storeRecreation and Culture Theatre, recreational facilities, ice rink, tennis court, soccer field,

libraryRestaurant Coffee shop, bakery, eateriesGrocer/food sales related More grocery stores, health food store, butcher shopHardware Supply Paint store, hardware store, Home DepotProfessional Services Barber/hair dresser, legal services,Trades services Automotive re air, heavy duty mechanic,

Question 6 and 7.: Additional Commercial and sources ofemployment

Approximately 66% of respondents indicated that they support additional commercial and service relateddevelopment in the Cedar Village Centre and surrounding area. Those who did not support additionalcommercial in this area were generally concerned with the impact of additional traffic, protecting the ruralatmosphere and character of Cedar, and environmental protection.

Approximately 80% of respondents indicated that their primary source of employment was somewhereother than Cedar. Of those respondents who indicated that their primary source of employment was inCedar, more than half (60%) indicated that they support additional commercial and service relateddevelopment in the Cedar Village Centre.

Question 8: Factors in building complete communities

In general, the responses to Question 8 indicated that the Cedar Village Centre is insufficient at providingthe community with adequate employment, recreation, commercial goods, and access the health services.Table 3.1 indicates the most common response to Question 8.

Table 3.1 responses to Question 8

Factors Most Popular Res ponseAffordable/Attainable Housing Ade uateSchools and other training AdequateEmployment InsufficientRecreation InsufficientCommercial goods Insufficient/Adequate (equal number of responses)Access to services (health care, social assistance) Insufficient

Question 9 - Desirable Community Amenities

Question 9 asked respondents to rate a number of different community amenities which may or may notbe desirable in association with additional development. Table 3.2 shows the most popular responses toQuestion 9.

118

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 18

Table ;3.2 responses to Question 9

Amenity Most Pop ular ResponsePark Land Very DesirableRecreational Facilities Very DesirablePublic Art Somewhat Desirable

Community Hall DesirableAffordable Housing Desirable

Question 10 - Primary concerns with respect to development

Based on the responses to Question 10, the most significant concerns with respect to new developmentare generally impacts on rural lifestyle, increases in traffic and the ability of the existing infrastructure toaccommodate growth, changes to the character of Cedar, and increases in crime rates and vandalism.

Question I1- In what ways is the Cedar Village Centre succeeding?

In general respondents indicated that they enjoy the convenience of the existing services that the CedarVillage Centre has to offer. Respondents generally supported the services provided by the Cedar VillageCentre. In addition, some respondents indicated that the Cedar Village centre was succeeding because ofits limited size.

Question 12 - In what ways is the Cedar Village Centre failing?

Responses to Question 12 indicated that respondents were split between wanting more selection and moreamenities within the Cedar Village Centre and wanting to maintain the status quo. A number ofrespondents indicated that mobility improvements such as sidewalks and improved roads were desirable.Others thought that there was a lack of affordable housing.

Open House

An Open House was held on February 25, 2008 at the Cedar Community Secondary School.Approximately 70 people attended the Open House and the overall response to the information at theOpen House was positive. Some of the issues raised at the Open House were outside of the scope of theCedar Land Inventory and therefore are not addressed in this report. These concerns were primarilyrelated to the proposed closure of Woodbank School and the proposed development at Cable Bay.

4.0 Summary of the Results

The following tables provide a summary of the results based upon the entire Study Area.

As shown in Table 4.1 below, the vast majority of lands within the Study Area are currently zoned forresidential use. This is followed by Public use and commercial. Lands zoned for Commercial userepresent only a small fraction (3.8%) of the Study Area.

119

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 19

Table 4.1 - Existing Zoning

Zonin g Area (m) Percentage of Study Area

Commercial 55,198.0 3.8

Industrial 1 10,989.6 0.8Public/Recreational 186,957.1 13.0Residential 1,148,250.7 79.9Rural 34,960.52 2.4Total 1,436,365.5 100.0

As shown in Table 4.2 below, the majority (72.8%) of the land within the Study Area is currently beingused for residential purposes. Commercial and industrial uses represent a very small (4.1%) proportion ofthe Study Area. Although approximately 8% of the lands within the Study Area are currently vacant,nearly half (40%) of this vacant land is in the as yet undeveloped Cedar Estates property located in theCedar Village Centre.

Table 4.2 - Existing Land Use

Use Area (m Percentage of Study AreaCommercial Use 47,927.0 33Industrial Use 10,983.5 0.8Recreational Use 24,124.3 1.7Residential Use 1,045,196.3 72.8Vacant/Undeveloped 114,215.1 8.0Public/Institutional 162,832.87 11.3Rural 31,077.4 2.2Total 1,436,356.5 100.0

As shown in Table 4.3 below, there is approximately 8,200 m2 of existing commercial floor area andpotential for an additional 6,691 mz based on a conservative estimate.

Table 4.3 - Existing and Potential Commercial Floor Area

Existing Commercial Floor Area 8,199.6 mPotential Additional Commercial Floor Area 13,392.1 m (6,691 Conservative Estimate)

5.0 Conclusion

120

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 20

Appendix A - Questionnaire

As a precursor to the upcoming Official Community Plan Review, the Regional District of Nanalmo is undertaking aland inventory of the Cedar Village Centre and the Suburban Residential Lands land use designation to determine Ifthere is an adequate supply of land available for commercial use and whether there Is a need for more commercialland to accommodate both the Increased population in the immediate vicinity and the future needs of the Plan Area

This survey is Intended to assist the Regional District in determining .the characteristics of the study area and thecommercial needs of the community.

The results of this survey will be tabulated and made available at a later date.

'k 1. The following map shows the location of the Cedar Village Centre which isintended to be the primary service centre for Electoral Area 'A'. Please indicate howoften you use the commercial services located in the Cedar Village Centre.

.every day

•once a week

j more than once a week

once a month

less than once a month

I/We never use it because

121

* 2. Please estimate the distance from your primary residence to the Cedar Village

Centre.

within 400m (about 1/4 mile)

within 1000m (just over 1h mile)

within 3000m (almost 2 miles)

within 5000m (just over 3 miles)

more than 5000m

* 3. Please estimate the average amount your household spends on goods and

services obtained at the Cedar Village Centre in an average month.

$0, we never go there

less than $50

50 to $100

$101 to $ 200

$201 to $300

Imore than $300

'k 4. Where does your household obtain the majority of its commercial goods and

services?

:cedar

Nanaimo

Ladysmith

Other

5. What other uses, commercial goods, and services are required to make the Cedar

Village Centre the place where you would obtain the majority of goods and services?

6. Do you support additional commercial and service related development in the

Cedar Village Centre and surrounding area?

Yes

If no, what are your concerns?

122

10. Changes i n land use and new development in the Cedar Village Centre have thepotential to bring benefits to the community, but may also result in other changes notdesired bythe community . Please indicate your primary concerns with respect to

development in the Cedar Village Centre and surrounding lands.

11. In what ways is the Cedar Village Centre succeeding?

123

12. In what ways is the Cedar Village Centre failing?

13. I you would like to be included on the Electoral Area 'A' email list please provide

your email address in the space below. By doing so you will be notified by email of

upcoming events related to the Cedar Village Center and Suburban Residential Lands

Land Use inventory and any activities related to the upcoming Official Community

Plan Review.

124

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 24

Appendix B - Zoning Descriptions

in I6 dry S=eV only aco •f egmal UIS I ofMm0= Larttl Use aM St WKO;W Bya' 5 5i , 1987• and stmkindbe U5ed Wr K bbrprehMe Or iegai FrpMes tO Ile e e 8}Iaur

sem*n 3.4i2

C 0 M M E R C I A L 2 CM2

Permitted uses and Minimum Site Area

Required Site Area with:

Permitted UsesCommunity Water& Sewer System

CommunityWater

NoCar smu

System Services

a) Funeral 'amour 2000 m2 4000 m2 6000 m2

b) Gas Bar 1000 m2 1600 m2 2000 nit

c) Nursery 4000 m2 5000 rn2 8000 roecI) Ofte 5W 2 1006 m2 150D m2e) Personal Service Use m2 160 m2 2400 m2

Recreation Facility 4000 m2 5000 M 8000 in2

9) Restaurant 2000 nn2 40 rn2 6000 2

h) Retail St ye 100 i2 1600 inn 20100 m2

Accessory Uses

a) Residential Use '

Maximum Numt at

Dwell ing units/p2rceFFloor area ratioHeGgbfParcel coverage

n1a n/a nta

id Size of Buitdi gs and Str ct res

-1-0.75- 8,0 i-50%

Minimum Setback Requh-ements

Front bIse - 8.0 €nOtter lot fines - 5..0 art

except where,

a) the adjoining weal is zoned industrial or commercial then the setbackfrom the co n interior side lot line. may be reduced to zero;

t) any part of a parcel is adjacent to or contains a watercourse then theregulations In Section 3.3.8 shall apply.

By6af M. 51.282, a t Ame 11, 2=By6at No . 51X.13. O 13. 1987

125

Schedule No, ILand Inventory Results

Page 25

Foie%3 eep$m"yTrom a iiat €NSUcirmn roLaofU&?m*a,Cih No 5m, 181-, 7e tmhie usm Fx w Wga1pu t t r tetr to the e e law

Section 3.4.15

COMMERCIAL 5' CM5

Permitted uses and Minimum Site Area

Required Site Area wit :

Permitted fleesCommunity

tarter & Sewer comet toAy NoCo^nitsystem systemwater y dices

a) HotelFirst Unit 2, m2 2000 m2 4000 rahEach dttt al Unit 200 m2 4tl1l n12 400 n'

b) Resort Condominium Unit 401) m2 1 cola m2 40€0 m2c) Marina 50130 rn2 500D m2 1 _t}d) Neighbourhood Pub 2000 m2 4000 m2 6000e) Pubic Assembly Use 4000 ml 5000 m2 X00 r2

Q Recreation Facility 4000 m2 5000 2 8000 2

g) Residents Use n/a n1a n/ah) Restaurant 2000 ml 4000 m2 6000 m2

i) Resort Vehicle Park' 400 M2 400 m2 400 m2

j) Tourist Information Booth 500 m` 500 M2 5W m2

9c) Tourist Store 800 m2 1600 rnµ 2000 rr

Mayintum Number and Size of Buildings and Structures

25 camping spaces to a maximum of 150

Resod Vehicle P.arR camping spaces per parcel developed inaccordance with Schedule '3C , 'CampgroundRegulations and Standards'

Dwelling unitsdparcelti -1Floor area ro -t .l0Height - 8.0 mParcel coverage -40%

sr .Hn 7A,a0*dOc er3,159f@agl aY tom . IU.13, a**W Odom 13, 13BUWNO, R.V62. 741, d, 1997Bylaw NM SfMI.152. ,?prU 8, 1997BY'1 No. 5M13. ORBS 1 3, 19 7

126

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 26

nnw % an p# cep rrar^ ^r , sncr^ a na u a e uats^srwr No. sfc, 7sd-r• ana saidnd t ^,^c ga6 plc u^tta^t^t r^r hr the a wag

Se on 3.4.31

INDUSTRIAL I IN1

Permitted uses and Minimum Site Area

Required Site Area with:Coy unh u

Permitted Uses ter ` communitye € Water system

CommunitySystems Services

a) Light Indus" 4000 try 5000 m2 800o m,

b) H W Equipment Display 4000 m2 10 rn2 8000 m2

c) Residents Use' n1a nfa rV

Maximum Number and Size of Buildings and Structures

Dwelling uni parcef2 -1Height - 8.0 inParcel coverage - 60%

Minimum Setback Requirements

Front of e -&0mOther lot lire - 5.0 in

exc where:a) the adjoining parcel is zoned industrial or commercial Then the setback

from the common interior side fat Hne may be reduced to zero;b) any part of a parcel is adjacent to or contains a watercourse the the

regulations Section 3 .3.9 shall apply.

$ Bylaw ' N#. 5&1.3.13. fw d OVth t 13. fWB 1d m, 51'3.11 at fl Oc 3 13. 1947

127

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 27

1111515 an MRIA #B' itxsm - 1a1 DIWthl or mnavw Umi1 llse amt &Mh%1l41B W, 1, MT and 4loifd

Section 3.4.5

RECREATION I RC1

Permitted uses and Minimum Site Area

Required Site Area vwith:Permitted Uses Community Community No

Water & Water System CommunitySeviw Servicessystem

a) Campground i 0 fla 1.0 ha 10 ha,

b) Outdoor Recreafion 1 .O t 1.0 ha 1.0 ha

c) R sldentsa Use' nfa n/a n1a

Maximum Number and Size of Buildings and Stuctums

Campground Maximum of 60 camping spaces per parceldeveloped in accordance with Schedule '3C',Campground Regulations and SUndards^

Dwelling unitsfparce - 1Height - 8,0Parcel coverage4 -10%

Minimum Setbaa Requirements

r lot line 8.0mQther M Dries - 5.0 't

except where any part of a parcel adjacent to or contains a watercoursethen the regulations in Section 3.3.8 shall apply.

f #^yl 9k3 . SOD.13.^ E4 13. 1987ByW No. SOD 1€E is I Apt t. 1997&PM No. x.1.3„ a*ded 13L 1937EP,4W M. .l7. Qted MOM V. 1 D

128

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 28

TM Ps an emeO sar mm ' WA W aO M raa Lard uae and rtln a spy rya . . 1 and ,kJmbe uses 1 Mrs w*0 pxpvAs t r± e s the e e Bete

Section 3.4.129

CEDAR ESTATES COMPREHE N SIVE C1329'

DEVELOPMENT ZONE 29

14.129a.1 Permitted Uses in Area A as shown in Section 3.4.11129d.1

a) Residential Use

b ) Hom Based Business

14.129a.2 Maximum Number and Size c Buildings and Structures inArea A

Accessory Buildings Combined floor area of 100 m

Accessory Building Height 5.0 metres

Dwelling Units/parcel 1

Dwelling Unit Hem 9.0 nxAt'es

Parcel Coverage 40%

3.4.129a.3 Minimum Setback Requirements in Area A

Front Lot Line 6.0 metres

interior Side. Lot Lines 1.5 metres

Rear Lot Lines 3.0 metres

Ext i rr Lot Lines 4.0 metres

3.4.1:29x.4 Cdr Regulations in Area A

For the moose of this zone:

1€ n m Parcel Size

440 with i n r water and sewer system- No subdivision permittedwithout full community services.

Parldng Requirements:

minimum 2 pacing spaces per unit to be d oiled in accordance withSchedule '36' of the Bylaw,

Hie Based Business uses are restricted to those uses permitted in Me R51zo^ t 22rcels less than 2,D00 m2 in area.

3.4.129b.1 Permitted Uses in AreaB shown in Section 3,4.129d.1

a) Residential Use

b) Home Based Business

• "W No, 5eO.3Z3. adaptw ,may 25,20M

129

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 29

TN6 W M* 1Ynru Ml21 CESir ta€Mi M Land Me af2d Slt^ By rM. WCI.111 Y H IdVibe UGM tiff 01"VEOVe CC t € DM bi We U 9y

Section 3.441

PUBLIC 1 PU1

Permitted Uses and Minimum Site Area

Permitted Uses

a) Personal Care

b) Personal Care Unit

c) Pubic Assembly Use

d) Public Utility Use

e) Residential Use'

I) Scher

Required Site Area with:

Communitydilater &sewer

Communityulster System Community

system services

m2 0 2 8000 2

4Wm2 1€0Om2 1,0 ha,

4000 m2 [ Otr[ 8000 M2

M21000 rn2 1500 M2

Na rata n/a

400D 2 55000 rue 80100 2

Maximum Number and Size of Buildings and Structures

Dwelling uni s1 arceF -1

Height - 8.0 M

Parcel coverage -50%,

Minimum Setback Requirements

Fri lot We 8.0 rnOther lot lres 5,0 ni

except where any part of a parcel is a jac nt to or tins a watercoursethin the regulations in Section 3.3.8 all apply.

e i no. $ ti. a pad O ta€13, 1967Sy43r1F l 7. 5O.13. a1Op art Ockbu 13, 19&T6yw No. 5)0.1?0, adpla1 May 11$. 1906

130

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 30

l'6tk6 Y E it^xei !n[ t&#t dF. $ [ Yni7 1. U 2I 1 SU a Eox 1 . 94O,1 F ' and amid]

Section 3,4.62

RESIDENTIAL 2 RS2

Permitted uses and Minimum Site Area

Required Site Area with:Permitted Uses Community Community No

Water & Water System Communityre Services

system

a) Home Based Business' n a n/a

b) Residential Use2- per dwelling unite 2000 m20 1.0 ha

Maximum Number and Size of Buildings and Structures

Accessory buiIdir - combined floor area of't 00 m2 or 10% of area ofparcel whichever is greater, but shalt not exceed250 r`_ 4

Accesso ry bantling height - 6.0 mDwelling unitstparcel -2Dwelling unit height - 8.0 mParcel covrago5 - 35%

Min imum Setback Requirements

Front to tine - 8.4 MInterior side lot One - 2.0 mRear lot lin' -2-0rnCdr Jot Ines - 5.0 m

except where any part of a parcel is ac ac t to or contains a water arsethen the regulations in Section 3.3.8 shall apply.

No seta f an interior or rear lot line shall be required for one accessorybuilding not exceeding a ftor area of 10 m2 and with a maximum, height of3.0m-'

EPPaw No. #zs, aeq ue N efte ' 13,2GD1° OpaV tft . 13. aloed Mbber 13.1 75ylaw No. SM. i53, adopted 3anua y 9, 19%6g aw M, 9VO 72, adww mummff 13.206'3

B i 4 No. -13. 13. 195'7EW3W M . x.17.3Uop n Fe" 14, 39568y1 t M. SXU7. R3" Fbau3 y 14, 9

131

Schedule No. ILand Inventory Results

Page 31

Is an e€ces afl %fr y trs 'FeDnaI O 1i rX 3T 1 Lane U e ar 1 6 M6M w. 50{1. lw- atcl wouldI'd W uE*d Rv # rpi a mr3 }at pus wn wb refieterme 63 the en*e Py%w

Section 3.4.64'

RURAL 4 RIM

Permi d uses and Mini m Site Area

Required Site Area with:

Permitted Uses Community Ca mUf NoWater f'^w

Water System Co'm nmd

System S YIG`5

a) Agriculture n/a n/a ri/a

b) Aquacutture 5000 r2 5000 rn 5000 rn2

t) Home B,-md Business 2 rVa n/a n/a

d) Prodr Stand raga rva€ n/a

e) Residential Use n/a n/a

1) Silviculture n/a n/a rti`

Maximum Number and Size of Build fs and Structures

Accessory b kfirqs - combiec1 floor area of 400 m2 3

Dwelling units1parcel:a) a parcel having an area of 2.0 ha or less -1

b) on a parcel having an area greater than 2.0 ha -2

Height 9-0 m 4

Parcel coverage 25%

Minimum Parcel Area

Subject to won 4.4.4, rie parcel having area less than 2.0 ha may bemated by subdi vision , and for the purposes of this subsection, "parcerincludes a created by dept of a strata plan under the Strata PropertyAct (British Cdumbia)-

NO..=2K 31Nt J' 12, 19%

a No.: E27Q. %WOW KUMTZW 13. Bpi8+, No. Y3a2. WopW [dower 13,2101

' e; No r.2s, bw oOMM&K?. 140

132

Schedule No. 1Land Inventory Results

Page 32

Appendix C - Official Community Plan Land Use Map

Cedar Village

Commercial

Rural

lIA Rural Residential

Emj Rural Resource

r .; suburban Residential

Cinnabar/Cedar Bus Route

200100 0 200 400 600NMeters

i_ ril ee r

`Q< ii

133

Schedule No, 1Land Inventory Results

Page 33

Appendix D - Zoning Map

Jy RS2M

p^Yk^ Harmac Rd

^N^9r gay CM2M

F°^r Vt1oodrid e.FtdCuY-e ; g , Holden Corso Rd

RS2M^rR2SMU ID

RSED `t

RU4D

CM2M Q rb

CM2M_.CM2M

CM2MCM2M y CMSM

PU1M Yet ? C D29

CM2M

RC2Mrte. Yj

IN1M

RU2p'.,

IN1M

PS2M

PUWM

Suburban Residential

Cedar VillageRU4F

Cinnabar/Cedar Bus Route

200100 0 200 400 600N Meters

INDI

RS6D

RS2M

RU4F

RS2M 1

PUIM

Vlorland Rc

RS2M

RU4D

134

(PDF) REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO ELECTORAL AREA - DOKUMEN.TIPS (2024)